Cross-sector collaboration is emphasized as a means for forest sector companies to remain competitive in a global marketplace that is evolving toward greater use of bio-based products (bioeconomy). Nevertheless, questions remain regarding how companies can identify and develop innovations via cross-sector collaboration. This study addresses the potential of Oregon forest sector companies to collaborate with other sectors. Results show interest in collaboration among leaders of Oregon companies, given expectations of knowledge acquisition, increased capacity for innovation, and enhanced profitability. However, leaders describe a hesitancy within their companies as well as a host of changes that must take place before collaboration is likely. Suggestions include generational changes of leadership, more specialized employees, and building trust with potential partners. A traditional, conservative industry/company culture was the key barrier to collaboration. Despite opportunities promised by cross-sector collaboration, considerable development within companies is likely needed before cross-sector collaboration opportunities can be capitalized on.
AlayetC, LehouxN, LebelL.2018. Logistics approaches assessment to better coordinate a forest products supply chain. J For Econom. 30:13–24. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2017.11.001.
2.
AudyJ-F, LehouxN, D'AmoursS, RönnqvistM.2012. A framework for an efficient implementation of logistics collaborations. Int Trans Oper Res. 19(5):633–657.
3.
BabbieER.2012. The Practice of Social research. 13th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
4.
BarneyJB.2001. Is the resource-based View a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Acad Manage Rev. 26:41–56. doi:10.2307/259393.
5.
BauerF, HansenT, HellsmarkH.2018. Innovation in the bioeconomy–dynamics of biorefinery innovation networks. Technol Anal Strat Manag. 30:935–947.
6.
BounckenRB, FredrichV.2016. Learning in coopetition: alliance orientation, network size, and firm types. J Bus Res. 69:1753–1758.
7.
CampbellJL, QuincyC, OssermanJ, PedersenOK.2013. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociol Methods Res. 42:294–320.
8.
ChambostV, McNuttJ, StuartPR.2009. Partnerships for successful enterprise transformation of forest industry companies implementing the forest biorefinery. Pulp Pap Can. 110:19–24.
9.
ClarkeA, MacDonaldA.2019. Outcomes to partners in multi-stakeholder cross-sector partnerships: a resource-based view. Bus Soc. 58:298–332. doi:10.1177/0007650316660534.
10.
D'AmoursS, RönnqvistM, WeintraubA.2008. Using operational research for supply chain planning in the forest products industry. INFOR: Inform Syst Operat Res. 46:265–281. doi:10.3138/infor.46.4.265.
11.
DockryMJ, GuttermanSA, DavenportMA.2018. Building bridges: perspectives on partnership and collaboration from the US forest service tribal relations program. J Forest. 116:123–132.
GuerreroJE, HansenE.2018. Cross-sector collaboration in the forest products industry: a review of the literature. Can J For Res. 48:1269–1278.
14.
GuerreroJE, HansenE.2021. Company-level cross-sector collaborations in transition to the bioeconomy: A multi-case study. Forest Policy Econom. 123:102355.
15.
HämäläinenS, NäyhäA, PesonenHL.2011. Forest biorefineries – A business opportunity for the Finnish forest cluster. J Cleaner Prod. 19:1884–1891. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.011.
16.
HowardM, SteensmaHK, LylesM, DhanarajC.2016. Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms. Strateg Manage J. 37:2092–2103. doi:10.1002/smj.2424.
17.
IrelandRD, HittMA, VaidyanathD.2002. Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. J Manage. 28:413–446. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00134-4.
18.
KorhonenJ, HurmekoskiE, HansenE, ToppinenA.2018. Firm-level competitiveness in the forest industries: review and research implications in the context of bioeconomy strategies. Can J For Res. 48:141–152.
19.
Laage-HellmanJ, LandqvistM, LindF.2018. Business creation in networks: How a technology-based start-up collaborates with customers in product development. Ind Mark Manage. 70:13–24.
20.
LähtinenK, ToppinenA, PekkaL, HaaraA.2009. Resource usage decisions and business success: A case study of Finnish large- and medium-sized sawmills. J For Products Bus Res. 3:1–18.
21.
LehouxN, D'AmoursS, LangevinA.2014. Inter-firm collaborations and supply chain coordination: review of key elements and case study. Product Plann Control. 25:858–872. doi:10.1080/09537287.2013.771413.
22.
LehouxN, LeBelL, ElleuchM.2016. Benefits of inter-firm relationships: application to the case of a five sawmills and one paper mill supply chain. INFOR: Inform Syst Operat Res. 54:192–209.
23.
LovrićM, LovrićN, MavsarR.2020. Mapping forest-based bioeconomy research in Europe. Forest Policy Econom. 110:101874.
24.
MilesMB, HubermanAM, SaldañaJ.2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
25.
NäyhäA.2019. Transition in the Finnish forest-based sector: company perspectives on the bioeconomy, circular economy and sustainability. J Cleaner Prod. 209:1294–1306.
26.
NäyhäA.2020. Finnish forest-based companies in transition to the circular bioeconomy-drivers, organizational resources and innovations. For Policy Econom. 110:101936.
27.
NäyhäA, PesonenH.2014. Strategic change in the forest industry towards the biorefining business. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 81:259–271.
28.
NiestenE, JolinkA.2015. The impact of alliance management capabilities on alliance attributes and performance: a literature review. Int J Manag Rev. 17:69–100.
OnufreyK, BergekA.2020. Second wind for exploitation: pursuing high degrees of product and process innovativeness in mature industries. Technovation. 89:102068.
PelliP, KangasJ, PykäläinenJ.2018. Service-Based Bioeconomy—Multilevel perspective to assess the evolving bioeconomy with a Service Lens. In: Towards a sustainable bioeconomy: Principles, challenges and perspectives. Springer; p. 17–42.
35.
RoosA, FlinkmanM, JappinenA, WarensjoM.2000. Adoption of value-adding processes in Swedish sawmills. Silva Fenn. 34:423–430.
36.
RubinH.2009. Collaborative leadership: developing effective partnerships for communities and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
37.
SimmonsEA, MarcilleKC, MorganTA, SmithDC, RymniakLA, LettmanGJ.2019. Oregon's Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2017. Presentation. November 19.
38.
ToppinenA, LähtinenK, LeskinenL, ÖstermanN.2011. Network co-operation as a source of competitiveness in medium-sized Finnish sawmills. Silva Fenn. 45:743–759.
39.
Van LanckerJ, WautersE, Van HuylenbroeckG.2016. Managing innovation in the bioeconomy: An open innovation perspective. Biomass Bioenergy. 90:60–69.
40.
WohlfahrtJ, FerchaudF, GabrielleB, GodardC, KurekB, LoyceC, TherondO.2019. Characteristics of bioeconomy systems and sustainability issues at the territorial scale. A review. J Cleaner Prod. 232:898–909. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.385.
41.
WoodDJ, GrayB.1991. Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. J Appl Behav Sci. 27:139–162. doi:10.1177/0021886391272001.
