Assessment of motivation and attitudes of forest industry companies toward forest certification in northwestern Russia

Abstract

This study explores for the first time the attitudes and motivation associated with forest certification among forest industry companies in northwestern Russia. Interviews were carried out in the form of a structured questionnaire including 35 forest industry companies operating in northwestern Russia. Although development of certification in individual companies was initiated by general market demand, representatives of certified companies also emphasized the importance of internal corporate policy. Certified and noncertified groups of respondents identified market demand as a main driving force influencing development of forest certification. Ensuring the legality of wood origin, company's image and competitiveness of wood products were recognized as the most important benefits associated with forest certification. Absence of mandatory requirements from authorities and customers appeared to be the largest obstacle among both groups of respondents. Representatives of noncertified companies pointed out economic inaccessibility and low level of preparedness of management as of high importance, which is mainly associated with absence of quality management system. The results of the study indicated a general positive attitude on forest certification; it was noticed that respondents have gaps in understanding the principles and limited awareness with regards to forest certification, especially among noncertified forest industry companies.

Keywords:

• attitude
• forest certification
• forest industry
• motivation
• Russia

1. Introduction

With a forest area exceeding 800 million ha, Russia has the largest forest resources in the world (FAO 2010). Russia also plays an important role in the international forest sector as the largest exporter of industrial round wood, second of sawn timber, fifth of plywood, eighth in pulp (FAO 2009). Russia joined World Trade Organization (WTO) in August 2012 after 18-year negotiation process. This is expected to remove trade barriers and boost trade (IFI 2012). There have been significant changes in the forest tenure rights as forest leasing is now up to 49 years and forest management has been decentralized from the federal to regional level, but numerous factors are still hindering the establishment of sustainable forest management (SFM; Torniainen 2009). As forest resources have huge global and national significance, solid forest governance and balancing the interests between forestry and forest industry are necessary (Torniainen et al. 2006), since forestry districts (Lesnichestvo) are state-owned units and forest industry is mainly privately owned. Illegal logging is considered as one of the main challenges in post-Soviet Russia (Teplyakov & Grigoriev 2006). Illegal wood removals are estimated to 15 to 25 million m³ annually in the official governmental statistics, while nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in 2007 estimate them up to 40 to 50 million m³ (WWF 2007). The difference in the estimates show the uncertainties associated with the status and definition of “illegal logging” as well as the lack of an effective system to control forest management practices in the most parts of the country (Yaroshenko 2012). According to Pappila (2013), illegal logging is caused by low level of trust from general public and relatively weak enforcement of forestry regulations. In addition, Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of the internationally recognized Transparency International (2013) indicates high level of corruption in Russia and consequently low level of trust to domestic regulations and laws and its ineffectiveness. Therefore, increased attention has to be dedicated to the implementation of SFM in the Russian forest industry companies by a credible and independent tool.

As a result of growing awareness toward global forestry, challenges such as deforestation, forest degradation, and biodiversity loss became among the most important issues worldwide in the 1980s and early 1990s (Myers 1980; Wilson 1988). Forest certification emerged in the 1990s as an instrument to facilitate sustainable use of natural resources (Cubbage et al. 2007) and to combat illegal logging worldwide (Stevens et al. 1998). Extensive research for comparing different certification schemes has been done by many researchers (McDermott and Cashore 2008; McDermott et al. 2008; Masters et al. 2010; Clark & Kozar 2011). Two major international certification schemes, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), are applicable to Russia, providing a credible guarantee that the product comes from a well-managed forest. Globally, in November 2011, 238 million ha had been certified by the scheme endorsed by the PEFC, and there were altogether eight 672 PEFC Chain-of-Custody (CoC) certificate holders (PEFC 2011a). Another 147 million ha had been certified by the FSC scheme, with twenty-one 879 CoC certificate holders as for December 2011 (FSC 2011a).

The facilitation of certification process in Russia was initiated by the environmental nonNGOs in the late 1990s mainly to promote the FSC certification scheme (Tysiachniouk 2003). This process was also strongly supported by the European companies (Tysiachniouk 2006). The Kosihinsky leshoz in the Altay region was the first company in 2000 which received the FSC certificate of forest management covering 30,000 ha of forest land (All about Russian forests 2000). As of December 2011, 28 million ha of forest had been certified in Russia by the FSC scheme, with 171 CoC certificate holders (FSC 2011b). Since 2009 Russian National Council on Forest Certification (PEFC Russia), which is endorsed by PEFC International, has issued one certificate, as of December 2011 approximately 170 thousand ha of forest has been certified, with 4 CoC certificate holders (PEFC 2011b). These two certification schemes cover about 4% of the forests in Russia. The progress of forest certification in Russia has been substantial, although the number of certificates and the area of certified forest have remained relatively small, covering about 20% of the leased forest area in Russia (Ptichnikov et al. 2011). Nevertheless, development of the main principles for SFM started already in 1999, which resulted in adoption of the FSC National Standard. It is a key document describing the main principles and criteria in Russia adopted by the Russian FSC Accreditation Committee (Karpachevskiy et al. 2009). Some of the aspects of the standard regarding the rights of indigenous people, safeguarding biodiversity, and maintaining High Conservation Value Forests were advanced to ensure development of the SFM practices in Russia.

The development of international processes aiming to eliminate and regulate illegal wood flow may have a positive effect and boost the development of forest certification in Russia. Thus, the so-called Timber Regulation of the European commission to counter the trade of illegally harvested timber and timber products requires compulsory declaration of all wood imports coming from non-European Union (EU) countries on the EU market (EU 2010; Capiroso 2011). Similarly, this system already works in forest certification procedures. Moreover, several EU countries adopted responsible governmental procurement program of wood product as part of common EU regulations. Thus, all wood importers are obliged to fulfill the legality requirement based on due diligence system (FSC 2011c).

Academic research on forest certification has increased substantially during the last years (Seuring & Müller 2008). Number of studies have been published regarding the development and implication of certification in different parts of the world (Cashore et al. 2002; Kallas 2002; Cashore et al. 2003, 2004; Ozinga 2004; Nebel et al. 2005; Newsom et al. 2006; Overdevest & Rickenbach 2006; Araujo et al. 2008; Cubbage et al. 2010; Howard & Allen 2010; Masters et al. 2010; Cerutti et al. 2011; Johansson & Lidestav 2011). Many articles concern the attitudes and motivation of forest industry towards certification in different parts of the world, e.g. in China (Chen et al. 2011), Malaysia (Ratnasingam et al. 2008), Canada (Jayasinghe et al. 2007), United States (Vlosky et al. 2003), and Finland (Toshiaki et al. 2006); however, the research on similar issues in Russia is absent at the moment.

Forestry in Russia has a reputation for illegal logging, ineffective forest legislation, and corruption (Pappila 2013). Therefore, the development of forest certification as part of due diligence system can be considered as credible tool to ensure legality and origin of Russian wood. At the same time, its dissemination requires research support and knowledge-based approach. It raises, however, simple questions such as: What is the motivation of forest industry companies to implement forest certification requirements? What are the benefits and primary barriers for companies in relation to certification? Understanding of causes to join certification in Russia and identification of potential benefits and primary barriers is crucial. Currently academic research is lacking in this field in Russia.

Thus, the aim of the study was to examine the attitudes and motivation of managers in selected Russian forest industry companies operating in northwestern part of Russia toward forest certification. More specifically aims included (1) analysis of the current trends and driving forces influencing on development of forest certification; (2) identification of the benefits and primary barriers among certified and noncertified forestry companies; and (3) investigation of the dissimilarities in perceptions and motivation between certified and noncertified companies.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Geographical scope

Northwestern (NW) region plays a key role in the Russian forest industry sector and has been well-developed in comparison with the rest of Russia (Karvinen et al. 2011). The forest resources of NW Russia are supplied not only to domestic but also to export markets, mainly in the form of round wood. In fact, NW Russia is the most important industrial roundwood supplier to Europe, particularly to the Nordic countries. This region includes Karelia, Komi, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Leningrad, Novgorod, Murmansk, Pskov, and Kaliningrad. Proximity to European countries and export-orientation of the operating companies played key role in identification of the geographical scope of the research. The attitudes and motivation of forest industry companies operating in NW part of Russia were analyzed via questionnaires and interviews.

2.2. Sample

Companies for interviews were selected from the Industrial business handbook of Russia (2012), including over 3000 forest industry companies operating in NW Russia. The sample group was stratified from the total number of companies. Companies with appropriate contact information were, however, much less. The notification about the survey was sent to over 100 forest industry companies with valid e-mail address and operational scope within NW Russia. Smaller number of forest industry companies were interviewed in the study due to fixed period in dissemination of the survey (September to December 2011), altogether 35 companies' representatives were interviewed, i.e. 35% of the contacted companies. The sampling included both certified and noncertified forest industry companies. Certified companies were identified and stratified through existing FSC and PEFC databases on certificate holders in Russia. The questionnaire form was targeted to obtain individual responses and within each company, a single interviewee was targeted. Interviewing only one expert from a company may bring some uncertainties, although it was assumed that the interviewed persons had an objective perception of the company. In smaller companies, the respondents were distinctively the Managing Director or Head of the Department, while in bigger companies the Managers responsible for certification or Wood Sourcing Manager were interviewed.

The surveyed companies included producers of both primary wood products (roundwood, trading) and value-added products (sawnwood, wood-based panels, furniture, packaging, pulp, and paper). Those companies represent 70% of the wood consumption in the NW region (Karvinen et al. 2011) or equivalent to about 20 million m³ of primary and value-added wood products, including large-, medium-, and small-sized companies. Whereas 52% of certified companies have leased forests and consequently forest management certificate and 58% of noncertified companies have leased forests.

2.3. Questionnaire form

The questionnaire form consisted of 43 questions for certified companies and 32 questions for noncertified companies. The form included a cover letter explaining the background, purpose of the study, and relevance of the topic. An initial letter was sent to each potential company via e-mail, inviting them to participate in the study. If assent was given, the participants were approached by e-mail or telephone. Moreover, on-site personal interviews were conducted with a questionnaire to assure high response rate and reliable answers. All communication was done in Russian.

Participants were asked to provide a general description of their companies and operational scope; type of obtained/demanded certificate; strategy providing judgment on the main factors determining development of forest certification and identifying the conditions when noncertified companies would be willing to obtain certification and ranking of the primary barriers; and potential outcomes of the certification. Despite its complexity and length, the questionnaire form was logically structured in order to obtain a comprehensive picture and cross-check the respondent's answers.

A five-point Likert scale was used to measure the perceived level of benefit for certified companies or potential benefits for noncertified companies, where 1 corresponded to very low and 5 to very high benefit. Similar scale was used to estimate primarily barriers/or potential barriers related to certification. The reliability of 15 factors regarding the benefits and 8 on primary barriers was tested by using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which showed a higher satisfactory level of internal consistency (alpha = 0.83 and alpha = 0.79 consequently). A reliability coefficient of 0.70 and above is usually considered acceptable and desirable for consistency level (Prokop, Lešková et al. 2007, Prokop P, Prokop M et al. 2007).

Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Although the sampling was not purely random, the indicative significance testing was used. A Mann–Whitney U-test showed significant differences between the groups. Additionally, the data used to estimate the benefits and barriers for both groups of respondents were re-coded in SPSS from 5 scale into 3 scale system, where 1 = very low and 2 = low importance combined into 1 = low importance; 3 = moderate into 2 = moderate; and 4 = high and 5 = very high importance combined into 3 = high importance.

3. Results

The interviewed companies were covering most of the regions of NW Russia, except Kaliningrad and Murmansk regions. The questions related to company profiles explored the general facts, which were compiled into Table 1.

Table 1. Respondent profile.

Variables	Certified companies (n = 21)	Noncertified companies (n = 14)
Wood-sourcing regions^a
Karelia	12	4
Leningrad	8	5
Vologda	9	1
Komi	5	0
Novgorod	4	5
Arkhangelsk	7	3
Pskov	4	1
Other regions of European part	4	1
Number of employees
0–99	1	10
100–199	3	3
200–499	6	0
500–999	6	0
>1000	5	0
No answer	0	1
Product group
Primary product	3	12
Value-added product	18	2
Main customer type
Industrial end user	19	2
Intermediate user	2	12
Turnover (€/year)
<100,000	0	0
100,000–500,000	1	3
500,000–1,000,000	0	4
1,000,000–10,000,000	3	1
10,000,000–50,000,000	6	2
>50,000,000	4	0
No answer	7	4
Countries of export^b
EU countries	15	7
Japan	3	1
UK	2	0
China	2	0
CIS countries	3	0
North America (USA, Canada)	1	0
Other countries	1	0
No answer	2	7

^a Companies indicated more than one wood-sourcing region.

^b Companies indicated more than one country of export for their wood products.

It was found that interviewed forest industry companies have in their wood procurement area other regions apart from NW Russia, e.g. Tver and Kirovsk region. The number of employees was used as an indicator to estimate the size of the company. Thus, five groups were apparent: very small companies (0–99), small (100–199), medium (200–499), large (500–999), and very large-sized companies with over 1000 employees. Most of the certified companies represent medium- (n = 6), large- (n = 6), and very large-sized (n = 5) companies, when most of noncertified companies represent very small companies (n = 10). It should be noted that most of the noncertified companies (n = 12) represented primary product group, when certified companies mainly represented value-added product (n = 18). It was indicated that among certified companies the industrial end users is the dominated customer type (n = 19) while for noncertified companies the intermediate users is considered as main customer type (n = 12). Among the interviewed companies, half of both certified and noncertified companies export their wood products to the European Union, particularly to Finland, Estonia, and Germany. In addition to Table 1, 12 out of 23 certified companies had leased forests, whereas 7 out of 12 companies among noncertified also had valid leased contracts.

Most of the forest industry companies manufactured a diverse range of products, rather than specializing on a single product. Each interviewed company has been classified according to its main product specialization. A variety of products were manufactured by the interviewed companies, including roundwood, sawnwood, veneer, furniture parts, wood-based panels, paper, and packaging (Figure 1). As can be seen from the Figure 1, approximately 86% or 29 out of 35 respondents represent four major production groups, such as, roundwood, timber trading, sawn goods, and paper companies. Noncertified forestry companies covered mainly timber trade, roundwood, and partly sawnwood, whereas certified companies covered the rest, mainly value-added products.

Figure 1. Production type of interviewed companies (n = 35).

Note: FM, forest management; CoC, chain of custody; and CW, controlled wood.

The certified respondents (n = 21) have obtained 36 certificates, mainly dominated by the FSC certification scheme (Figure 2). Thus, 72% of the companies have received a combined certificate, either the Forest management/Chain of Custody (FM/CoC) or the Chain of Custody/Controlled Wood (CoC/CW). Moreover, all the combine certificates included CoC part in order to sell the products further in a supply chain. It is worth to mention that among the PEFC certified companies combined certificates were not presented. Certified companies obtained more than one valid certificate per company.

Figure 2. Type of obtained certificates in the interviewed companies.

The significant difference was noted between two groups of respondents with regard to the main factor affecting the introduction of forest certification in the companies (p < 0.05). Adoption of forest certification for 13 out of 14 noncertified companies was driven by general market and interest from stakeholders' side (Figure 3). Despite that, respondents from the certified companies indicated importance of both internal corporate policy (9 responses) and market demand and stakeholders (12 responses).

Figure 3. The factors affecting the initiation of certification process in interviewed companies (n = 35).

Thus, the majority of noncertified companies are pressured to introduce the certification process by stakeholders and general market demand, where certified companies have initiated the certification based on influence of both internal and external factors.

Among the nine listed items that determine the development of certification in interviewed companies, respondents from both certified and noncertified companies ranked “market demand” as the most important factor affecting the development of forest certification (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Main driving forces influencing development of forest certification (n = 35, number of mentions allowing for multiple responses).

Apart from “market demand,” certified companies indicated the importance of “demand from foreign customers.” Aside from “market demand,” noncertified companies indicated importance of certification for “elimination of illegal logging.” It is also worth to mention the difference in attitudes between the certified and noncertified companies toward “economic benefits” and “returning of long-term investments.” Thus, noncertified companies are in general more positive about the benefits and returning of investments. Least important factor for both groups of respondents was “demand from local and regional authorities.”

Perceived benefits associated with forest certification are shown in Table 2. A significant difference among the two groups of respondents was found for “better access to leasing contracts” and “additional sales of wood products.” Although the statistically significant difference in the attitudes was not found for most of the studied categories, both groups of respondents valued the benefits differently. Thus, among certified companies, “insuring the legality of wood material” with mean rank of 4.4 was supported by 90% of respondents as of high importance; furthermore, “improved image of the enterprise for stakeholders,” “higher interest to certified material from customers,” “better access to demanding markets,” and “improved competitiveness of wood materials” were supported by majority as of high importance with mean rank of 4.0, 3.9, 3.7, and 3.9, respectively. Respondents from the noncertified companies also indicated the importance of both “insuring the legality of wood origin” and “additional sales of wood materials” with the mean rank of 4.4 by 86% of the respondents as of high importance. In addition, the importance of “improved image of the enterprise for stakeholders,” “improved trading with foreign forest industry companies,” “higher interest to certified products from the customers,” and “improved occupation health and safety issues” was also indicated with mean rank of 4.2, 4.1, 4.0, and 3.6, respectively. In contrast, certified respondents pointed as least important “advantages in bank loans,” “easier functioning with the authorities,” and “better access to leasing contract” with the mean rank of 1.8, 2.0, and 2.3, respectively.

Table 2. Benefits associated with forest certification.

				Importance of benefits
				Low		Moderate		High
Factors	Company type	M^c	SD	N	%	N	%	N	%
Better access to demanding markets	C^a	3.7	1.384	3	14	6	29	12	57
	NC^b	3.4	1.697	5	36	1	7	8	57
Increased export share of wood products	C^a	3.3	1.155	3	14	8	38	10	48
	NC^b	3.2	1.369	5	36	1	7	8	57
Improved competitiveness of wood products on the market	C^a	3.9	0.964	1	5	9	43	11	52
	NC^b	4.0	0.961	0	0	6	43	8	57
Improved image of the enterprise for stakeholders	C^a	4.0	0.775	0	0	7	33	14	67
	NC^b	4.2	0.802	0	0	3	21	11	79
Insuring the legality of wood material	C^a	4.4	0.590	0	0	2	10	19	90
	NC^b	4.4	1.151	1	7	1	7	12	86
Improved trade with foreign forest industry companies	C^a	3.5	1.078	2	10	8	38	11	52
	NC^b	4.1	1.269	2	14	1	7	11	79
Improved occupation health and safety issues	C^a	3.2	1.167	7	33	5	24	9	43
	NC^b	3.6	0.842	2	14	2	14	10	71
Increased efficiency of forestry operations	C^a	2.4	1.076	9	43	9	43	3	14
	NC^b	3.1	0.663	2	14	8	57	4	29
Additional sales of wood products*	C^a	3.5	1.078	2	10	9	43	10	48
	NC^b	4.4	0.745	0	0	2	14	12	86
Secured demand for the products	C^a	3.7	1.065	3	14	8	38	10	48
	NC^b	3.9	0.864	0	0	6	43	8	57
Long-term sustainability on domestic market	C^a	3.3	1.111	3	14	10	48	8	38
	NC^b	3.4	0.633	0	0	10	71	4	29
Higher interest to certified products from the customers	C^a	3.9	1.062	3	14	5	24	13	62
	NC^b	4.0	0.784	0	0	4	29	10	71
Better access to leasing contracts*	C^a	2.3	1.189	15	71	2	10	4	19
	NC^b	3.0	0.877	5	36	4	29	5	36
Advantages in bank loans	C^a	1.8	0.889	17	80	3	15	1	5
	NC^b	2.4	1.158	5	36	7	50	2	14
Easier functioning with the authorities	C^a	2.0	1.140	17	80	2	10	2	10
	NC^b	2.6	1.336	5	36	4	29	5	36

* p < 0.05.

^a Certified companies, n = 21.

^b Noncertified companies, n = 14.

^c Mean rankings are based on a five-point scale, where 1 = very low and 5 = very high importance.

Primary barriers associated with forest certification are shown in Table 3. The significant difference among the two groups of respondents has been found for “low level of preparedness of management system” and “economic inaccessibility.” Even though no significant difference has been found in attitudes for many studied categories between the groups, the importance of barriers and mean ranking associated with forest certification help to identify the most and least important factors. Thus, among certified companies, “voluntariness of certification” received the highest rank of 3.6 supported by 57% of respondents as of high importance. Other factors were ranked by the certified companies as of moderate and low importance. Respondents of the noncertified companies indicated the highest importance of “economic inaccessibility” supported by 79% with mean rank of 3.9. In addition to that “voluntariness of certification,” “absence of legal requirements from customers” and “low level of preparedness of management system” were supported by majority with mean rank 3.6, 3.5, and 3.3 consequently. In contrast, both groups indicated “subjectivity of assessment by auditing companies” and “unawareness of top management” as of the least importance.

Table 3. Primary barriers associated with forest certification.

				Importance of barriers
				Low		Moderate		High
Factors	Company type	M^c	SD	N	%	N	%	N	%
Absence of competitive advantages	C^a	2.7	1.028	8	38	9	43	4	19
	NC^b	3.3	0.611	1	7	8	57	5	36
Absence of legal requirements from consumers	C^a	2.7	1.236	8	38	8	38	5	24
	NC^b	3.5	0.941	2	14	5	36	7	50
Continuous amendments of the standards	C^a	2.9	1.195	8	38	7	33	26	29
	NC^b	3.1	0.730	2	14	10	71	2	14
Voluntariness of certification	C^a	3.6	1.167	3	14	6	29	12	57
	NC^b	3.6	0.852	2	14	3	21	9	64
Unawareness of top management	C^a	2.6	1.434	12	57	3	14	6	29
	NC^b	2.9	0.917	6	43	3	21	5	36
Economic inaccessibility*	C^a	2.5	1.207	11	52	6	29	4	19
	NC^b	3.9	0.829	1	7	2	14	11	79
Low level of preparedness of management system*	C^a	2.1	1.231	15	71	3	14	3	14
	NC^b	3.3	0.726	2	14	6	43	6	43
Subjectivity of assessment by auditing companies	C^a	2.6	1.165	9	43	7	33	5	24
	NC^b	2.7	1.204	6	43	3	21	5	36

* p < 0.05.

^a Certified companies, n = 21.

^b Noncertified companies, n = 14.

^c Mean rankings are based on a five-point scale, where 1 = very low and 5 = very high importance.

4. Discussion

Results showed that the level of awareness and acceptance of forest certification was relatively high among the certified companies and relatively low among the noncertified companies taking into account that only one person in each company was interviewed. The study revealed generally positive patterns in attitudes toward certification among both groups of respondents. Low level of awareness has been observed also in other parts of the world, e.g. in China (Chen et al., 2011), Malaysia (Ratnasingam et al. 2008), Canada (Jayasinghe et al. 2007), United States (Vlosky et al. 2003), and Finland (Toshiaki et al. 2006). Earlier results from the survey organized by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 2010 revealed the low level of awareness with regards to forest certification among industrial consumers, where approximately 700 respondents mainly in European part of Russia were interviewed. Only 7% of the respondents were acquainted with certified products, in addition only 29% of the respondents pointed out the importance of legality for the received products (Voropaev 2011). At the same time, the respondents of this study indicated the legality of wood origin as of very high importance. Thus, it clearly indicated that the current level of awareness in Russia among the forest industry companies is higher than among the industrial consumers. It can be explained by the fact that the respondents of this study have been aware of basics of forest certification and some of the specialists were responsible for implementation of certification requirements in the companies. At the same time, this study also affirms a need to increase awareness and knowledge related to forest certification among forest industry companies. This could be achieved by addressing the issue among stakeholders involved in forest certification, e.g. nonNGOs, local government, certification body, local people, Russian FSC Council, etc. Seminar and/or training sessions could provide a platform to express opinions, exchange views, and experience.

The study indicated difference between the two groups of respondents, when it comes to the factors affecting the initiation of forest certification. According to Aaker (2001), the responses related to the introduction the certification in the company can be associated with the strategy type, when the certified companies have a tendency to be more proactive and the noncertified companies to have reactive market strategy. Similar results were found in this study as well.

Comparison of the opinion between the two groups of respondents has its complicity, since both groups have different vision toward forest certification. For example, representatives of the noncertified companies had not yet adopted the forest certification, and consequently those responses indicate more of expectations, when respondents from the certified companies indicate more of actual experiences. It can be illustrated by the fact that noncertified companies are optimistic about economic benefits of forest certification, when the actual experience of certified companies proved it to be less optimistic. Similarly, it applied to the returning of long-term investments. However, most of the responses justifying the benefits and barriers of forest certification appeared to be statistically insignificant and were very alike. The study also indicated the importance of legality of wood origin. However, the respondents might have difficulties to explain possible effect and required measures from the company's side when it comes to the means of addressing illegal logging and related trade at the EU level with Russia. Procedures of the new trade regulations are not yet clear; however the deadline for full enforcement was in March 2013 (EU 2010). Reasonable question might be asked that is it enough to be certified in order to fulfill the criteria of EU? Definitely the promoted tool for trade regulations must be promoted to all participants in order to understand the minimum performance level.

The respondents of this study were generally optimistic about certified wood markets and believed that it had potential to grow, especially for export-oriented companies. At the same time, respondents were more skeptical toward its potential development domestically. Despite that fact, there are recently introduced incentives to increase amount of certified wood products on the Russian market. For example, the official governmental body responsible for construction of the Olympic facilities for Winter Olympic Games in Sochi launched in 2011 “green standards” that support the utilization of certified wood products in all constructions (Olympstroy 2011). Nevertheless, lack of communication between the parties might be a cause for underestimation of the domestic potential among the groups of respondents. According to Ptichnikov and Park (2005), Russian forest industry companies see certification as a necessity to maintain the access to high-value European markets. It was also found as main motivation by Pappila (2013). Such market-driven systems are increasingly gaining international legitimacy (Bernstein 2011). Securing the market demand and access was also found as the key motivation by other researchers (Araujo et al. 2008; Auld et al. 2008). According to Keskitalo et al. (2009), the key noneconomic benefits in Russia are claimed for better communication with the stakeholders and better public environmental image. Consequently, it may reduce the risk of negative media campaigns and boycotts from the stakeholders.

The study also indicates that the largest barrier constraining the potential development of forest certification in Russia is the fact that certification is not a mandatory requirement supported by the certified and noncertified companies. In addition to that noncertified companies indicated the high importance of economic inaccessibility and low level of preparedness of management system, where respondents from the certified companies weighted it as of low importance. Most respondents in this study from the noncertified companies represented small-sized companies, and on contrary respondents from the certified companies represented medium- and large-sized companies. On one hand, economic inaccessibility is associated with the company's size. However, it might be indicated by lack of awareness among the noncertified respondents, since the participatory fees for certification are charged accordingly with the company's annual turnover (FSC AAF Policy 2011). On the other hand, larger companies tend to have quality management systems in place and are likely to pay lower costs than smaller companies when implementing the certification (Vidal et al. 2005). This is also supported by the study analyzing impact of forest certification at the corporate level in NW Russia (Golovina 2009). Similarly, lower interest among noncertified companies is also associated with initially low level of preparedness of management system. It is also worth noting that the adopted Russian National Standard of forest certification v 6.0 contradicted in parts with forest legislation (Pappila 2013). This may cause difficulties for the forest industry companies to join the process and certify their forests.

In conclusion, attempting to assess the attitudes among forestry companies and to predict the development of forest certification, several factors need to be taken into account, including the possibility of the governmental incentives and support; actual market demand; communication of benefits and barriers among the stakeholders; and customer recognition. For the time being, Russian forest industry companies appeared to be under the process of involvement of forest certification into their business model.

5. Conclusions

Taking into account that studied companies represented 70% of the market share of wood consumption in NW part of Russia, several conclusions can be made about the attitudes and motivation of the forest industry companies on forest certification.

Among the noncertified companies, initiation of forest certification process is driven by external factors, mainly associated with the market demand and request from the stakeholders. Certified companies seem to be affected by both internal and external factors, in particular, internal corporate policy and market demand. This indicates that the certified companies tend to have more proactive and the noncertified companies reactive market strategy.

Identification of the main driving forces revealed dissimilarities in the motivation and attitudes among the two groups of respondents. Many respondents from the noncertified companies in this study rationally expected to gain economically from forest certification. This group was also more optimistic to identify the certification as a tool to eliminate illegal wood and return the long-term investments. Nevertheless, both groups were similar in opinions and identified general market demand as the major force affecting the development of forest certification.

Statistically significant dissimilarities were found in the responses to benefits of forest certification, particularly access to leasing contract and additional sales of wood products. Regarding legality of wood origin, company's image and competitiveness of wood products were identified as of higher importance among other benefits associated with forest certification. The respondents were cautious to associate certification with long-term sustainability on the domestic market. However, large domestic market could also be a powerful catalyst to promote the utilization of forest certification among the forest industry companies in Russia.

The analysis of the barriers associated with forest certification revealed statistically significant difference in responses to economic inaccessibility and initially low level of preparedness of management system. Noncertified companies recognized those factors more feasible. The fact that certification is not a mandatory requirement was recognized by both groups of respondents as a primary barrier constraining the development of forest certification in Russia.

There is a need to study further how to increase awareness of stakeholders involved in certification process in Russia and to develop coherent conceptual framework for multipurpose analysis. Forest certification may receive more attention as it could become a part of compulsory procedure due to enforcement of the EU Timber Regulation and prerequisite for placing wood products on the international markets by Russian export-oriented forest industry companies (EUTR 995/2010).

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all the respondents and participants of this study who expressed their attitude and shared experiences. We would also like to thank Dr. Pradipta Halder and Mr. Anas Zyadin for assistance in the data analysis.

Funding

The funding to Mr. Maxim Trishkin was provided by the School of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland. The work of Dr. Eugene Lopatin was supported by The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, project 14.B37.21.1248; Baltic Sea Region 2007–2013 project “Baltic Landscapes” [part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund and European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument) www.modelforest.fi]; ENPI Karelia project “Integrated landscape planning for sustainable use of nature resources and maintaining the biodiversity” KA528 (funded by the governments of Finland and Russia, and the EU ENPI Programme), www.karlands.ru.

Additional information

Funding

Funding: The funding to Mr. Maxim Trishkin was provided by the School of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland. The work of Dr. Eugene Lopatin was supported by The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, project 14.B37.21.1248; Baltic Sea Region 2007–2013 project “Baltic Landscapes” [part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund and European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument) www.modelforest.fi]; ENPI Karelia project “Integrated landscape planning for sustainable use of nature resources and maintaining the biodiversity” KA528 (funded by the governments of Finland and Russia, and the EU ENPI Programme), www.karlands.ru.