Administration in wood procurement : a Nordic system comparison

Sammanfattning

The transition to a circular bioeconomy places dual pressures on the Nordic forestry sectors; the internal necessity for operational efficiency and the external demand for rigorous legal compliance and transparency. While high-level governance differences are understood, the specific administrative realities at the operational level remain obscure. This study compares the administrative systems for wood procurement in Sweden, Norway, and Finland to identify workflow and documentation variations, explain their institutional drivers, and the key practices and hindrances. Using a qualitative multiple-case research design, the study synthesized documentary analysis with semi-structured interviews, including 14 respondents from industrial corporations, forest owner associations, and regulatory bodies. The data were analysed through a conceptual framework of Business Process Management (BPM), Supply Chain Visibility (SCV), and Institutional Theory. The results identify three distinct national models. Norway follows an Internal Trust Model characterized by linear workflows and high speed but low external transparency. Sweden utilizes a Public Transparency Model defined by mandatory harvest notifications that provide high transparency but create administrative friction. Finland employs a Digital Integration Model where automated data exchange integrates regulatory instructions directly into operational plans. The study concludes that these variations are shaped by distinct institutional approaches to supervision versus trust. Because the documentation burden is not expected to diminish, the sector must move beyond viewing efficiency and compliance as a trade-off. To demonstrate trustworthiness through traceability and transparency while maintaining high operational efficiency, the sector must prioritize a system perspective that integrates robust IT systems, optimized workflows, and industry-wide data standardization. These improvements are essential to allow the sector to carry the ever-increasing administrative load during the transition to a circular bioeconomy.