COMPETITIVENESS OF COMMUNITY FOREST ENTERPRISES FOR ...
Transcript of COMPETITIVENESS OF COMMUNITY FOREST ENTERPRISES FOR ...
COMPETITIVENESS OF COMMUNITY FOREST ENTERPRISES FOR RESOURCE
SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT:
AN ORGANIZATIONAL HYBRIDITY PERSPECTIVE
by
Meike Siegner
B.A. Vienna University, 2011
M.Sc. Vienna University of Economics and Business, 2014
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES
(Forestry)
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Vancouver)
July 2021
© Meike Siegner, 2021
ii
The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate
and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:
Competitiveness of Community Forest Enterprises for Resource Sustainability and Community
Empowerment: An Organizational Hybridity Perspective
submitted by Meike Siegner in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in Forestry
Examining Committee:
Dr. Robert Kozak, Professor, Faculty of Forestry, UBC
Co-Supervisor
Dr. Rajat Panwar, Professor, College of Forestry, Oregon State University
Co-Supervisor
Dr. Jonatan Pinkse, Professor, Alliance Business School, University of Manchester
Supervisory Committee Member
Dr. Gary Bull, Professor, Faculty of Forestry, UBC
University Examiner
Dr. Richard Barichello, Professor, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, UBC
University Examiner
Additional Supervisory Committee Members:
Dr. Harry Nelson, Professor, Faculty of Forestry, UBC
Supervisory Committee Member
iii
Abstract
Decentralized forest management is gaining prominence as an effective approach for the
sustainable use of forest resources and to ensure the well-being of rural, Indigenous, and resource-
dependent communities around the world. In many places, decentralized forest management is
carried out through community forest enterprises (CFEs). CFEs are commercial entities which
pursue plural goals including resource conservation, economic development, poverty alleviation,
and preserving local cultural values and traditions. This dissertation seeks to advance our
understanding of how CFEs can overcome management challenges so they can more effectively
meet their goals. First, by conducting qualitative meta-synthesis of key works in the social
enterprise and CFE literatures, challenges and opportunities facing CFEs were identified, and
consolidated to form a set of solutions to management hurdles.
Second, using the theoretical lenses of Organizational Hybridity, Paradox and Tensions
and Dualities, this research also examines approaches to community engagement in CFEs’
decision-making in the Canadian Province of British Columbia. A qualitative research design was
employed which comprised multiple case studies. Results show that CFEs struggle to balance the
need for community engagement in decision-making and demonstrating commercial prudence.
Some managers reconcile this tension by using separation strategies, with others using integration
strategies.
Third, drawing from literature in organizational competitiveness, the dissertation also
tested the relationship between competitive strategy and CFE effectiveness. This was achieved
through the dissemination of a survey among CFEs in Canada and the United States.
iv
Quantitative analyses showed that more effective CFEs were more likely to pursue mixed
competitive strategies which simultaneously focus on efficiency and low costs along with the
exploration of niche markets. Lastly, drawing from upper echelons theory, a sample of CFEs in
British Columbia, Canada, the relationship between managerial personal characteristics, and
organizational outcomes was tested, showing support for the link between manager profile and
performance.
Overall this dissertation identifies interventional approaches to enhance community
participation, and outlines leadership attributes needed for effectiveness in CFEs. Thus, the
dissertation advances knowledge about what CFEs can do, how this can be done, and who can be
entrusted to manage them.
v
Lay Summary
Community forest enterprises (CFEs) are gaining prominence among policy makers,
scholars, and practitioners for their potential to achieve multiple benefits in the sustainable use of
forest resources. This dissertation seeks to assess organization-level challenges facing CFEs and
ways of overcoming these challenges. Three lines of inquiries were pursued: (i) the development
of a solutions framework that identifies and evaluates CFEs as a unique type of social enterprise
model in the forest sector; (ii) the identification of managerial strategies to enhance community
participation in CFEs decision-making; and (iii) the identification of strategic orientations and
managerial characteristics that could enhance CFEs competitiveness.
vi
Preface
This dissertation is my original work. I identified the research objectives, designed the
methodologies, collected and analyzed the primary and secondary data. It was carried out with
guidance from Drs. Robert Kozak (co-supervisor) and Rajat Panwar (co-supervisor), as well as Dr.
Harry Nelson and Dr. Jonatan Pinkse (committee members).
One manuscript has been published in a peer-reviewed journal based on a qualitative meta-
synthesis included in one of the research chapters (2). I am the lead author on this publication,
which was co-authored with my doctoral supervisors, Drs. Rajat Panwar and Robert Kozak. My
role in this publication was to design the study, analyze the data, write the manuscript, make any
revisions required prior to publication and communicate with journal editors. Dr. Kozak helped to
acquire funding to support the research. Drs. Panwar and Kozak provided feedback on the research
design and on several drafts of the manuscript.
• Siegner, M., Panwar, R., & Kozak, R. (2021). Community forest enterprises and social
enterprises: the confluence of two streams of literatures for sustainable natural resource
management. Social Enterprise Journal (available online, ahead of print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-10-2020-0096
All research was conducted with approval from the UBC Behavioral Research Ethics
Board (UBC BREB #H18-01703).
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Lay Summary .................................................................................................................................v
Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xiv
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xvi
Dedication ................................................................................................................................. xviii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Community Forest Enterprises and Social Enterprises – The Confluence of Two
Streams of Literatures for Sustainable Natural Resource Management ...............................11
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 A Primer on Community Forest Enterprises ................................................................. 13
2.3 Methods......................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................. 19
2.4.1 Promises of CFEs and Their Varied Facets Around the World ............................ 19
2.4.1.1 Poverty Reduction ............................................................................................. 20
2.4.1.2 Rural Revitalization .......................................................................................... 21
2.4.1.3 Ecologically Responsible Forestry ................................................................... 22
2.4.1.4 Protection of Indigenous Rights........................................................................ 23
viii
2.4.2 Challenges of CFEs and the Importance of Effective Organization ..................... 28
2.4.2.1 Organizational Identity ..................................................................................... 28
2.4.2.2 Governance ....................................................................................................... 29
2.4.2.3 Scaling-Up ........................................................................................................ 30
2.4.2.4 Performance Measures ...................................................................................... 32
2.4.3 Addressing Challenges: Lessons from the Social Enterprise Literature ............... 34
2.4.3.1 Addressing the Organizational Identity Challenge: Setting Hybrid Goals
and Hiring Strategies......................................................................................................... 34
2.4.3.2 Addressing the Governance Challenge: (Re)Structuring Hybrid Activities ..... 36
2.4.3.3 Addressing the Scaling-Up Challenge: Building Mixed Funding Portfolios ... 37
2.4.3.4 Addressing the Performance Measures Challenge: Quantifying Social Impact 39
2.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 3: Unpacking Community Involvement in Social Enterprise Decision-Making:
Evidence from Six Community Forest Enterprises in Canada ...............................................44
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 44
3.2 Theoretical Background ................................................................................................ 46
3.2.1 Goal Attainment in Social Enterprises .................................................................. 46
3.2.2 Community Involvement in Organizational Decisions......................................... 49
3.3 Methods......................................................................................................................... 52
3.3.1 Research Context .................................................................................................. 52
3.3.2 Sample................................................................................................................... 54
3.3.3 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 58
3.3.4 Analysis................................................................................................................. 61
ix
3.4 Findings......................................................................................................................... 65
3.4.1 Trade-Offs Between Financial Sustainability and Community Involvement ....... 67
3.4.2 Tensions with the Balancing of Tactics for Community Involvement ................. 74
3.4.3 Overcoming Challenges ........................................................................................ 84
3.5 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 91
Chapter 4: Strategic Orientation in Community Forest Enterprises: Implications for
Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................98
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 98
4.2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses ................................................................... 102
4.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 111
4.3.1 Sample and Data ................................................................................................. 111
4.3.2 Survey Design ..................................................................................................... 115
4.3.3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 122
4.4 Results ......................................................................................................................... 126
4.4.1 Descriptive Information ...................................................................................... 126
4.4.2 ANOVA Results ................................................................................................. 131
4.4.3 OLS Regression Results ..................................................................................... 133
4.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 135
4.5.1 Limitations and Future Research ........................................................................ 140
4.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 141
x
Chapter 5: The Effect of Managerial Characteristics on Community Forest Enterprise
Performance – Evidence from British Columbia ....................................................................143
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 143
5.2 Study Aim and Focus .................................................................................................. 146
5.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses ................................................................... 147
5.3.1 Managerial Characteristics, Decision-Making, and Outcomes........................... 147
5.3.1.1 Proactive Personality and Performance .......................................................... 149
5.3.1.2 Perceived Work Discretion and Performance ................................................. 150
5.3.1.3 Social Networking and Performance .............................................................. 151
5.4 Methods....................................................................................................................... 152
5.4.1 Measures ............................................................................................................. 152
5.4.2 Sampling and Data Collection ............................................................................ 154
5.4.3 Analysis............................................................................................................... 155
5.5 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 156
5.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 162
Chapter 6: Conclusions .............................................................................................................163
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 163
6.2 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 165
6.3 Key Contributions ....................................................................................................... 168
6.3.1 Contributions to the Literature ............................................................................ 168
6.3.2 Managerial Implications ..................................................................................... 170
6.3.3 Policy Implications ............................................................................................. 172
6.3.3.1 The Role of Government ................................................................................ 173
xi
6.3.3.2 The Role of Support Organizations ................................................................ 174
6.4 Shortcomings and Limitations .................................................................................... 177
6.5 Future Directions ........................................................................................................ 180
Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................183
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................197
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 197
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 200
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 203
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 219
xii
List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational forms of community-based management of forests .................................. 3
Table 2 Summary of hybrid characteristics of CFEs .................................................................... 16
Table 3 Promises of CFEs around the world ................................................................................ 26
Table 4 Challenges facing CFEs around the world ...................................................................... 33
Table 5 Characteristics of sampled CFEs ..................................................................................... 57
Table 6 Characteristics of interview participants.......................................................................... 60
Table 7 Illustrative examples for experiencing trade-offs ............................................................ 73
Table 8 Two tactics for community involvement ......................................................................... 77
Table 9 Illustrative data for experiencing tension......................................................................... 83
Table 10 Summary of study constructs ....................................................................................... 119
Table 11 List of variables ........................................................................................................... 122
Table 12 Reliability coefficients of variables ............................................................................. 124
Table 13 Pearson’s correlations for observed dependent and independent variables ................. 125
Table 14 Cluster means (n=51) ................................................................................................... 127
Table 15 Results of chi-square analysis with k-means clusters .................................................. 128
Table 16 Descriptive information based on k-means clusters .................................................... 130
Table 17 ANOVA results............................................................................................................ 132
Table 18 Original study hypotheses and test results ................................................................... 136
Table 19 Descriptive statistics and correlations of regression variables .................................... 156
Table 20 Results of the regression analyses ............................................................................... 158
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Organization Framework ................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2 Solutions for Management Challenges ........................................................................... 40
Figure 3 Data Structure ................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 4 Strategies for Addressing Trade-Offs ............................................................................. 86
Figure 5 Tensions and Tension Management ............................................................................... 91
Figure 6 Locations of Survey Participants .................................................................................. 114
Figure 7 Theoretical Framework of the Study ............................................................................ 152
Figure 8 Summary of Key Contributions of this Dissertation .................................................... 176
xiv
List of Abbreviations
ANOVA – Analysis of Variance
BC – British Columbia
BCCFA – British Columbia Community Forest Association
CBM – Community-Based Management
CEO – Chief Executive Officer
CFA – Community Forest Agreement
CFEs – Community Forest Enterprises
CFM – Community Forest Management
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization
FNs – First Nations
FSC – Forest Stewardship Council
MFLNRO - Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resource Operations
NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations
NIEDP – National Indigenous Economic Association
NTFP – Non-Timber-Forest-Products
PD – Participatory Decision-Making
RRI – Rights and Resources Initiative
SD – Standard Deviation
SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals
SEs – Social Enterprises
SFI – Sustainable Forestry Initiative
xv
UET – Upper Echelons Theory
UN – United Nations
US – United States
VIF – Variance Inflation Factor
xvi
Acknowledgements
The culmination of this thesis relied on the assistance of many individuals. First, I would
like to express my gratitude to my academic supervisors, Professors Dr. Robert Kozak and
Dr. Rajat Panwar. Their commitment to excellence in research and teaching, and their dedication
to interdisciplinarity, gave me the opportunity to learn from true leaders in sustainable business
management and forest sector sustainability. I am grateful for their guidance and am aware of the
privilege I have received in pursuing this research. My committee members at UBC and
Manchester University, Prof. Harry Nelson, and Prof. Jonatan Pinkse, provided insightful and
nuanced advice from which I benefited greatly.
I received professional support in my data collection from the BC Community Forestry
Association, Ms. Susan Mulkey and Ms. Jennifer Gunter. Their professional insights helped me
keep my research grounded in practice, and ensured its relevance outside of the academic
environment. I would also like to thank the community leaders who shared their insights on the
practice of managerial decision-making in community forest enterprises.
While at the university, I had the opportunity to meet many professors, graduate students,
and staff, and have benefitted from the rich and stimulating environment on campus.
Jennifer DeBoer, Maria Murcia, Alice Palmer, and Vilbert Vabi Vamuloh, stand out as graduate
student peers with whom I have engaged in fruitful discussions, and who have supported me during
my time at the university. I learned a lot from them and I am sure I will continue to do so in the
future.
xvii
I also want to thank my wonderful support network, including fellow members of the
Community Alternatives Housing Cooperative, and my dear friends in Kitsilano, where I spent
most of my time living in Vancouver, Rachel Gossen, Ilvs Strauss, Savannah Carr-Wilson and
Sandeep Pai. Special mention also goes to the “Nootka Crew” – a group of inspiring friends who
introduced me to the beauty of British Columbia on an epic hike on the coastal shoreline of Nootka
Island, Katie Beardsley, Jennica Frisque, Bertine Stelzer, Kahlil Baker, and Christian Brandt.
Although my research has often kept me busy and required me to move to a different part
of the world, my family and dear friends in Europe have always been close, and a source of
inspiration to make a positive contribution to society. I would like to specifically acknowledge my
mother, Sigrid Siegner, and my grandmother, Irene Scheithauer, two fierce women who are with
me in spirit. They taught me to be brave, curious, and face society with a strong grounding in
compassion and ethics. I would also like to thank my wonderful father and stepmother, Wolfgang
and Hannelore Siegner, my sister, Katja Jeggle, as well as my host parents in Sweden, Eva and
Sigurd Granström, and my godparents Marion and Dietmar Bicknese, for their continued
compassionate support and companionship.
Lastly, I want to thank the love of my life, Camilo Cortes, who provided me with incredible
strength, support, and encouragement throughout my degree. I am continuously inspired by his
generosity, intellect, and caring towards the most vulnerable members of our society in his work
as a registered nurse. He inspires me daily, and I am grateful to have found my life’s companion.
xviii
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to my parents. Without their support, this would not have been
possible; without their love, this would not be meaningful. I also dedicate this thesis to
sustainability, that vital concept that encourages us to endure, and to co-exist with one another,
amid the grand challenges of our time.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Sustainably managing the world’s forests is key to addressing multiple pressing issues
related to the environment and development. Despite significant efforts to sustainably manage and
protect the world’s forests, progress on this front has been inadequate. The UN Secretary-General,
António Guterres, recently warned that the international community was not on track to meet the
goals from the United Nations Strategic Plan on Forests (UN, 2020). Numerous academic studies
also point out our collective failure to limit deforestation (Lambin et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2020).
While forest sector sustainability is a complex issue (Levin et al., 2012; Panwar et al.,
2015), it is also evident that pathways to achieve it must involve forest dependent communities
(Hajjar et al., 2013; Kozak, 2009). Without providing incentives for communities to engage in
restoring and sustainably managing forests, and without enabling them access to markets to derive
economic benefits, deforestation and reforestation targets will not be met (Erbaugh et al., 2020).
To enhance community engagement in managing forest resources, governance reforms have been
initiated with a particular aim of devolving power to local people through decentralization and
community-based programs (Berkes, 2010). Over the past two decades, the total forest area under
community administration and ownership has more than doubled (RRI, 2018). Today,
approximately 13% of all forests globally are managed under some form of community forest
management (CFM). CFM is a set of forest governance mechanisms and policy approaches
practiced around the world designed to recognize local communities as key stakeholders and to
ensure their participation in decisions related to the management of forests (RRI, 2018).
2
A considerable body of scholarly work has studied processes and outcomes of CFM
(Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018; Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018), with a common key finding being that
CFM has the potential to bring about socio-economic development, community empowerment,
and resource conservation (Agrawal et al., 2008; Persha et al., 2011). A central focus of this
literature has been to analyze the effectiveness of CFM programs and policies for achieving
decentralization in resource decision-making rights and improving forest management outcomes
(Ambus & Hoberg, 2011; Furness et al., 2015; Hajjar et al., 2013; Hajjar, McGrath, et al., 2011).
This literature acknowledges a multiplicity of factors influencing positive outcomes in CBM from
a legal and institutional perspective (Barichello et al., 1995; Teitelbaum, 2016), mostly related to
status and security of access rights for communities to achieve lasting and substantive benefits
from the management and stewardship of local forests (Hajjar et al., 2012; Ribot & Peluso, 2009;
RRI, 2018). With assessments of CBM around the world demonstrating the importance of
community rights and title for successfully managing local forestry initiatives in the long-run
(Agrawal & Chhatre, 2006; Gilmour, 2016), questions around addressing problems with rights,
reforms, and institutional change, are front and centre in the literature that studies devolved forest
governance (Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018).
More recently, however, the focus has shifted to also examine commercial activities under
CFM which are carried out by community forest enterprises (CFEs). While CFM generally refers
to instances where communities have some involvement in the governance, decision-making, and
management of local forestlands, CFEs can be more tightly defined as a form of CFM where
community members and/or local groups actively pursue economic opportunities, adopting an
organizational structure for the commercialization of local forest goods and services (Ambrose et
3
al., 2015; Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018). Indeed, with the transfer of access and management rights to
local communities, the question of how these initiatives support themselves (i.e., cover their costs)
becomes highly relevant. While some CFM initiatives may have a grant-supported model
(Ambrose et al., 2015; Hajjar, McGrath, et al., 2011), many opt to go into business. CFEs are
micro- and small-scale business operations – cooperatives, municipal corporations, limited
partnerships, Indigenous enterprises, and business-generating nonprofit societies, among others –
which, in addition to generating profits, aim to create local employment, preserve the social and
cultural fabric of local communities, and conserve forest resources (Antinori & Bray, 2005).
Importantly, the management and governance of CFEs is done by community members (Ambrose
et al., 2015). Table 1 depicts CFEs, relative to other organizational forms involved in CBM of
forests.
Table 1 Organizational forms of community-based management of forests
Stewardship &
Conservation Initiatives
Community Forest
Enterprises
Private Sector
Sustainability Initiatives
Non-Commercial
Commercial/
Non-Commercial Mix
Commercial
Communities facilitate
subsistence use and resource
conservation under
community-based
management (e.g.
conservation groups,
environmental clubs, citizen
coalitions, and nonprofit
donors)
Communities advance
commercial activities under
community-based management
for the purpose of reinvesting
profits locally (e.g.,
cooperatives, municipal
corporations, Indigenous
enterprises, partnerships,
nonprofit societies)
Communities participate
indirectly, through
corporate sustainability
programs/philanthropic
initiatives, in local forest
management and
economic development
initiatives
4
As a backdrop, this dissertation seeks to enhance understanding about how CFEs can
overcome challenges so they can effectively meet their plural goals. Specifically, this
dissertation seeks to contribute to research on CFEs with a particular focus on the organizational-
level of managerial decision-making, as opposed to an institutional context and the broader market
within which these businesses operate, as has been the emphasis in previous works on CBM and
CFEs. It is well-understood that the broader desired outcomes underlying CFE activities are
threefold and encompass (i) resource sustainability; (ii) community empowerment; and (iii)
competitiveness (Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018). Under the CFE model, each of these goals are to be
balanced and advanced simultaneously (Antinori & Bray, 2005).
Doing so, however, presents these organizations with challenges. For example, CFEs owe
their localized character to their desire to advance resource sustainability, which entails that CFEs
practice successful stewardship to maintain the ecological integrity and long-term availability of
the local resource. Achieving this goal is intricately linked with notions of inclusive and
sustainable development as being advanced through CFEs (de Jong et al., 2018; Nilsson et al.,
2016). However, insights are limited to variations of the CFE model in different contexts around
the world and the factors that would enable their success in fostering localized models of resource
sustainability and sustainable development in the varied circumstances under which they emerge.
The desired outcome of community empowerment equally warrants further exploration to
understand how exactly CFEs can achieve this goal in a way that would not compromise other key
objectives. While community participation in decision-making and collective ownership and
governance as key pillars of the CFE model are frequently acknowledged in research that studies
their activities (Antinori & Bray, 2005; Carias-Vega & Keenan, 2016), systematic insights into
5
how they achieve these objectives, what challenges it may bring, and how to address those
challenges are still missing. Finally, with regard to CFE competitiveness, research has noted the
lack of understanding of factors that influence success in chosen market strategies (Cubbage et al.,
2015; Humphries et al., 2012; Kozak, 2009), and what it is that would enable the scalability of
operations (Macqueen et al., 2020; Villavicencio Valdez et al., 2012). These challenges are not
trivial. It has been noted that without precisely understanding them and without finding ways to
overcome them, the multifaceted potential of CFEs cannot be realized (Sanchez-Badini et al.,
2018).
Given gaps in the current understanding of CFEs in all three central goal dimensions (i)
resource sustainability; (ii) community empowerment; and (iii) competitiveness, this dissertation
draws primarily on the burgeoning literature in social entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2006; Mair
& Martí, 2006) which seeks to blend economic, social, and environmental objectives. Social
enterprises (SEs) are hybrid organizations (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Billis, 2010) that are structured
to address complex societal and environmental problems, but in ways that they can remain
financially self-sufficient. By considering CFEs as SEs, and studying their activities through a
hybrid organization lens, this dissertation analyzes the varied potential of CFEs with regards to
their plural goals. Specifically, the dissertation is written in a manuscript form and comprises four
separate manuscripts – one literature review study that takes a global perspective on CFE activities
as social enterprises around the world, and three empirical chapters that draw on original data of
the CFE population in Cascadia (British Columbia, Canada, and Washington and Oregon State,
U.S.). This region was chosen for data collection in this dissertation for two reasons.
6
First, data on North American CFEs is scarce, compared to the larger literature that exists
on CFE and their activities in the Global South (Davis et al., 2020; Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018), which
is why this dissertation adds novel insights into the nuances of the CFE organizational form in a
geographic context that is hitherto little understood. And second, the region has seen a surge in
community forestry activity since the late 20th century – albeit under varying degrees of
institutionalization – which allows for the study of varied organizational forms and actor
constellations, allowing insights into varied activities of CFEs, and how they may effectively
address their plural goals.
The provinces and country states forming Cascadia have seen a growing appetite for CFE
activities due to a shared history in forest sector activities, increased focus on environmental
stewardship of pristine natural environments, and ongoing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples
(Davis et al., 2020; Teitelbaum, 2016), albeit amid differing institutional contexts. In 1998, the
Province of British Columbia, Canada, introduced legislation in support of community forestry,
allowing for decentralized forest resource management at the level of local and Indigenous
governments, as well as by community organizations (Ambus, 2016). Over 60 CFEs have since
been established throughout the province under a community forest tenure program. Conversely,
community forestry practices in Oregon and Washington, thus far, exist more informally, with
civil society coalitions forming processes, groups, and organizations to re-orient forest
management practices towards decentralization, sometimes in partnership with county and forest
service authorities (Davis et al., 2020).
7
This has resulted in the formation of a small, but growing, number of CFEs, where
community stakeholders, in partnership with local forestry practitioners, create economic
opportunities through the US Forest Service’s system for selling timber and distributing service
contracts (Abrams et al., 2015). A brief description of each chapter follows below. Figure 1
presents the organizing framework for this dissertation, including chapter objectives, research
questions, and methodological strategies. Chapter 2, entitled: “Community Forest Enterprises and
Social Enterprises – The Confluence of Two Streams of Literatures for Sustainable Natural
Resource Management” uses qualitative meta-synthesis to assess how CFEs could be a means to
secure a localized model that caters to multiple sustainable development objectives (Doherty et al.,
2014; Haugh, 2007).
Using qualitative meta-synthesis of key insights from the decentralization, social
enterprise, and hybrid organizations’ literatures, this chapter presents a set of solutions for CFEs
to manage human resources, market products and services, generate funds, and develop functional
organizational cultures and performance indicators, all the while meeting their plural social,
environmental, and financial objectives. The chapter also identifies opportunities for future inter-
disciplinary research at the intersection of decentralization and social enterprise that could hasten
progress towards sustainable development, not only in the forest sector, but also beyond.
In Chapter 3, entitled: “Unpacking Community Involvement in Social Enterprise Decision-
Making – Evidence from Six Community Forest Enterprises in Canada,” qualitative data from case
studies in the Province British Columbia is used to explore ways for CFEs to ensure local
participation in strategic and operational matters.
8
The study finds that the seeds of community empowerment are planted during the founding
stages of a CFE, and are typically manifested through their mission statements, and that a CFE’s
ownership structure largely dictates how they engage with communities. Moreover, the chapter
provides an enriched tension management framework that describes a set of managerial
capabilities that are required to effectively balance CFEs’ commercial and participatory objectives
respectively.
Chapter 4, entitled “Strategic Orientation in Community Forest Enterprises – Implications
for Effectiveness” reports on a survey that was conducted among CFEs in the Cascadia region
(British Columbia, Canada, and Oregon and Washington State, United States) to better understand
the pursuit of competitiveness in light of CFEs’ plural goals. The study reveals that, in terms of
strategic orientations, CFEs tend to employ mixed strategies that emphasize cost leadership (i.e.,
efficiency gains and growth in forest management and timber sales), while simultaneously seeking
opportunities to practice differentiation (i.e., exploring niche markets for value added activities, as
well as non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and services). Generally, the study finds that having a
strategic orientation pays off, both financially, and in finding alignment between plural goals.
Finally, Chapter 5, entitled “The Effect of Managerial Characteristics on the Performance
of Community Forest Enterprises – Evidence from British Columbia, Canada,” draws from survey
data of managers of CFEs in British Columbia, to better understand personal characteristics of
CFE managers and their influence on performance. Testing a theoretical model that proposes a
relationship between a set of managerial constructs and organizational outcomes contributes novel
insights about key characteristics that allow CFEs to meet their plural goals.
9
A concluding section (Chapter 6) integrates individual chapter findings, and summarizes
lessons learned to inform practices of better managing CFEs, as well as guiding future research to
advance the field. Figure 1 summarizes the overarching motivation of this dissertation and the
objectives, research questions, and methods that were used to contribute towards the main research
objective in the four main chapters.
10
Figure 1 Organization Framework
To create a conceptual foundation for
the analysis of CFEs as social
enterprises that seek to secure localized
versions of forest resource utilization
and sustainable development
To explore the role of community
engagement in CFEs’ pursuit of social,
environmental, and financial goals
To assess whether CFEs’ choice of
competitive strategy affects the
effective pursuit of social,
environmental, and financial goals
To determine the relationship between
the personal characteristics of CFE
managers and performance outcomes
What actionable insights into managing
and growing CFEs can be gained from
their study as social enterprises?
(i) How do CFEs involve communities
in their decision-making; (ii) Do they
face any challenges in doing so, and,
(iii) how do they overcome challenges?
Is there a relationship between CFEs’
strategic orientation and effectiveness?
Do CFE managers’ personal
characteristics influence performance?
Qualitative meta-synthesis of relevant
literatures in the fields of resource
decentralization, forest sector
sustainability, hybrid organizing, and
social entrepreneurship
Multiple Case Studies using extensive
primary and secondary data collected on
CFEs in the Canadian Province British
Columbia
Survey of CFEs in the Cascadia Region
(British Columbia, Canada, and
Washington and Oregon State in the
United States)
Survey of CFEs in British Columbia,
Canada
Ob
ject
ive
Res
earc
h
Qu
esti
on
Met
ho
ds
Overarching Research Motivation: Enable CFEs to overcome challenges so they can more effectively meet their plural goals
Ch.2 Ch.3 Ch.4 Ch.5
Des
ired
Ou
tco
mes
Resource Sustainability (i)Community Empowerment
(ii)Competitiveness (iii)
11
Chapter 2: Community Forest Enterprises and Social Enterprises –
The Confluence of Two Streams of Literatures for Sustainable Natural
Resource Management
2.1 Introduction
Climate change, loss of biodiversity, and rising societal inequality have reinforced calls to
protect community rights in accessing natural resources and reduce the negative externalities in
managing them (Erbaugh et al., 2020; Sawyer & Gomez, 2012). Social enterprises or hybrid
organizations (Doherty et al., 2014), which blur the distinction between for-profit and not-for-
profit sectors, are promising organizational structures to manage and govern natural resources in
ways that improve lives of local communities and promote resource conservation (Anderson et
al., 2006; Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2007; Islam & Berkes, 2017). Community forest enterprises
(CFEs) are such organizations in the private sector.
CFEs exist in forested areas around the world where local groups and community members
produce forest-based products (Ambrose et al., 2015; Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018; Wiersum et al.,
2013). CFEs can operate as associations, employee-owned businesses, cooperatives, Indigenous
enterprises, not-for-profit societies, and firms owned by towns and municipalities. With their
emphasis on the local management of resources, democratic participation, and sharing of benefits,
CFEs are thought to represent a viable path to realize the potential of forests in sustainable
development (Chhatre & Agrawal, 2009; Newton et al., 2016; Teitelbaum, 2016).
12
However, there are multiple management challenges which stymie the growth of individual
CFEs, and limit the scalability of the CFE business model as a whole (Humphries et al., 2012;
Macqueen, 2013; Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018). Against this backdrop, the aims of this chapter are
twofold: (i) to develop a consolidated understanding of those challenges and (ii) find ways to
overcome those challenges using insights from the richness of the social enterprise literature.
Formally, the research question that is being addressed in this chapter is: What are the management
challenges that CFEs face and how can they be addressed?
Qualitative meta-synthesis was used to purposely integrate literatures from both CFE and
social enterprise domains. The CFE literature was used to characterize the varied facets and
organization-level tenets of the CFE business model around the world, as well as to identify critical
challenges that CFEs face. The social enterprise literature was used to distill actionable insights
into addressing those challenges. The chapter makes a unique contribution to enhance
understanding of CFEs, particularly the effectiveness of the CFE model for addressing pressing
issues around sustainable forest management and community development. The chapter also
enriches the social enterprise literature by extending the notion of decentralized decision-making
and community empowerment. While both of these concepts are recognized as important topics in
the social enterprise literature (Finlayson & Roy, 2019; Haugh & Talwar, 2016), they have yet to
be considered in light of collective efforts to plan for and practice stewardship of local, common
resource systems, such as forests. Delineating CFEs’ varied activities, as well as prospects and
challenges, also adds nuance to studies in environmental social enterprise (Vickers & Lyon, 2014)
which emphasize the need to amplify the study of social enterprise beyond social sector contexts,
toward understanding their role in advancing sustainability in natural systems.
13
2.2 A Primer on Community Forest Enterprises
The commercial utilization of forest resources is often carried out by large corporations
(Dauvergne & Lister, 2011). While this can form the basis for development in forest-dependent
communities, it often produces a range of environmental and social externalities, including
environmental pollution, destruction of ecosystems and wildlife habitat, irreversible resource
depletion, community oppression and displacement, and income inequality (Gabaldon & Gröschl,
2015).
Forest sector corporations are, indeed, aware of these social and environmental problems
and seek to address them through a vast array of initiatives, generally under the auspices of
corporate social responsibility (CSR), or corporate sustainability programs. Typically, these
programs are carried out within a ‘win-win,’ or a shared value paradigm, such that there is
alignment with financial gains and Western ideas of sustainability and economic development
(Voltan et al., 2017). CSR and sustainability programs can be purely self-regulatory, such as
voluntary agreements and certification systems (Cashore, 2015), or they can be built around
economy-wide changes, such as those sought through bio- or circular-economy policies (DeBoer
et al., 2020). These programs have helped forest sector organizations mitigate their environmental
impacts (Panwar et al., 2006; Vidal & Kozak, 2008), but they have often proven to be less effective
in making improvements in the livelihoods of rural and Indigenous communities (Sawyer &
Gomez, 2012). Moreover, CSR initiatives can make communities overly reliant on external
support and thus can make them vulnerable in the long-run (Muthuri et al., 2012; Schneider, 2020).
14
Similarly, interventions designed by state bureaucrats, often disconnected with the needs
and realities of forest peoples, fall short of addressing economic and resource sustainability for the
more than 350 million people globally that live within or near forests and forested lands (FAO,
2018; Gilmour, 2016). Centrally administered programs often struggle with the implementation of
stable systems that provide for critical values, such as hunting, hydrological services, recreation,
and traditional practices, in a way that meet the needs of these forest-dependent communities
without threatening the long term sustainability of forest resources (Erbaugh et al., 2020; Newton
et al., 2016). Both private sector companies and governments are limited in their ability to improve
the plight of forest-dependent peoples around the world. Innovations in resource governance that
places forest management responsibilities on a variety of community-owned local institutions,
offer some hope (Berkes, 1995; Weiss, Ludvig, et al., 2020).
These models underpin the notion of ‘decentralization,’ or ‘devolution,’ of forest rights in
that they leave it up to forest-dependent communities to govern local forest resources in ways that
safeguard resource use and sustenance (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001; Ribot & Peluso, 2009). To a
large extent, decentralization encapsulates the practice of community forestry (Hajjar & Oldekop,
2018), wherein communities manage local forests as a means to enhance sustainable resource use,
consolidate community rights over traditional lands, and provide socio-economic and cultural
benefits. There is mounting case-based evidence that community forestry delivers local benefits
and improves sustainability of forest resources around the world (Agrawal & Chhatre, 2011;
Erbaugh et al., 2020).
15
Community forestry is not limited to forest management practices alone. The commercial
and development aspirations of rural and Indigenous communities that have gained forest access
and management rights resulted in the emergence of CFEs. By incorporating a broader set of goals
and involving diverse stakeholders, CFEs enable rural and Indigenous communities to do more
than just efficiently and collectively pursue the commercial use of forest-based products and
services (Antinori & Bray, 2005). They also focus on redistributing the benefits of these activities
based on locally agreed upon needs and priorities (Ambrose et al., 2015). Thus, CFEs can be seen
to be rural social enterprises (Muñoz et al., 2015) that involve a combination of actors (policy
makers, activists, and community organizers) with a mission of empowering local communities.
CFEs are characteristically hybrid organizations, integrating elements and features from private,
public, and non-profit sector organizations (Doherty et al., 2014).
The main tenets of the hybrid social enterprise nature of CFEs are summarized in Table 2.
Notably, CFEs generate income through manufacturing and selling forest products and services,
and reinvest this income back into social programs, like infrastructure development, education,
healthcare, or resource conservation and sustainability (Antinori & Bray, 2005). They typically
recruit employees from local communities into both staff and management positions (Orozco-
Quintero & Davidson-Hunt, 2009), but they also bring in local volunteers to provide strategic
direction in planning for the enterprise and defining its purpose. It is not uncommon, for example,
to see a variety of actors get involved in the organizational decision-making of a CFE, including
local residents, business associations, conservationists, employees, environmental NGOs, regional
and/or local authorities, and social groups (Egunyu et al., 2016).
16
Table 2 Summary of hybrid characteristics of CFEs
Organizational Criteria Manifestation of Hybridity
Mission
Profits from the commercial utilization of local
forests are reinvested to advance community
well-being and environmental goals
Employee Composition
Dependence on paid staff and volunteers
Employee Expertise
Both professionals and community members
are engaged in forest management and business
decisions
Despite these promising features and the widespread existence of CFEs in developed and
developing countries around the world, recipes to address their unique structures as social
enterprises, and potential tensions and challenges inherent to the model, are not well-understood.
The following methods section has the approach to qualitative meta synthesis which was
conducted with the intent to shed light on the above problem.
2.3 Methods
Qualitative meta-synthesis (QMS) is a type of second-order analysis that involves
purposefully sampling and analyzing qualitative works on a specific body of knowledge using
qualitative methods of analysis and interpretation (Zimmer, 2006). The method was chosen for
two main reasons. First, research on organizational factors in CFEs is assessed primarily through
17
case-based evidence, rather than quantitative analysis of aggregated organizational data (Clare &
Hickey, 2019; Hajjar et al., 2016), which makes QMS a suitable approach for this study (Glasmeier
& Farrigan, 2005). Second, QMS has the ability to facilitate selectiveness and in-depth analysis in
reviewing previous scholarly works (Suri & Clarke, 2009). Unlike traditional review methods,
such as systematic reviews, QMS is interpretative in nature, not aggregative (Erwin et al., 2011),
which befits my objective of finding actionable insights from one literature and applying it to
another scholarly field. Whereas systematic review procedures emphasize exhaustive sampling of
primary research studies, QMS allows for a purposeful selection of a set of studies to obtain a
comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon of interest (Zimmer, 2006). Rather than relying
on a priori search protocols, the nature of emergent themes during the analysis is what determines
the number of studies included in the QMS procedure (Suri & Clarke, 2009).
While systematic reviews may appraise the entire body of primary research studies
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2008), as well as individual sections, such as reporting on research methods
(Nielsen & D’Haen, 2014; Siegner, Hagerman, et al., 2018), QMS is fundamentally about
considering the findings of qualitative and conceptual works, and constructing interpretations of
proposed themes and concepts that characterize the study problem (Suri & Clarke, 2009).
As a first step, a list of major review studies on decentralization and CFEs was compiled
that collate research conducted on these topics since the 1990s – the period that marks the global
uptake of CFE numbers and activities (Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018). Similarly, for the field of
social enterprises, review papers and seminal studies on organizational hybridity and management
of tensions in social enterprises were assembled.
18
These were published in reputable organizational and management journals, and have a
high citation score in the Web of Science and ABIS Inform databases. This list was shared with
five academic experts. Each expert validated the list and provided additional suggestions for
inclusion, which were subsequently incorporated. Next, the list of selected and validated studies
was imported into NVivo qualitative data analysis software (QS Software, Version 11.3.2.
International Pty Ltd., 2016). Each original study was thoroughly read and coded for indicators
that correspond to the characteristics under study. For the literature on CFEs, coding focused on
factors like ‘what social and/or environmental challenges are CFEs offering solutions for?,’, or
‘what are the organizational challenges in delivering set outcomes?’. For the social enterprise
literature, coding focused on the issue of divergence and alignment of plural goals, involving
questions like, ‘how do social enterprises address tensions between divergent sustainability
objectives?,’ and ‘what are the common interventions for addressing tensions stemming from
hybridity?’ During this analytical step, and following a dynamic and iterative approach of
reflecting and creating codes (Zimmer, 2006), additional studies were identified and included if
they were repeatedly referenced in the already included studies. In the final step, initial codes were
aggregated into overarching categories related to the organizational promises and challenges of
CFEs, and characterizations of best-practice recommendations from the literature on social
enterprises and organizational hybridity. The outcomes of this process are explained in the results
and discussion section that follows.
19
2.4 Results and Discussion
The results from the QMS revealed a set of social and ecological problems that CFEs
address through their missions and activities (CFE promises), as well as a shared set of
organizational features that can complicate the ability to effectively achieve plural goals (their
challenges). Sections 2.4.1. and 2.4.2 each elaborate on these identified themes in turn.
2.4.1 Promises of CFEs and Their Varied Facets Around the World
Results from the meta-synthesis confirm previous observations that CFEs do not present a
homogenous group of organizations, but are designed in different ways to address different sets of
problems across forested regions (Ambrose et al., 2015; Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018). For example,
CFEs in the tropics differ in form, primarily as a consequence of the local landscapes and terrain
in which they operate (Clare & Hickey, 2019; Molnar et al., 2007). Those in industrialized
countries (Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018; Teitelbaum, 2014) tend to draw from Western models of
organization, or sometimes incorporate different knowledge systems, most notably Indigenous
knowledge (Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2010; Lawler & Bullock, 2019).
Accordingly, the meta-synthesis depicts the versatility of the CFE model across levels of
national development (developed and developing countries), problem type (social, ecological,
cultural, political), actors involved, and geographic expansion (international, national, local). It
also summarizes core promises of CFEs around the world, namely: poverty alleviation; rural
revitalization; ecologically responsible forestry; and/or protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Each theme is elaborated below and summarized in Table 3 at the end of the section.
20
2.4.1.1 Poverty Reduction
Providing opportunities to lift forest-dependent people out of subsistence use toward
processing and trading timber is a core objective of CFEs across many developing countries
(Kozak, 2009). Such is one avenue for CFEs to achieve this goal in forest-rich areas across Africa,
Latin America, and Asia. CFEs in these regions have been shown to provide a formal financial
avenue for poor communities to shift their focus from forest harvesting as a means of subsistence
to making a living from marketing timber products (Tomaselli & Hajjar, 2011). In Mexico, for
instance, where large forest areas have been managed under CBM for many decades, clusters of
CFEs for timber production and wood processing have grown to support mixed subsistence
economies of farming and logging (Antinori & Bray, 2005). Similarly, many subsistence farmers
in Southeast Asia have transitioned to planting and harvesting of tropical hardwood species, such
as teak and mahogany, as a means of providing higher revenues and creating additional
employment opportunities (Hajjar & Molnar, 2016).
CFEs can cover the entire timber processing chain, with some communities running their
own forest management, timber harvesting, sawmilling, and furniture production operations, and
then selling these products through joint retailing efforts (Villavicencio-Valdez et al., 2012).
Certain CFEs have even sought price premiums through certification of their products by the
Forest Stewardship Council (Wiersum et al., 2013). Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) represent
another common strategy sought by CFEs to lift people out of poverty. Growing demand for herbs
and edibles, used in medicines and as ingredients for consumer items like cosmetics, foods, and
drinks, provides opportunities for CFEs to tap into NTFP markets in meaningful ways (Hajjar &
Molnar, 2016). The development of these sorts of financial opportunities goes hand in hand with
21
the empowerment of marginalized groups, most notably women. The gathering of NTFPs for
household use is one of the key gender-differentiated tasks in forest resource use globally
(Sunderland et al., 2014). But when turned into entrepreneurial opportunities, it can provide a
significant source of cash income for women in poor rural areas. Similarly, accounts of CFE
activities also exist where women take on leadership roles in forestry activities traditionally
associated with males, such as timber harvest and sawmilling (Villavicencio-Valdez et al., 2012).
2.4.1.2 Rural Revitalization
CFEs are also growing in number across developed, high-income countries (S. Teitelbaum,
2016), often motivated by redressing the financial hardships faced by rural communities that have
traditionally depended on forestry. Many of these communities have been severely impacted by
mill closures resulting from faltering global timber and wood product markets, technological changes, and
industry consolidation (Dauvergne & Lister, 2011). In this context, CFEs also fulfill important
poverty reduction functions.
They serve as a buffer to address some of the negative social and financial consequences
following industry decline in rural forestry communities in developed countries, notably by
providing local jobs. In Canada, for instance, a system of publicly owned forest tenures remains
primarily focused on long-term licensing arrangements with large companies (Haley & Nelson,
2007). However, rural communities are increasingly finding themselves deprived of access to
financial opportunities – the original promise of that system – as industrial licensees move their
production facilities to regions with cheaper labour, less stringent environmental regulations,
and/or lower harvesting and production costs (Dauvergne & Lister, 2011). CFEs have emerged as
22
a panacea to fill the void left behind by mill closures in forestry-dependent communities. These
CFEs are often established as co-operatives, limited partnerships, or municipal corporations and
provide opportunities for rural revitalization, with an explicit focus on continued employment of
local residents (Ambus et al., 2007).
This typically occurs in the form of timber harvesting operations and log sort yards that
prioritize local employment, emphasize modest and gradual growth, and aspire to break even
instead of maximizing profits (Teitelbaum, 2016).
2.4.1.3 Ecologically Responsible Forestry
Many high-income countries with traditionally strong forest sectors face increasing public
scrutiny to adopt alternatives to industrial forestry systems that maintain the financial optimization
of timber flows (Haley & Nelson, 2007). This comes out of a growing awareness that these
conventional approaches to forestry have created unacceptable levels of ecological degradation, as
well as social and cultural conflicts, including increasing concerns about how the effects of climate
change will impact the health of forests and the quality of life in rural communities (Furness &
Nelson, 2016). To address this, CFEs oftentimes practice innovative and ecologically responsible
silvicultural techniques (Egunyu et al., 2016). Consequently, CFEs represent a shift in the
constellation of actors involved in forestry, with environmentally-minded groups of local people,
often supported by non-profit organizations and local conservation societies, participating in the
generation of commercial opportunities from forest resources, with a particular emphasis on
community, cultural, and environmental values (Ludvig et al., 2018).
23
While local employment is emphasized by CFEs, another important pillar of their activities
revolves around social learning. This can take on many forms, from community education on
forestry and ecological sustainability (Egunyu et al., 2016) to local people becoming trained to
practice alternatives to industrial forest management (Ambrose et al., 2015). A case in point is an
England-based wood community cooperative that trains youth from socially disadvantaged
backgrounds in woodworking, subsidizing part of the costs of the program through small-scale
timber harvesting and firewood sales (Blundel & Lyon, 2015). Similar initiatives also exist in
Canada, for example in British Columbia, where a community forest society runs a partnership
with the province to provide training in local harvesting techniques, small-scale milling, and
carpentry (Egunyu et al., 2016). Notably, CFEs that are focused on sustainable forestry also tend
to seek out value-added activities that are seen not only as a means of innovating and entering new
markets, but as a viable alternative to traditional commodity approaches (Kozak, 2009). These
activities are varied and context-specific, ranging from the marketing of traditional NTFPs, like
medicinals, crafts, and arts, to the custom milling of logs that are harvested on a small-scale
(Egunyu et al., 2016).
2.4.1.4 Protection of Indigenous Rights
CFEs have also been shown to empower Indigenous peoples who face marginalization,
institutionalized oppression, and assimilation of their cultures as a result of historic colonial
practices – both within and outside of natural resources contexts (Sawyer & Gomez, 2012).
Although Indigenous peoples make up only 5% of the global population, they account for 15% of
the extreme poor (The World Bank, 2019).
24
In forested nations with Indigenous populations, the picture is similarly grim. In Canada,
for example, Indigenous populations have lower educational attainment than the national average,
are over represented in low-paying jobs, and are more likely to live in communities that struggle
to attract and retain businesses due to a lack of adequate housing, water, and transportation
infrastructure (NIEDB, 2019). In developing countries across Latin America, where CFEs are
prevalent organization forms, Indigenous peoples are half as likely to work in high-skilled
professions, but seven times more likely to work in the informal sector (The World Bank, 2015).
Indigenous peoples have increasingly turned to entrepreneurial activities as a means of countering
these negative trends (Colbourne, 2017). In forest-rich regions, Indigenous peoples have
historically relied on local forestland for their livelihoods, and critical elements of their cultural
existence, including education, recreation, spirituality, rituals, social relations, to name a few.
These are all tied to the use of forest resources (Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2007). For these reasons,
CFEs represent a particularly promising means of enabling Indigenous peoples to draw on their
unique identities, worldviews, and experiences in forest-related businesses.(Colbourne, 2017).
CFEs with Indigenous peoples typically incorporate traditional knowledge into the
operations and decision-making of the business, and can be run under partnership agreements with
non-Indigenous owners or be fully Indigenous-owned (Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2007). For
example, traditional approaches to forest management have been observed in many Indigenous
communities in tropical regions (Antinori & Bray, 2005) and have also been expressed in the way
governance is practiced, notably through deploying collective deliberative procedures that allow
members to reflect on community norms and values (Nikolakis et al., 2016).
25
NTFPs such as crafts, medicinal plants, and foods, are some of the more common ways of
expressing traditional knowledge as a financial opportunity in the context of Indigenous CFEs.
They are also an effective means of passing this knowledge on from generation to generation.
Specific examples of such activities include the sale of wild edibles from local forests, or the
production of crafts and ceremonial regalia from wild plants (Colbourne, 2017).
Another way in which Indigenous CFEs draw from traditional knowledge to practice
entrepreneurship is through ecotourism operations, displaying elements of Indigenous culture to a
paying clientele, notably international travelers, while allowing them to retain culturally significant
forest-related traditions and heritage. This includes hunting, fishing, cultural walking tours that
involve sharing forest-related rituals, stories, and visiting important sites, and the use of local
timber for lodging built with Indigenous architectural elements (Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2007).
26
Table 3 Promises of CFEs around the world
Promise CFEs Conceptualization
to Deliver Promise Primary Regions
Actors Driving
CFE Model
Examples of
Activities
Poverty Reduction
A framework for the poor to
move beyond subsistence
economies, and instead
become market players in the
trade of forest products and
services (Kozak, 2009)
Developing Countries
Governments; Development
Agencies; Nonprofit
Organizations; Corporate
Philanthropists and Social
Entrepreneurs
Growth and harvest of
tropical timber species on
agroforestry plantations to
supply furniture-making and
other factories (Hajjar &
Molnar, 2016)
Processing of forest-based
edible oils for international
export (Sunderland et al.,
2014)
Rural Revitalization
An opportunity to fill the void
in the loss of forestry jobs
following industry decline
(Ambus et al., 2007)
Developed Countries
Local Government;
Municipal Administrations;
Worker Unions,
Cooperatives;
Public-Private Partnerships
Community-owned timber
harvesting and log-sort yard
facilities (Teitelbaum, 2016)
Ecologically
Responsible Forestry
An opportunity to blend
environmental activism with
formal enterprise logic to
practically demonstrate
ecologically sensible, non-
mainstream, silvicultural
practices (Ludvig et al., 2018)
Developed Countries
Grassroots-Level Groups;
Environmental NGOs,
Cooperatives and Nonprofit
Societies
Training facilities for youth
(Ambrose et al., 2015)
Community-led, small-scale
wood products manufacturing
and marketing of NTFPs
(Egunyu et al., 2016)
27
Promise CFEs Conceptualization to
Deliver Promise Primary Regions
Actors Driving CFE
Model
Examples of
Activities
Protection of
Indigenous Rights
A tool for Indigenous groups
to draw on their unique
identities, worldviews, and
experiences in
commercializing local forest
resources (Berkes & Hunt-
Davidson, 2007)
Developed and Developing
Countries
Indigenous and Western
Governments; Community
Activists; NGOs and
Solidarity Networks
Ecotourism operations
focusing on traditional
forestlands (Colbourne, 2017)
Timber business councils
representing customary forest
norms and values (Orozco-
Quintero and Davidson-Hunt,
2009)
28
2.4.2 Challenges of CFEs and the Importance of Effective Organization
CFEs often struggle to meet their plural goals, something which has been extensively
described in relation to institutional contexts, technical assistance, and the broader market within
which CFEs operate (Antinori & Bray, 2005; Carías Vega & Keenan, 2016; Macqueen, 2013).
The meta-synthesis uncovered similar challenges. However, organizational criteria were used as
the focus of the analysis. This revealed the following themes related to CFEs’ attempts to align
community and commercial demands: organizational identity, governance, scaling-up, and
performance measures. Each challenge is discussed in turn, and summarized in Table 4.
2.4.2.1 Organizational Identity
CFEs, by nature, are rooted in a place and embedded in the features of a particular local
community. However, meeting their goals in an international marketplace requires them to
participate in a complex global business network (Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2007). As a result of
this need to resonate with both local and global audiences, they face what could be categorized as
an ‘organizational identity’ challenge. If CFEs opt for an ‘outside-in’ approach, wherein
knowledge and perspectives from the outside are brought into the local community, they run the
risk of undermining their missions and values. If, however, they pursue an ‘inside-out’ approach,
wherein they prioritize local values and connect to the world by keeping those values intact, they
may find themselves disconnected with the realities of external markets, lose customers, and miss
out on advances in technological and market know-how.
29
This need to engage in global markets while engaging local members of the community
from the ground-up presents a major trade-offs for CFEs. While this ‘outside-in’ versus ‘inside-
out’ trade-offs can be reconciled through innovative partnerships and collaborations (Kozak,
2009), this seldom happens. Many CFEs have failed in their efforts to successfully implement far-
reaching marketing efforts at the local level (Wiersum et al., 2013). This is especially true when
CFEs are confronted with making decisions for their product lines and activities. What may be
desired in the market may not necessarily align with community visions and goals in terms of the
use of local forest resources. CFEs in Mexico, for instance, whose practices are rooted in collective
forest harvesting, faced pressures by government experts and donors to seize a market opportunity
by converting parts of their forestland into individualized plots for higher-value tree crop
production. This, however, contradicted with their fundamentally local identity (Orozco-Quintero
& Davidson-Hunt, 2009). Similarly, the adoption of sustainable forest certification by CFEs,
which requires adhering to practices specified by outside agencies, may conflict with the
community-driven decision-making processes. Communities in habited by Indigienous knowledge
holder may have very different views of what constitutes sound forest management practices than
a third-party agency like the Forest Stewardship Council (Wiersum et al., 2013).
2.4.2.2 Governance
CFEs face governance challenges as a result of their community ownership and decision-
making structures. The complication arises from the fact that community members – who may or
may not have business experience – are asked to make key business decisions, alongside staff who
30
are entrusted with the day-to-day operations of the organization (Antinori & Bray, 2005). This
creates a potential conflict between community governing boards and CFE management with
respect to what constitutes adequate courses of action.
A genuine participatory process must incorporate diverse perspectives, but this may pose
a risk to the business. In other words, it may be difficult to reconcile local community interests
with broader growth and production targets, leading to inefficient enterprises. Ideally, CFEs need
to incorporate community participatory mechanisms that ensure a balance between giving voice
to a diverse set of local actors and safeguarding the financial viability of the business. This can be
accomplished with separate management, governance, and community advisory arms formalized
within CFE structures (Orozco-Quintero & Davidson-Hunt, 2009). It also requires careful attention
to fair and transparent community deliberation processes. Failure to do so may result in conflicting
mandates informing the strategic direction of the CFE, leaving management with contradictory
prescriptions for various courses of action. For example, local groups may find that conservation
is a central objective for the CFE, but this may be at odds with a mandate that empowers
management with the task of growing forestry operations to maximize local employment (Antinori
& Bray, 2005).
2.4.2.3 Scaling-Up
CFEs, because of their social mission to improve the well-being of rural and Indigenous
communities, seek to scale-up their impacts as a means of broadening and deepening the extent to
which they meet critical local needs (Mair et al., 2016). In the social enterprise context, scaling
31
strategies generally try to replicate the business model, not necessarily grow it (Lyon & Fernandez,
2012). This is because social enterprises tend to focus on building deep and meaningful
relationships with beneficiaries, and pursue a slow approach to building endogenous capacity for
the organization to endure in local contexts in the long-term (Fosfuri et al., 2016).
Similarly, in CFE contexts, past studies have observed that they often partner with other
like-minded organizations, be they for-profit, or non-profit, and explore commercial opportunities
other than the sales of timber in order to tap into unique capacities and strengths in the community
(Macqueen, 2013). For some CFEs, this might entail throughput and production of products and
services in a particular niche market (Villavicencio Valdez et al., 2012), or by clustering with other
CFEs to create economies of scale (Kozak, 2009).
However, scaling or replicating the business model may paradoxically result in a situation
where CFEs are successful at developing their market activities, at the expense of their social and
environmental objectives in the community. This can happen when they are at risk of losing sight
over a core aspect of their social mission, namely ensuring that organizational decision-making
reflects community participation (Antinori & Bray, 2005).
In other words, in the process of scaling their impact, be it through endogenous efforts in
the local community, or through replication of the business model in other regions, there is a
potential for CFEs to drift from their original scope as community enterprises rooted in local
values, towards becoming more conventional for-profit forest businesses. This is exacerbated by
the fact that, as the CFEs scale-up and grow, there is a tendency for them to become more risk-
averse with respect to consulting the broader community. With more capital at stake for making
32
investments in expensive equipment or new business opportunities, many CFEs have deferred to
the leadership of a small number of technically experienced staff and board members, potentially
alienating community members who feel insufficiently consulted in the process (Orozco-Quintero
& Davidson-Hunt, 2009). Small groups of ‘experts’ may not only steer the growth process away
from community interests, but they may also divert funds away from collective community
purposes. This may result in situations where the CFE grows as a business and generates revenues
for the local community, but the collective process disappears. In some instances, this may simply
result in community apathy, where some community benefits are generated, but with less
democratic process for their generation and distribution.
However, in other circumstances, particularly in developing economies where there may
be a lack of institutional oversight, governance by ‘experts’ or steering of the CFE by local elites
can manifest in levels of corruption, mismanagement, and advancing personal business interests
(Carias-Vega & Keenan, 2016). Not surprisingly, this can result in local mistrust, an erosion of
conservation-based values, and even the withdrawal of government and donor support (Kozak,
2009)
2.4.2.4 Performance Measures
Reporting on performance poses an additional difficulty for CFEs. Resource sustainability
metrics used to measure long-term progress towards achieving conservation goals are often at odds
with short-term activities aiming at the generation of revenues and job creation (Macqueen, 2013).
For example, a UK-based CFE was criticized by local environmentalists for increasing logging
33
volumes to finance a training program for unemployed youth and ignoring forest sustainability
metrics (Blundel & Lyon, 2015). Likewise, a group of CFEs in Guatemala that was successful in
growing their operations for sustainably certified timber, experienced pushback from national and
international conservation groups worried about the long-term viability of local conservation areas.
In order to mitigate these pressures and regain legitimacy, the group traded-off higher profit
margins by marketing NTFPs instead of timber (Taylor, 2010).
Table 4 Challenges facing CFEs around the world
Challenge
Manifestation
Organizational Identity
‘Outside-in’ efforts to connect with the market do not
necessarily reconcile with ‘inside-out’ efforts to build a
community business from the ground up
Governance
What may be desired from a community decision-making
perspective may be inefficient viewed through a business
management lens
Challenge
Manifestation
Scaling-Up
More aggressive business operations may come at the cost of
losing sight over community values and local participation
Performance Measures
Long-term metrics for measuring achievement of social and
environmental success are at odds with short-term
measurement of financial indicators
34
2.4.3 Addressing Challenges: Lessons from the Social Enterprise Literature
Outlined below are solutions that were distilled from the social enterprise literature to
address challenges facing CFEs. While these solutions are generic in nature, they can be adapted
and fine-tuned to fit specific contexts and cases of CFEs. Figure 2, at the end of the section,
provides a summary of the proposed solutions.
2.4.3.1 Addressing the Organizational Identity Challenge: Setting Hybrid Goals
and Hiring Strategies
One way for CFEs to reconcile challenges stemming from their ‘outside-in’ market versus
‘inside-out’ community focus could be to formulate goal directives in a manner that is compatible
with the needs and aspirations of their various local constituents.
By formulating a unified set of moral (community-values) and pragmatic (business-
oriented) aims within an organizations’ mission, a foundation is laid such that by-laws and policies
can be continuously adapted as opportunities arise. This can bring the tension between ‘locals’ and
‘outsiders’ to the fore. For social enterprises, this ongoing re-negotiation of organizational goals
among membership has proven to be an effective means of securing the long-term support of
divergent constituents (Ashforth & Reingen, 2014) and may well represent a promising route for
CFEs to take. Alternatively, CFEs may consider formulating longer-term strategic plans for
addressing their goals. Such practices have proven to help social enterprises manage stakeholder
expectations (Siegner, Pinkse, et al., 2018).
35
A second measure for CFEs to address the identity challenge could be to adopt specific
hiring strategies. Recruiting individuals capable of working at the intersection of business and
community services has proven to be beneficial for social enterprises in protecting their hybrid
features (Doherty et al., 2014; Farmer et al., 2020). One way for CFEs to attract such individuals
could be through adopting a ‘specialized profiles’ approach, which involves recruiting individuals
with past experience in both business and community realms (W. Smith et al., 2013).
Alternatively, they could adopt a ‘mix and match’ approach (Jackson et al., 2018). This
would entail selecting individuals with either a background in business or non-profit organizations
and installing ‘spaces of negotiation’ (Battilana et al., 2015). Targeted meetings can be held to
foster dialogue and address conflict between groups with different backgrounds and contexts.
These hiring strategies could prove particularly useful for CFEs located in developed
countries. These CFEs may have easy access to a large work force with significant industry
knowledge and also a large pool of trained people in social sector organizations. For CFEs in
developing countries and/or Indigenous communities where partnerships are typically catalyzed
by NGOs and government support, recruiting members with no prior experience in either the
business sector or community organizing might be more practical. Adopting such a ‘blank slate’
approach to hiring (Battilana & Dorado, 2010) has proven effective for many social enterprises
because their staff and volunteers become deeply familiar with each organization’s unique needs
and values. This approach of organically developing a home-grown cadre of employees has been
shown to lead to a specialized and loyal workforce over time.
36
2.4.3.2 Addressing the Governance Challenge: (Re)Structuring Hybrid Activities
In order to address challenges around meeting the expectations of various groups of local
beneficiaries (Egunyu et al., 2016), CFEs may want to (re)structure their organizations to
effectively accommodate two distinct social purpose-oriented activities that seem to be common
across most CFEs: employing and training members of the community and reinvesting income to
improve local well-being. The first activity, employing and training community members, places
CFEs in a category of so called ‘integrated hybrids’ (Ebrahim et al., 2014).
These are social enterprises where the social purpose of the organization is advanced with
every business transaction and whose beneficiaries directly participate in the organization. For
social enterprises that adopt such an integrated approach, a function of effective governance is to
ensure that activities involving beneficiaries produce desired empowerment outcomes (Haugh &
Talwar, 2016). For CFEs, this gives members of the local community a voice and allows them to
play a direct role in the organization. This can be achieved, for example, with board representation
or through consultation using targeted surveys and feedback sessions with the community-at-large
(Finlayson & Roy, 2019).
With the second activity, reinvesting income locally, CFEs concurrently fall in the
‘differentiated hybrids’ category (Ebrahim et al., 2014). These are social enterprises that use
commercial operations to directly finance social and/or environmental projects. Setting up
designated units in organizations that steer community reinvestments, or forming separate
organizational arms in the forms of charities or foundations, can help differentiated hybrids
monitor the transfer of income from financial to social and/or environmental activities.
37
For CFEs, this could be achieved through the formation of local steering committees –
comprised of non-employee community representatives – that independently evaluate business
portfolios in light of opportunities for reinvesting funds locally. Having such structures in place
can help to ensure that a CFEs’ aspirations to grow the business (a goal that is typically in the
interest of local leaders and enterprise employees) do not take a disproportionate precedence over
financing projects in the community, or vice versa (Carias-Vega & Keenan, 2016).
Alternatively, in instances where CFEs are set up as businesses that pay a tax to the local
government, elected bodies of village officials may use those payments towards local development
projects. Thereby they avoid the need to set up internal structures to organize the redistribution of
revenues for socially and environmentally desirable projects (Benner et al., 2014).
2.4.3.3 Addressing the Scaling-Up Challenge: Building Mixed Funding Portfolios
CFEs may seek to address challenges related to scaling their business and social impact by
attracting multiple funding sources, such as private investors, government agencies, and charity
donors. For social enterprises across different sectors, it has been found that their hybrid nature
can help them in building up such mixed funding portfolios. This can serve to provide a buffer
against economic cycles (Mazzei, 2017). Diversifying the funding base can be achieved in a
number of ways. For example, CFEs could foster an individual approach to scaling, whereby they
endow a unit, or position in the organization, with the specific purpose of fundraising.
38
An important function then becomes matching the market potential of products and
services identified with detailed knowledge of potential funding programs and agencies (Mazzei,
2017). CFEs may emphasize opportunities for networking and collaboration by seeking the
‘strength in numbers’ formed through associations and collaborative networks. Working in tandem
with other like-minded organizations at conferences, trade shows, marketing forums, and
fundraising events has been shown to offer social enterprises opportunities to build and cultivate
connections, access opportunities to secure novel funds, and learn about the strategies of other
social enterprises (Siegner, Pinkse, et al., 2018). Pursuing such a collective strategy has also proven
to be an effective way for social enterprises to approach scaling beyond the boundaries of
individual organizations, vis-à-vis collective efforts to access shared funds, build and grow
associations, and joint branding and marketing efforts (Lam et al., 2020; Muñoz et al., 2015).
Success in these types of joint initiatives typically takes a long-term view, where the focus is on
growing a particular social cause-oriented organizational form, rather than on individual
organizations only (Hervieux & Voltan, 2019; Slee, 2020).
Some CFEs are already organizing themselves into networks and associations of sorts
(Mulkey & Kenneth, 2012; Villavicencio Valdez et al., 2012). Building on these opportunities for
collaboration and joint growth could strategically help CFEs in extending their reach and impact
in local communities.
39
Taking the lead from many social enterprises which adopt both short- and long-term
approaches to managing their funding portfolios, CFEs can focus on scaling-up in the short term
(growth of operations and number of beneficiaries served) , while targeting scaling-out in the long
term (replication of the broader social mission beyond the one organization) (Siegner, Pinkse, et
al., 2018).
2.4.3.4 Addressing the Performance Measures Challenge: Quantifying Social Impact
Many CFEs face challenges in aligning their short-term financial objectives with their
long-term social and environmental goals. One of the key issues is how to track and measure
seemingly irreconcilable goals. In the context of social enterprises, it is generally recognized that
the measurement of social impact constitutes an important means to evaluate their practices. It has
even been posited that coming up with criteria for assessing social impact, in ways that challenge
common practices for the measurement of organizational success, in and of itself, constitutes an
important deliverable in terms of bringing about societal change (Hervieux & Voltan, 2019). To
that end, some social enterprises have successfully experimented with separating their financial
goals from their social and environmental goals in discrete time and space intervals to allow for a
better tracking of progress on each of these plural activities (W. Smith et al., 2013). CFEs could
also adopt their own indicators for social and environmental accounting. This approach has
allowed social enterprises to signal their dual purpose to stakeholders and encourage collective
deliberation among different interest groups (Siegner, Pinkse, et al., 2018).
40
CFEs can also follow the path of many other social enterprises that participate as members
of prosocial organizational categories such as ‘B Corp,’ an independent certification mechanism
that allows SEs to track their social performance (Stubbs, 2017). Whether it makes sense for CFEs
to sign up for B Corp certification will depend on an assessment of the advantages gained.
This is not unlike the scrutiny that is applied to forest certification schemes (like the Forest
Stewardship Council), which are widely promoted and used by many CFEs, but often fail to
produce anticipated market benefits and are costly to maintain (Wiersum et al., 2013).
Figure 2 Solutions for Management Challenges
CFE Challenges
Organizational Identity
Governance
Scaling-Up
Managing Hybridity
Performance Measures
Setting Goals:
• Unison
• Separate
Adopting Hiring Strategies:
• Specialized
• Mix and Match
• Blank Slate
(Re)Structuring Activities:
• Integrated
• Differentiated
Building Mixed Funding Portfolios:
• Individual
• Cooperation-based
Measuring Social Impact:
• Internal
• Facilitated though Certification
41
2.5 Conclusions
Community Forest Enterprises (CFEs) represent a growing and promising business model
that facilitates the achievement of financial, social, and environmental goals in the forest sector.
While CFEs’ plural goal structure is well-documented in the literature, meta-synthesis shows the
diversity among forms, structures, and activities of CFEs. The chapter further illustrates how CFEs
are contextually defined and place-based entities that heavily draw on surrounding knowledge
systems (e.g. Indigenous and local knowledge), despite sharing a common set of hybrid
organizational characteristics,. Thus, there is a great diversity within what is typically considered
a singular business model. Finally, meta-synthesis illustrates that CFEs face four major
management challenges that are related to organizational identity, governance, scaling-up, and
performance measurement respectively. The chapter also demonstrates that these challenges can
be targeted through specific interventions identified in the social enterprise literature (Fig. 2).
Overall, the results point to valuable lessons and insights for CFEs to effectively manage
human resources, market products and services, generate funds, develop conducive organizational
cultures, and deploy performance indicators in a manner that is congruent with the simultaneous
pursuit of financial, social, and environmental goals. These findings can help associations, rural
agencies, Indigenous governments, cooperative networks, and supporting institutions to manage
and scale CFEs. Indeed, the findings would also serve practitioners and policy-makers who are
entrusted to increase the likelihood of success for this innovative business model.
42
This chapter not only draws from the social enterprise literature, it enriches it as well, by
infusing it with research on decentralized decision-making, community participation, and CFEs.
While previous studies have noted how governments support social enterprises as a means to
community empowerment and decentralized decision-making, the unique context of CFEs
demonstrates how these principles can actually be put into practice in forest-dependent rural and
Indigenous communities. The context of CFEs, in particular the promise to manage natural
resources, provides fertile ground to further validate proven approaches in the social enterprise
literature (Kerlin, 2013). For example, the contributions that social enterprises can make to
improve social and environmental conditions must be understood in light of historic developments,
political and cultural factors, and governance and economic characteristics of institutions that form
and evolve over time (Millar et al., 2013; Nicholls, 2010; Roy et al., 2015).
This could explain, for instance, why it is that donors and nonprofits are the dominant
actors behind the development of CFEs in the Global South, where state institutions may be weak
and the primary objective is to alleviate poverty in forest-dependent communities. The social
enterprise literature also demonstrates that, for many sectors, the search for alternative
organizational forms is common in an increasingly complex global environment, but is, by no
means, a novelty. Indeed, it has been shown that such ‘alternative circuits’ (Moulaert & Ailenei,
2005) – institutional initiatives that offer solutions to social and environmental problems beyond
those produced by the state and the market – have been a common occurrence throughout history
(Galera & Borzaga, 2009).
43
While these analyses are typically linked to social sector contexts (Haugh, 2021; Pinch &
Sunley, 2015), CFEs provide an example of how the social enterprise literature could leverage
these approaches to provide insights on the historical progression of novel organizational forms
that address sustainability in the natural resource sector. Taken together, this chapter offers a novel
cross-fertilization of scholarly fields with a shared interest in sustainable development. It seeks to
stimulate discourse at the intersection of these two fields as a promising path to contribute to
greater interdisciplinary efforts and cross-sectoral dialogue, both of which are needed to redirect
progress towards addressing the multitude of sustainability challenges.
44
Chapter 3: Unpacking Community Involvement in Social Enterprise
Decision-Making: Evidence from Six Community Forest Enterprises in
Canada
3.1 Introduction
Business and society scholars have long recognized the need for companies to involve local
communities in developing corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs (Banerjee, 2003;
Valente, 2012). However, the ways to effectively ensure community participation are not well
understood (Boehm, 2005; Fujimoto et al., 2019; Gold et al., 2018). This lack of understanding is
problematic for all companies which aspire to be socially responsible; but it is particularly relevant
to social enterprises (SEs) which espouse community empowerment as one of their central goals
(Haigh & Hoffman, 2014; Haugh, 2007). Without meaningfully engaging surrounding
communities and empowering them to participate in a broad range of economic, social, and
environmental initiatives, SEs can make only limited progress toward achieving their social and
environmental goals, whether they be related to climate change, poverty, or indecent work
conditions (Ferraro et al., 2015; Seelos et al., 2011). Given the central importance of communities
for SEs, the lack of research to help them engage communities and ensure their participation in
strategic and operational matters is perplexing (Lumpkin et al., 2018; Mair et al., 2016). Perhaps
it can be explained by the fact that SE scholars too often presume social entrepreneurs to possess
extraordinary abilities to connect with communities (Bornstein, 2007, Nicholls, 2010).
45
Then again, it is now commonly understood that SEs, like any other organization, face
tensions in balancing their multi-faceted goals (Smith et al., 2013) and make trade-offs in
achieving them (Siegner, Pinkse, et al., 2018).
What are the challenges that SEs face in engaging local communities? Are these challenges
overcome through systematic managerial interventions or the serendipitous ingenuity of social
entrepreneurs? Given the importance of these questions and the lack of guidance that previous
literature offers, this paper investigates (i) how SEs involve communities in their decision-making;
(ii) whether they face any challenges in doing so, and; (iii) how they can overcome these
challenges. To answer these questions, this chapter explores a unique context of community forest
enterprises (CFEs) operating in the Canadian forest sector. CFEs are an emblematic case of SEs
that have evolved as a result of decentralized decision-making for sustainable utilization of natural
resources. CFEs are owned and operated by communities that reside within or near forest areas.
Like a typical SE, CFEs pursue multiple social, environmental, and financial objectives (Anderson
et al., 2006; Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2010). This study is based on six cases of CFEs in the
Canadian Province of British Columbia.
46
3.2 Theoretical Background
3.2.1 Goal Attainment in Social Enterprises
A much studied characteristic of SEs is their hybridity, which refers to organizations that
borrow elements from established organizational categories and combine them into novel forms
(Battilana & Lee, 2014). In the context of SEs, hybridity involves blending aspects of the private
and non-profit organizational form, variably combining a commercial logic with social,
environmental, and/or development logics (Doherty et al., 2014). A main concern in the literature
on SEs as hybrid organizations is the assertation that the combination of organizational forms and
logics has potential for innovation but also causes conflict and tension (Battilana & Lee, 2014).
Drawing from paradox theory (Smith & Lewis, 2011) and tension frameworks (Hahn et
al., 2015; Van der Byl & Slawinski, 2015), a rich literature has emerged that describes the varied
nature of competing demands stemming from logic multiplicity in SEs, notably the commercial-
social tension (Smith et al., 2013), but beyond that, also comprises studies that identify tensions
within SEs’ social missions (Siegner, Pinkse, et al., 2018) or scopes of activities (Kannothra et al.,
2017). In this chapter, it is suggested that the current understanding of the hybrid nature of SEs
can be further enriched by drawing the distinction between outcomes and process in goal
attainment, which is well described in the literature on team adaptation and performance in for-
profit organizations (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Woolley, 2009), but has been used only to a
limited extent to understand SEs.
47
An outcome focus is emphasized in the literature on SEs’ organizational missions, namely,
setting up and running commercial operations with the specific intent to tackle pressing social or
environmental ills (Mair & Martí, 2006). Common examples are microfinance organizations that
seek to alleviate poverty through the provision of loans to poor borrowers (Battilana & Dorado,
2010), or fair trade organizations working to empower smallholders in supply chains (Mason &
Doherty, 2016). An outcome focus also refers to monitoring progress toward final products and
results – the ‘what’ in organizations (Woolley, 2009). In the case of SEs, these are often intangible
in nature (Austin et al., 2006), requiring evaluation metrics and definitions of success that capture
elements of social change beyond just the bottom-line (Ebrahim et al., 2014). In short, an outcome
focus involves prescriptive steps to reach a desired state, which, in the case of most SEs, is the
intent to scale up and increase the reach and number of beneficiaries, while remaining financially
viable and maintaining quality social deliverables (Bauwens et al., 2019; Ometto et al., 2019).
In contrast, a process focus refers to devoting attention to means, or the ‘how,’ of attaining
organizational goals (McGrath, 1984), and employs conscious steps and reflective measures in
light of changing environmental conditions (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Woolley, 2009). It has
been well described, for instance, that SEs employ cultural and behavioral tactics that are uniquely
distinct from conventional businesses (Haigh & Hoffman, 2014). SEs have also been observed to
‘do things differently’ than traditional businesses, be it in the way they appeal to their customers
as allies in contributing to the betterment of society (Fosfuri et al., 2016), or that they attract a suite
of employees that accept lower pay in exchange for value-alignment (Lee & Jay, 2015).
48
In the context of traditional organizations, the relative emphasis placed on either an
outcome focus or a process focus in goal attainment has consequences for performance. An
excessive process focus (e.g., method centrism in large, mature organizations) can come at the
expense of agility and dynamism. A strong emphasis on an outcome focus (e.g., target-centrism in
high-velocity environments) may compromise long-term strategizing and innovation potential,
notably by making room for enlisting diverse perspectives and foci (Woolley, 2009). Due to a
mutual dependency of both outcome and process foci in attaining organizational goals, it has been
emphasized that effective organizations ultimately have to balance both simultaneously (Tushman
& O’Reilly, 1996). Similarly, SEs may espouse process in maintaining close partnerships with
other organizations in their industries as a means to enlist societal change, beyond the boundaries
of the single organization (Lee & Jay, 2015). Yet, doing so excessively may distract from achieving
set outcomes in terms of achieving set targets for products sold, beneficiaries served, and financial
goals met.
This chapter suggests that distinguishing between an outcome focus and a process focus in
goal attainment is useful for the study of SEs and hybridity. The commercial-social tension in SEs
indicates the prevalence of competing demands between business venture and social mission, as
expressed through challenges in SEs’ structures, governance models, and operations that warrant
management (Smith et al., 2013). The distinction between an outcome focus and a process focus
in goal attainment completes the commercial-social tension framework by allowing a
determination of whether the ‘social’ in any given tension situation is related to a desired final
state (e.g., eradicating poverty) or to steps taken to reach that state (e.g., in a democratic and
49
empowering manner). Thus, the chapter argues that both an outcome focus and a process focus
can be parsed out in SEs plural goal structures and be individually examined. Doing so can help
them thrive amid competing demands stemming from hybridity. In particular, it is suggested that
combining the distinction between an outcome focus and a process focus with the commercial-
social tension framework helps illuminate operational realities of SEs in regard to empowerment
of constituents. This includes issues pertaining to the involvement of local communities in
organizational decisions. So far, the community-centric nature of SEs has mainly been examined
through descriptions of democratic organization (Ashforth & Reingen, 2014; Mitzinneck &
Besharov, 2018), as well as direct members and employees (Battilana et al., 2015; Ometto et al.,
2019). however, local communities’ involvement in SEs and the operational realities of SEs
seeking such local involvement, remains largely unexplored.
3.2.2 Community Involvement in Organizational Decisions
Today, the scientific management paradigm, with its two core tenets of managerial
hierarchies and functional specialization (Scott & Davis, 2016), is increasingly being supplanted
by cross-sectoral and cross-societal collaborations to address grand challenges facing society
(Ferraro et al., 2015). Many of these can only be achieved through greater community
involvement. For example, public sector organizations, such as government agencies and service
providers, are increasingly charged with involving communities in the decision-making process.
In doing so, they hope to foster citizenship values, help achieve better decisions, and improve trust
(Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Similarly, private companies that form partnerships with local
50
communities as part of their CSR programs increasingly turn to participatory strategies (Muthuri
et al., 2009) to maintain legitimacy (Panwar et al., 2014) and goal attainment (Waddock & Smith,
2000). Community participation has also become a near-ubiquitous theme in the area of
international development, where more and more development aid organizations promote a social
change model that emphasizes community involvement and empowerment (Mansuri & Rao,
2013).
Organizations foster community involvement and participatory decision-making in many
ways. Some develop in-house mechanisms through dispersing information to local community
members, undertaking surveys to gather opinions, and establishing community forums and
advisory committees (Bryson et al., 2013). Others choose to use third parties to carry out these
functions (Idemudia, 2014). Some use direct, in-person meetings with community members, while
others make use of the widespread availability and rapid progress of digitization and information
sharing tools, searching for ways to facilitate dialogue with local community members online
(Fujimoto et al., 2016). Whether in-house or through third parties, in-person or digitally,
organizations allow for community involvement in organizational decisions to varying degrees.
Work that has studied community activities generally classifies these efforts into weaker
versus stronger forms of participation, building on the original work by Arnstein (1969) who
proposed a ladder of participation in four stages. The first two stages – informing and consulting
– encompass information-sharing and community hearing activities. And, stages three and four –
collaboration and empowerment – entail various types of community partnerships, and ultimately,
community control of the decision process. Aside from the many ways that community
51
involvement can be sought, one problem facing all organizations is how to make community
involvement in decision-making harmonious, and ideally, complimentary with decisions made by
professionals and area experts (Glew et al., 1995). Involving community members in decision-
making may not always be compatible with the competency and accountability of professional
experts (Webler, 1999). For example, community members may simply not know enough about
an issue to make informed judgements. Or they may lack necessary group-decision making and
communication skills, making it difficult to arrive at consensual decisions (Irvin & Stansbury,
2004). Worst still, community members may not even be willing to fully and regularly participate
in decision-making sessions. This could make it difficult for an organization to move forward with
set timelines and proper use of available resources to facilitate participatory decision-making
processes (Muthuri et al., 2009).
Because of these difficulties, organizations often compromise community involvement in
decision-making, even when they do not want to. This is true for private businesses that typically
take a cost-benefit view (Pfeffer, 2013), but also for government organizations that are increasingly
subjected to similar pressures (Bryson et al., 2013). Many nonprofit organizations, in turn, strongly
embrace participatory decision-making, and are generally able to justify it to their stakeholders,
including donors (Saxton, 2005). But, how do hybrid organizations, like SEs, handle the tension
between adopting participatory decision making and being professionally and profitably run? One
could argue that they would behave similar to private businesses and government organizations
because they are judged by stakeholders based on the ability to remain financially viable (Pache
& Santos, 2013).
52
One could also make an equally strong case that they would behave much like nonprofits,
because community empowerment is a defining characteristic that is often espoused in their legal
form and mission statement (Haigh & Hoffman, 2014). The next sections describe the case of six
community forest enterprises (CFEs) in the Canadian forest sector that have been purposefully
selected to explore these relationships.
3.3 Methods
3.3.1 Research Context
CFEs are small-scale production and processing entities owned and operated by forest-
dwelling rural and Indigenous communities. They produce a range of timber and non-timber forest
products and occur in all forested regions of the world (Antinori & Bray, 2005). CFEs emphasize
local development by fostering employment and directing revenues into community projects,
while also emphasizing the long-term sustainability of local values and resource systems (Haugh,
2007). In combining financial, social, and environmental goals at their core, they resemble other
hybrids that incorporate logics and practices from commercial businesses, as well as community
organizations and environmental groups (Huybrechts & Haugh, 2018).
The six organizations that were studied for this chapter are all based in the Canadian
Province of British Columbia (BC). In BC, CFEs arose during the 1990s under the leadership of a
loose coalition of activists (labour, environmentalists, communities, and First Nations). These
groups sought changes in the forest sector during a time when the provincial government was
searching for policy responses to mass protests against old-growth logging (Ambus, 2016).
53
A decentralized, community-based model was put forward as a means to generate local
jobs and experiment with alternatives to industrial-scale logging. The model enabled First Nations
to strengthen control over their traditional territories (Bullock et al., 2009). CFEs were
subsequently shaped under the Community Forestry Pilot Project and forest tenure program (1997,
1999, 2004). In 2002, CFEs gained a collective voice with the creation of the BC Community
Forestry Association (BCCFA) that has since helped them to consolidate their position as a social
enterprise model in the domestic forest sector. Across BC, CFEs emerge under a variety of
governance structures and forms, including local governments, First Nation Bands, cooperatives,
community nonprofits, associations, or a mix of partners (Mulkey & Kenneth, 2012; Pinkerton &
Rutherford, 2021). As of 2018, there were 58 CFEs operating in BC that hold management rights
over 1.6 million hectares of forests, approximately 2.5% of the total forest area in the province
(British Columbia Community Forest Association, 2020). The provincial government fulfills an
important role as a gatekeeper, granting CFEs the right to operate, setting annual harvest rates, and
monitoring through audits whether CFEs meet their obligations.
The Forest Act is the main piece of legislation that governs logging activity in BC’s
publicly-owned forests. Under the Forest Act, license holders are awarded Community Forest
Agreements (CFAs)1 that facilitate logging rights to decentralized actors engaged in forest
management in the province. This includes nonprofits societies, municipalities, and First Nations
1Source: BC Forest Act, Division 7.1 – Community Forestry Agreements
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96157_03#division_d2e7917,
accessed January 20, 2020.
54
bands, to name a few. If a local CFA holder chooses to set up a commercial structure, (i.e., a CFE),
to make use of the forest harvest rights, the organization has to pay royalties for harvested timber
(so-called stumpage) that are significantly below posted rates. This is to compensate for the high
costs of logging and difficulties in accessing markets as small licensees2. In return for these
financial concessions, the Forest Act demands that certain social requirements be met, such as the
condition that CFEs carry out activities that involve the public. This is to ensure that CFEs conduct
their pursuits according to locally identified values and needs. Specifically, CFEs are required to
report on their community involvement strategies when filing the initial CFA license application,
as well as any request for license renewal (BC Forest Act, 2018: part 3, division 7.1, paragraph
43.3). This mandated requirement to involve the community makes BC an information-rich
context to understand how CFEs, as a particularly locally-centred type of SE, enable community
involvement in organizational decisions.
3.3.2 Sample
Data collection occurred between March 2016 and October 2018. Purposeful sampling was
employed to achieve in-depth understanding of the research objective – namely to understand
issues of community involvement in decision-making in CFEs amid plural goals (Patton, 2002). I
followed a two-step strategy wherein I first identified a set of organizations from a database that
2 CFEs that are issued a CFA in the interior region of British Columbia pay 15 percent of posted rates calculated for
other licensees, and 20 percent in coastal regions (Ambus, 2016).
55
lists all currently active CFEs in BC. I then consolidated the choice of organizations by consulting
with key informants, including personal visits to the BC Community Forest Associations’
(BCCFA) annual meetings, and follow-up conversations with BCCFA executives. This ensured
that my selection, which targeted multiple forms of organizational structures and goals, would
meet those criteria.
A total of six CFEs from across the province of BC were included in the study. They ranged
in age from 5 to 21 years. Three organizations were founded bottom-up by community activists,
mainly under a society or cooperative structure. Their principal goal is to protect local watersheds
from industrial logging activity. To a great extent, these CFEs have maintained a grassroots
identity. They are located in community gathering facilities, such as an old school building. They
have a focus on voluntary, rotating member involvement and they are catalysts for alternative
forest management philosophies based on ecological integrity and sustainability. The other three
CFEs emerged in a top-down fashion, led by municipal governments, one in partnership with the
neighbouring First Nations governments. Following local declines in the forest industry, the
motivation for their founding was to foster employment, , or, in the case of one CFE, to set aside
forest land to provide opportunities for tourism and recreation.
For the most part, these CFEs projected more of a company image. They were mostly set
up as limited partnerships or community corporations, and occupied designated offices either
within, or in close proximity to, the municipal administration. All six CFEs engaged in commercial
logging activities, with some generating additional revenues from value-added activities, including
sawmilling, land leasing, and trading ecosystem services. All CFEs had a full-time manager, with
56
some employing a few additional administrative and operational staff, mostly on a part-time basis.
None of the CFEs employed more than six permanent staff at a time. Their revenues ranged from
$60 thousand to $8.7 million dollars annually. They all aimed to contribute funds to community
development, after making reinvestments in the organization.
Three of the CFEs operate formal community grant schemes, and the other half give on a
case-by-case basis. In-kind donations ranged from $50 thousand dollars annually to small amounts
in the $3 thousand to $6 thousand dollar range. Some of the CFEs provided additional services to
the community, such as donating firewood or offering guided tours. One CFE offered discounts
on its custom-milled products to all community residents. Thus, the CFEs blended a range of
aspects in terms of organizational origins and philosophies, legal structures, as well as location,
type and size of activities. Table 5 summarizes the details of the six studied CFEs.
57
Table 5 Characteristics of sampled CFEs
Age &
Size Origin Ownership
Revenue
Streams
Community
Giving
CFE
1
20 years;
5 staff
Bottom-Up
Cooperative
Log Sales;
Sawmilling
Recreation;
Education
CFE
2
21 years;
2 staff Bottom-Up
Community
Corporation
(Partners: Town,
local NGOs and
Associations)
Log Sales Grant
Program
CFE
3
5 years;
1.5 staff Bottom-Up
Nonprofit Society
Log Sales Recreation;
Firewood
CFE
4
11 years;
4 staff Top-Down
Community
Corporation
(Municipality)
Log Sales Grant
Program
CFE
5
11 years;
6 staff Top-Down
Ltd. Partnership
(Municipality)
Log Sales;
Industrial Park
Grant
Program
CFE
6
9 years;
2 staff Top-Down
Nonprofit Society
(Partners:
Municipality/ First
Nation Band)
Log Sales;
Carbon Offsets
Recreation;
Education
58
3.3.3 Data Collection
Given the limited theory that addresses responses to community involvement in SE
decision-making, this dissertation chapter draws on the qualitative research paradigm and adopts
multiple case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989), a method which allows for the study of a real-life setting
(the ‘case’ aspect), while allowing for breadth in the analysis through within-case as well as cross-
case comparisons (the ‘multiple’ aspect) (Yin, 2017). Thus, a variety of data collection techniques
were used in this chapter. Semi-structured interviews of CFE managers provide the primary data
source to gather information about the key questions in this chapter, namely: (i) how CFEs involve
communities in organizational decision-making, (ii) whether CFEs experience tensions in doing
so, and (iii) how such tensions might be addressed.
This form of inductive research is appropriate in instances where themes and theory in
extant research is underdeveloped or inconclusive (Creswell, 2013). Another advantage of the
qualitative case study method is that it allows for the study of complex, interrelated phenomena in
a real-life setting (Yin, 2017). This includes the lived experience of managers making decisions in
the community-owned enterprise, enlisting forms of engagement, and balancing multiple goals,
beyond just profitability. From an epistemological (nature of knowledge) point of view, narratives
and accounts provided by the respondents is seen as legitimate form of data that shed novel and
unique insight into understudied social phenomena (Creswell, 2013). This implies that study
participants are regarded as the ‘experts’ of their own views and opinions, whereby the systematic,
corroborative approach taken by the researcher ensures verification and careful cross-validation of
the gathered information though consulting additional sources.
59
In this study, interviews with managers and multiple other actors in the CFE, as well as
extensive documentary evidence and archival sources, were collected about each studied case. The
semi-structured interview format was chosen to provide interview data that is rich and comparable
across cases (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). It was facilitated using an interview protocol. Interviewing
commenced with the CFE managers, who provided detailed accounts of the roles they pursue in
regards to balancing community involvement with other key goals in the organization. The focus
in the interview protocol was, thereby, to enlist respondent-centric narraitives through broad
questioning, rather than asking specific details that use the words ‘tension’ or ‘balancing goals.’
Use of such specific language was avoided in an effort to minimize bias in the respondents’
answers. The broader questions were used to prompt a discussion about balancing goals in the
organization, or experiences with community engagement. For example: ‘Can you describe your
professional journey that brought you to this position?’ Or: ‘Can you describe a typical day in the
organization/the conduct of a community engagement activity?’ (See Appendix B for the interview
guide).
Gathering this information from the CFEs’ managers provided further leads, yielding an
additional 37 face-to-face interviews with board members, staff, contractors, and local residents.
These actors either had a substantial role in the organization related to community involvement,
or they could provide further insight into the broader nature and importance of community
involvement in organizational decisions. Also, two retired CFE managers, and two key-informants
on the emerging CFEs sector in BC, were interviewed over the phone.
60
This helped to parse together elements in the history of each CFE in regard to their efforts
to practice community involvement in decisions. Table 6 shows a summary of research
participants. Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. All interviews were conducted in
English, were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Taken together, the data collected from
the semi-structured interviews allowed for deeper understanding of each CFEs’ practices,
opportunities and challenges related to involving the community in organizational decisions.
Table 6 Characteristics of interview participants
Interviewees
Position
CFE 1 11 Management; Board; Staff
CFE 2 11 Management; Board; Staff; Community
Members
CFE 3 7 Management; Board; Staff
CFE 4 5 Management; Board; Staff
CFE 5 7 Management; Board; Staff; Consultants
CFE 6 5 Management; Board; Staff; Project Partners
Field-Level 2 Key informants on CFEs in BC
Total 48
61
Non-interview data was also collected in each CFE, consisting of: (i) notes taken during 2-
7 day field visits to each CFE office and forest site; (ii) notes taken from locally available records
(printouts of meeting minutes, organization charts, newsletters, annual reports); (iii) a collection
of archival records (pamphlets, leaflets, posters and announcements with information on
community involvement activities posted on bulletin boards); (iv) the creation of a database listing
online and print records of all CFEs that were reviewed (websites, financial statements, promotion
videos and documentaries as well as examining articles and case studies written on the CFEs in
newspapers, magazines, books, academic journals). This collection of field notes, organizational
records, archival sources, and audiovisuals resulted in 1930 written pages and 153 minutes of case
material. Combined, the non-interview data provided context for the information obtained from
interviews. It allowed me to crosscheck details and piece together descriptions for each case with
respect to how community involvement unfolded (Eisenhardt, 1989).
3.3.4 Analysis
Data was analysed using the software package Nvivo (QS Software, Version 11.3.2.
International Pty Ltd., 2016). As is common in case study research that investigates complex
phenomena (Yin, 2017), an inductive approach was used. Specifically, the grounded approach by
Gioia et al. (2013) was employed. This is a 3-step process wherein iterations between the data and
the literature took place (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The approach commenced with the
identification of empirical themes through line-by-line coding of the interview data.
62
This entailed consulting interview transcripts of respondents’ answers from the interview
protocol pertaining to the pursuit of multiple social, environmental, and financial goals broadly,
and also specifically with respect to community involvement objectives. Archival sources were
used to contextualize the emerging themes (Step 1). This step provided insights about CFEs’ ability
to identify and follow up on expectations for involving the community in organizational decisions
(i.e., establishing roles and responsibilities). It also provided initial leads as to where CFEs
struggled in terms of aligning financial realities with participation. Next, empirical themes were
synthesized into conceptual categories (Step 2).
Finally, further analysis, coding, and aggregation of themes and concepts resulted in
analytical categories (Step 3) that show how CFEs assume practices in regard to community
involvement, and how they experience challenges and take measures to address those challenges.
Figure 3 provides a summary of the data structure. In a final step, connections between the
aggregate dimensions in the data structure were established by means of embedding existing
theory. This helped to inform relationships between the constructs. These data and literature
resulted in a description of CFEs navigating trade-offs between community involvement and
commercial demands. It also shows a model of managers navigating a paradoxical tension that
emerged from their practice of identifying a set of tactics for involvement that warranted balancing
in light of CFEs’ plural goals.
63
The emergent categorization of trade-offs and tensions in the model of managerial
decision-making in the CFE was shared with three peer researchers to clarify theoretical insights.
To ensure accuracy of the description of the encountered phenomena, member checks were also
conducted (Creswell, 2013) with three informants holding leadership roles in the studied CFEs.
64
Figure 3 Data Structure
Empirical Themes (Step 1) C onceptual Categories (Step 2) Aggregate Dimensions (Step 3)
• Community involvement goals enter strategy,
website, promotion material
• Identifying managers as responsible for community
participation
• Gathering local crowds in official and
recurring manner
• Arranging gatherings with individuals
and groups around specific issues
Integrating community involvement with daily business
realities:
• low quality timber
• remoteness of operations
• costs of low-impact resource harvesting
• accessing markets for niche products
• Altering between public and semi-public fora
• Addressing controversies in both scheduled and
spontaneous encounters
• Soliciting feedback formal and informal
• Board members speaking on behalf of their
respective constituency
• Releasing information to the local press and media
• Accommodating varying types of knowledge
• Setting rituals as reminder to involve community
Identifying Organizational Criteria
for Community Involvement
Discovering Tactics for
Community Involvement
Acting fast on
Market Opportunities
Applying Tactics for
Community Involvement
Delegating Involvement
Balancing Goals
Establishing a Structure
for Community Involvement
Causing Dilemma between
Community Involvement and
Financial Goals
Triggering Tension
Addressing Dilemma
Managing Tension
65
3.4 Findings
The findings on how SEs – in the form of CFEs – experience issues involving local
communities in organizational decisions is presented in this section. These findings focus mainly
on how it is that SEs establish systems for the participatory engagement of local communities that
are intended to benefit from their activities. The specific effects of these mechanisms help elucidate
what hinders and fosters meaningful involvement of local people in decision-making for SEs.
What stood out across the CFEs is that management was in charge of enlisting community
involvement. There was an understanding among the membership that management held a
leadership position within the local community. The position of the CFE manager was equated
with that of a town counselor, or school principal. There was an expectation that management
would carry out the duties of their jobs, keeping in mind the well-being of the community, forming
relationships with the people in town, and familiarizing themselves with the intricacies of the role
and values that local forestry activities have for diverse local stakeholders. As a local citizen
explained:
“His [the CFE managers] responsibility is so great. Because it’s our forest and our water.
He is presenting the idea of what we are going to sign off on, as a community. There are
public meetings, there is input.” (Community member-CFE 1)
The expectations bestowed upon the position of the CFE managers were reflected in the
hiring practices used to fill the role in the organization.
66
There was an understanding among hiring committees, which typically consisted of board
members and representatives from the local community, that these individuals needed to bring a
set of social skills that would enable them to build strong relationships in the community. There
was an expectation that they would have to be good listeners, capable of balancing diverse
stakeholder needs. Ideally, the manager would be someone with prior experience in community
contexts. The following description given by a board member with a managerial position is a good
illustration of this:
“Someone with some kind of community experience would be an asset. There are diverse
interests at the table and you have to be able to listen to all of those.” (Board member-
CFE 2)
Aside from attracting management with previous experience in community settings, there
was an expectation among members of CFEs that managers would need to be skilled in
communicating to diverse audiences and addressing multiple constituents in their formulation of
strategies and tasks. Honesty, credibility, and the ability to be comfortable amid conflict, were all
seen as a desirable qualities in CFE managers. With competing expectations around forest
practices, the nature of the commercial activities, and reinvestment of funds being common in CFE
settings, there was an expectation that managers would take the responsibility to listen to local
groups and to engage in an honest and thorough assessment of diverse needs and points of view in
the decision-making process. As a board member summarized:
67
“Involvement with the community has to be authentic. They can tell in a heartbeat when
you're passing them off. They can tell if you're trying to make it seem nice and it's not really
that nice. And if you don't take the public's concerns into regard, it'll fester somewhere.”
(Board member-CFE 1)
These expectations associated with the managerial position led CFEs to attract a suite of
eclectic forestry professionals, many of which had transitioned to the forestry resource sector from
a prior background in the social sciences, including criminology and history degrees, or
environmental sciences, before obtaining a degree in forestry and venturing into community
management and leadership roles in their careers.
Others had worked in traditional large forest companies where they weren’t comfortable
with the distance that existed between local groups and industrial-scale logging activities. This
lead them to look for opportunities with small forest tenures of the kind allotted to CFEs. Despite
the dynamic profile and experience in community settings, at times CFE managers did struggle
with the mandate to involve the community in organizational decisions. Notably, they experienced
trade-offs in enlisting this goal, relative to the commercial obligations of their jobs. They also
faced tensions with the particular approaches to engagement that they assumed. Both types of
challenges will be described below.
3.4.1 Trade-Offs Between Financial Sustainability and Community Involvement
All CFEs experienced instances where they found it difficult to stick to their plans for
involving the community in organizational decisions amid financial demands. This manifested
differently depending on the CFEs’ particular context of origin.
68
Some of the CFEs had emerged in the context of efforts to revitalize local forest economies
in rural areas. Those communities had often prospered economically before major mills and other
natural resource industry wandered off to other areas, leaving the places with high rates of
unemployment, lack of infrastructure, ageing populations, and deteriorating availability of general
services in health care and education. In those communities, CFEs were perceived as a means to
(re)gain control over timber operations, to create jobs, and revitalize a suffering local economy.
The focus of these CFEs was to adopt timber operations that would provide work, attract skilled
and younger workers to the area, and provide funds to funnel back into critical local infrastructure,
with the opportunity to support growth of other economic activities, such as tourism and small
businesses. As a board member of one of the employment focused CFE explained:
“There were something like twenty saw mills in this area… Everybody cuts something
different, lots of people employed. And then it consolidated, and when one goes down,
you're hooped…The place crashed in 2008 and they dismantled the mill and went away.
So what we'd like to do is get back to that model of a diversified economy instead of just
one big sawmill where everybody works.” (Board member-CFE 5)
Upon embarking on their timber operations, those employment focused CFEs realized the
limitations of the forestry model in areas that lacked road access and proximity to an industrial
infrastructure that would allow them to perform logistics at a reasonable cost. In addition, the
quality of the timber was often low, with the most valuable stands being harvested by former
industrial licensees that had left the area.
69
Under these difficult economic contexts, it was perceived as a necessity in the CFEs to act
quickly on any opportunity to harvest, or ship logs with logistics operators in the area when they
were present. The speed of decision-making that CFE managers had to apply in order to make a
profit, often stood in direct contrast to the mandate to perform community involvement in
organizational decisions, notably decisions pertaining to forest management and logging activities
in community-managed forestlands. What characterized the employment and revitalization
focused CFEs was a tendency to place economics before other objectives out of a desire to rebuild
the local economy. Dialogue over different forest value, be they recreation, or environmentally-
focused, tended to take a backseat whenever a commercial opportunity was to be gained. The
tendency to place economic objectives front and center, above the need to consult with the
community, was particularly extreme in the case of a CFE that had an ownership structure through
which local government was directly involved with the CFE. With the municipality having the
power to appoint and fire members of the CFE board, there was limited room for diversity of
opinion as it relates to balancing economic and social needs and involving the community in
decisions.
70
Although improving issues around transparency over time, that CFE had a reputation in
the community of not opening meetings to the public and not sharing with interested locals some
basic information about contracts and terms of business. As a former consultant to the organization
explained:
“The small market logger program. What it essentially meant was that the CFE manager
went out with the loggers and they went: ‘Hey, see that good timber over there, I really
want that!’ And he would go let them get it, with a single cutting permit. No consultation
of the public whatsoever. Just like that […] And the board was really focused on making
money to give back to the community, you know. Helping out with the water treatment
plant, and, you know, putting people to work.” (Consultant-CFE 4)
Overall, these employment focused CFEs faced trade-offs between commercial activities and
community involvement. This came as a result of a preoccupation with profits that would help re-
build a dwindling local economy. Another set of CFEs experienced trade-offs due to a particular
mission to practice an ecologically sensitive, more progressive type of forestry, and a strong focus
on sustainability and environmental values.
Those CFEs were located in more economically diverse southern parts of the Province of
British Columbia, with access to forests that had higher-value timber stands, well-developed
infrastructure, and a fairly large small and medium sized wood products sector. The location
allowed for involvement in markets for value-added products and services. Those CFEs didn’t
experience trade-offs due to external economic and market constraints. Rather, they experienced
trade-offs between commercial activities and community involvement due to their origin.
71
This was based in the local environmental movement that sought CFEs as an opportunity
to preserve local watersheds and to experiment with ecologically progressive forestry techniques
in opposition to industrial practices and traditional forestry. A local community member
summarized the vision and goals that drive the activities of the environmentally focused CFEs:
“It was different. It was unusual. It wasn’t just pure business thinking. It was a lot of
community minded thinking and water, preservation and conservation. And basically just
much wiser for the planet and communities than just getting there and maximize your
return and leave again.” (Community member-CFE 1)
Although these CFEs were largely founded bottom-up, they struggled with to involve the
community in situations where financial pressures arose from the effort to practice
environmentally friendly, yet more costly approaches to forestry and timber production. This had
to do, for instance, with difficulties in marketing forest goods and services with sustainable
attributes. Once of the CFEs had set up a non-timber forest products (NTFPs) operation with a
focus on marketing herbs and local medicinal plants. Developed initially as a charitable initiative
that drew primarily on the volunteer work of local citizens, the operation grew over time and was
managed professionally by staff. Reaching commercial scale, however, proved difficult as a result
of low production volumes and demand fluctuations. With the NFTP arm presenting a liability to
the business activities, the leadership of the organization was faced with a need to make swift
decisions without consulting the community about the future of the NTFP commercial arm. As
former board member explained:
72
“I became chair and it was just all these loose ends hanging around and I'm the person who
was in charge…It was probably one of the hardest things I ever had to do…People
eventually understood [the closure of the herb business].” (Board member-CFE 1)
Trade-off situations between commercial activities and practicing community involvement
also arose where equipment and skills were needed to produce forest products with sustainable
attributes. In the same CFE that had to close its NFTP operations, practicing certified sustainable
timber harvesting required contracting services from outside the community, as the skills and
machinery were not available locally.
The executive decision to contract externally was contested among locals, since local
employment presented a core value of the organization. Community input on plans to forest
products with sustainability was also being compromised where financial activities suffered as a
result of local opposition to the CFEs’ focus and practices. Due to the CFE having environmental
activists and other local advocates of sustainability among its membership, traditional industry was
skeptical to engage in trade relations with the organization due to differences in ideology and to a
lack of trust that the organization would honor standard business practices and professionalism.
Particularly in one CFE, leadership spent considerable effort to win the trust of surrounding
timber processing facilities as a credible business partner. They did this by compromising
community involvement, and instead fully concentrate on the demands posed by local mills and
manufacturers in the area that embrace traditional forestry industry practices . Table 7 includes
additional illustrative data on trade-offs between commercial activities and community
involvement that occurred among the different kinds of CFEs.
73
Table 7 Illustrative examples for experiencing trade-offs
Empirical Themes
Data Excerpts
Trade-Offs experienced
by CFEs focused on
employment and
economic revitalization
“There are trade-offs…Right this summer the log prices are good and we're logging up
a site valley that has fairly decent spruce in it and we just decided to cut everything pretty
much that's available there…We haven’t had any complaints so far. But we certainly had
them in the past.” (Board member CFE 3)
“A tremendous amount of work has to be done with the public. This is a community
forest. The harvesting activities is only one component of it. But when I was hired, all
they [the CFE board] were talking about was the one component, the harvesting, the
harvesting. Now, if you can't make money at that, you can't do any of the rest of it. So
there's a reason for that.” (Manager-CFE 4)
“I remember talking with the manager from [another CFE] and asking them how they
could operate like they do. Their trucking costs are $15 a meter or so, versus $35 to $40
for ours. And this makes all the difference in the world.” (Board member-CFE 3 )
“The new mayor and council, they fired the board and appointed themselves as the CFE
board. They never remembered what hat they were wearing. That it’s the job of the board
to hire a manager to be a accountable for the day-to-day business, and the shareholders
stay out of that. So a lot of infighting was the result, and a reluctance to talk about the
business of the organization with the public.”(Consultant-CFE 4)
Trade-Offs experienced
by CFEs focused on
sustainability and an
ecologically sensitive
(progressive) version of
forestry
“Part of the initial financial difficulties was a bunch of rhetoric about: ‘we’re gonna show
them how to do forestry better!’ That created some reaction among the traditional folks
and I think that financially hurt the organization. The local sawmills were reluctant to
buy from us to start with and it took us some convincing to change their perception.”
(Board member, Case 2)
“We didn't have much local input for harvesting our first block. We chose a logger out
of [a community 50 km away from the forest site] who is known for doing sensitive
logging…We ran into some difficult times with the community having somebody from
outside doing the logging.” (Board member-CFE 1)
“The operating costs were too high so we struggled financially to get the thing started,
but we had to prove to the community that we could do an entirely different kind of
forestry that is responsive to local input or we would have been history. Those are tough
decisions to make.” (Manager-CFE 2)
74
3.4.2 Tensions with the Balancing of Tactics for Community Involvement
The data revealed that the managers used two broad tactics (generalized and individualized
involvement) to enlist community involvement in organizational decisions. The first tactic –
generalized involvement – served the overall purpose to gather large crowds (i.e., plan community
outreach activities with a focus on maximum community turnout). Those activities included open-
houses, annual general meetings, public consultations, or celebratory events. Generalized
involvement also entailed public outreach, such as feedback surveys, newsletters, updates on the
website, or weekly office hours held by the manager.
The activities that managers organized as part of generalized involvement occur with
relative frequency, or are planned intentionally and well-ahead of time. They are predictable
activities that are officially announced, for example, through local media and community
billboards. Gatherings with a general-involvement character typically occur in public settings, such
as town halls, libraries, farmers markets, public parks or town squares. They involve structured
activities, guided by a particular agenda (e.g., “meet the manager”, “gather feedback on a planned
project”) and they facilitate dialogue that touches upon aspects of the event purpose. Tools, such
as presentations, questionnaires, or mapping exercises, were intended to gather a breadth of
opinions to inform decision-making.
75
In sum, while generalized gatherings require the manager to plan well-ahead, develop a
structure and outline for the kind of activities, the ultimate responsibility to make these activities
informative and successful rests with the community members that are invited to accept the offer
to become involved. Individualized involvement, in turn, required that CFE managers identify a
set of activities that are largely geared toward specific stakeholders and community groups to
deepen the discussion about controversial issues, gather second opinions, and mediate between
conflicting parties. Many activities marked by the individualized tactic occurred unplanned,
focusing on groups that represent specific interests in the community, such as recreation, farming
or hunting. This tactic for community involvement was semi-informal. It involved spontaneous
encounters as well as planned activities that were unofficial in nature. It included visits by the
manager to the private homes of community members, organizing small field tours, or arranging
meetings with community associations and interest groups. These encounters may be initiated
either by the CFE manager, or by community members. The nature of these interactions was often
marked by a series of meetings that allowed managers to build on ideas and identify stakeholder
specific solutions or compromises. Overall, the focus was to make engagement comfortable and
accessible for community members that sought to resolve specific matters with the organization.
Table 8 summarizes the two tactics alongside supportive quotes.
76
The two tactics complemented each other and provided opportunities to build synergies
between goals. They knew that both tactics, if applied in unison, could make their efforts to
practice community involvement more successful. It allowed for successful relationship building
with a variety of constituents. The generalized tactic allowed management to obtain a sense of the
general sentiment of the community towards organizational practices, whereas individualized
involvement, instead, allowed decision-makers to build personal relationships with community
members and work through specific issues as they arose. As described by a CFE manager:
“I have a public meeting in March, and I have discussions with people before that.”
(Manager-CFE 3)
Managers were aware in which situations a generalized versus individualized tactic proved
more successful, and what type of steps ought to be taken to apply both tactics in sequence.
Informal participation in decision-making also allowed to further illustrate to the community
members the information provided during general engagement activities, thus allowing for the
emergence of trusting connections for particular organizational decisions. As described by a
manager who experienced the benefit of applying both tactics when he faced the task of
communicating logging plans for a pest-infested forest site:
“It was the first major road building. So, I wrote a plan and we had a number of community
meetings. Lots of specific concerns were raised by specific people. So then after we go
back, review it again and see who we need to talk to more.” (Manager-CFE 1)
77
Table 8 Two tactics for community involvement
Generalized Illustrative Quotes Individualized Illustrative Quotes
Expectation
The community
follows the
invitation to be
consulted
“We try to have at least two open houses a year. And
we actually even committed to that in our forest
stewardship plan.” (Manager-CFE 6)
CFE managers
approach
individuals and
groups
“What we have been doing in the last
few years is to do some more targeted
meetings with local interest groups.
The off-road cycling association, for
example. We will meet directly with
their board… And, one of the
recreations operators. He has opinions
but wouldn’t come to the open houses.
We go and we meet at his office. We
don’t make him come to us.”
(Manager-CFE 4)
Purpose Demonstrate high
public turnout
“We have an attendance sheet and track how many
people come.” (Staff-CFE 5)
Build trusting
connections
“He [the manager] left us with his
phone number. And we would call him
if there is any kind of problem... He is
a very good listener. He is kind and
fund.” (Community member-CFE 1)
Activities Gather crowds
“There were community invites. They set up a BBQ,
have a meet and great … It’s kind of an educational
thing.”(Contractor-CFE 2)
Create informal
interactions
‘So what you do is you work with these
groups. So that they understand our
mission. You keep in touch with them
on a steady basis.” (Manager-CFE 4)
78
Generalized Illustrative Quotes Individualized Illustrative Quotes
Frequency Recurring
“We advertised his [the manager’s] office hours in
the newspaper. There’s always been an invite. He has
put himself there so that he is available.”
(Accountant-CFE 3)
Incidental
“I involved her family and trained one
of her sons in mapping out areas. So,
that’s been my goal, not isolate people
but to make them understand that there
is a lot of aspects to these kinds of
things and let them know they can have
input.” (Manager-CFE 3)
Contact Mode Official (Newsletter,
Website)
“We established a website that people could refer to,
and also get our minutes from our meetings.”
(Board member- CFE 4)
Direct (Phone,
Email, Visits)
“Letters, individually to these
homeowners, were dropped off door to
door.”(Manager-CFE 2)
Setting Public
“So, the community forest hosts an annual community
barbecue. We all gather at the centennial park in the
middle of town and all levels of government are
invited… it gives community members the opportunity
to meet with those people on a one-on-one
basis.”(Board member-CFE 5)
Private;
Semi-Private
“There was about 20 different farms.
We got their names and stuff…If you
can’t get a hold of them on the phone,
go and see them!”
(Manager-CFE 4)
Nature
of Interaction
Structured; Breadth
in Opinions
“We took it [the logging proposal] to the community
in a series of community meetings. Having
discussions, power point, visuals around the
dynamics of our forest.” (Manager-CFE 1)
Unstructured;
Depth in Opinions
“People came in to the area where we
are working several times. We shut
down the work for a couple of minutes.
Take the people for a walk. Show them
around and talk to them.“
(Contractor-CFE 2)
79
While useful for the manager in their overall organization of community involvement,
members of the local community also appreciated the opportunity to interact with the CFE through
various formal and informal channels. This created a sense of belonging and trust that the
organization does its best to listen to the public for the development of the resource. As a
community member summarizes:
“Our open-houses, you know the stuff that he shows. The maps, the charts, the whatever,
satellite photos, it’s all really informative…but he [the manager] is willing to have more
individual level interaction also. They had to get some machinery photographed. I could
just tag along. We had a bunch of people standing, chatting, and looking at the operations
being formalized.” (Community member-CFE 1)
Alternating between both tactics was also seen to be helpful for the managers. They received
information about topics and discussions from local groups pertaining to the CFEs’ activities.It
also allowed them to accommodate the needs of different stakeholders early on, before conflict
could build up. This was particularly the case for information about recreational preferences (e.g.,
mapping trails), but also about fire-prone forest sites, information about sensitive watersheds, and
the needs that local residents have for their usage. As the following quote illustrates:
“Sometimes people would just walk in and we go: ‘oh, wow. We weren’t expecting you,
but sure, come on in!’ And we show them what we are doing and planning. And they say:
‘Oh, you missed a waterline there!’ Well, that’s important information for us to consider
in our next announcement to the community.” (Employee-CFE 5)
80
Being aware of both tactics and applying them evenly was seen as a useful mechanism to
turn community involvement from a chore to a benefit. Community involvement became seen as
a useful tool that managers used to make quicker, and potentially more locally-befitting decisions.
Despite the advantages and mutual synergy between both generalized and individualized
tactics for community involvement, tensions surfaced where excessive reliance on one tactic
created an imbalance when addressing stakeholders needs, or the simultaneous use of both tactics
occupied so much of the capacities of management that other critical goals, notably financial
stability, were at risk. For example, excessive reliance on generalized involvement prompted CFEs
to overlook the needs of specific segments of the local community. This happened largely because
activities with only generalized involvement were often characterized by low attendance, or a very
selective regular attendance. For example, one of the CFEs that had emerged bottom-up with the
grassroots engagement of environmentally minded citizens, wanted to foster ecologically
sensitive, local commercialization of timber, which would be operated by people within the
community. The environmental rhetoric that dominated discussions about goals and values in the
organization, however, tended to attract only like-minded segments of the community. As the
manager explained:
“I think that is a bit of a self-selection process. There is a large component of the
community that’s quite sort of environmentally minded and social community minded as
well. The sort of old school logging and road building folks haven’t really been
represented.” (Manager, case 1)
81
Other CFEs faced the opposite problem when relying heavily on the generalized
involvement tactic. Namely that logging-friendly groups would attend and engage in the matters
of the organization, whereas recreational users and environmental groups tended to have little trust,
or interest in engaging with the organization. As a result, events of the generalized tactic focused
strongly on employment opportunities and development of a local industrial site to sort and market
raw logs. The CFE only became aware of the environmental groups as it was about to log an area,
causing public protest among environmentally concerned community members. This prompted the
CFE to put its logging operations on hold (and caused the CFE to make financial sacrifices). As a
board member recalled:
“We wanted to do some treatment just across the road there. We wanted to cut some more
trees because they were high risk for fires. And the community members went: ‘No way!
You guys are raping and pillaging’. And we went, what? You're not happy with us? Some
people think that we're just about clear cutting and making profit and we don't care. I was
a little surprised.” (Board member-CFE 5)
The above examples thus provide instances where CFEs relied too much on the information
received through formal community participation. They received a one-sided perspective with low
participation rates. These tendencies can be counteracted by individualized engagement. However,
some CFEs were so deeply engaged with this information that they became almost coopted by the
needs and values of a few particular groups. This posed a risk to the time and energy of the manager
that was left to manage other critical goals of the organization, notably financial stability. In one
CFE, for example, the organization undertook a 2-year mapping exercise with a group of local
naturalists with the aim of identifying old-growth forest areas that the organization would not log.
82
When the CFE launched their logging plans after considering the needs of the engagement
process, the local group demanded more areas be spared. This is in addition to the sites identified
during the mapping exercise, causing the CFE to experience financial setbacks. Table 9
summarizes empirical themes for tensions caused by enlisting community involvement in
organizational decisions.
83
Table 9 Illustrative data for experiencing tension
Empirical Themes
Data Excerpts
Imbalance (Type 1):
Excessive use of the
Generalized
Involvement Tactic
“Sometimes it felt like we were not necessarily getting the view of those
communities aside from just the economic interests of those communities. Only
the operators showed up.” (Board member-CFE 6)
“I'm trying to get people involved in the larger community. We've had several
informational meetings that haven't been well attended.” (Board member-CFE 3)
“It’s our responsibility, that word of mouth thing. We haven’t done enough of that.
We should really set up some field days where we take people and say: ’look, this
is what logging is, this is a good looking logging block. And this is what we do
for brushing and weeding. We cut this five years ago and see how well the trees
are growing?’” (Board member-CFE 4)
Imbalance (Type 2):
Excessive use of the
Individualized
Involvement Tactic
“[The CFE manager] has been fairly friendly with the snowmobile companies. He
built a bridge that was needed for the harvesting, but it maybe could have been
done a different way. Not just building a road and they're like: Ooh, surprise, a
bunch of snowmobiles went down there and now have access to an area they were
not supposed to get into.” (Board member-CFE 6)
“Getting them on our land base helps. They don't like something and they come
talk to us, you know, and we take them out. But you can get overwhelmed if you're
not careful with it.” (Manager - CFE4)
“A considerable amount of time and labour is invested. Lot’s of letters and invites
[…] I would say he [the manager] is doing way more than he has to. So he still
has serious pushback from the public. Over two years he was sending out notice
and looking at the block and trying to figure out how he could overcome the
environmental concerns and also work with the public. He approached me about
this time last summer and he said: ‘I am trying to figure out how I can implement
a treatment in this challenging block we have, where there is public opposition
[…] conventional harvesting doesn’t work here’.” (Contractor-CFE 2)
“So we made this whole layer of voluntary areas. The areas that they are now
protesting didn’t come up in the list. So the board is saying: “Come on now! You
can’t just keep adding places!” You know, we went through this process and, we
were hoping that would be the end of it, in a way […] So we just decided to put
that on hold for a year until we can talk with them more […] We were supposed
to harvest the block this year. ” (Staff-CFE 6)
84
3.4.3 Overcoming Challenges
When faced with financial demands that seemed irreconcilable with community
involvement, CFEs adopted strategies for delegating participatory activities. This allowed them to
maintain some level of connection with the community, even if proper involvement, as such, was
not sought. The choice of these strategies differed by ownership type, depending on whether there
were multiple owners., The CFE had been formed by several local government and community
organizations, each holding board representation, or they were made up by a single owner, such as
the municipality or a limited partnership with the town as principal shareholder. In the former case,
the strategy for resolving the trade-offs between community involvement and financial demands
was to refer to the board members representing the different owner groups, endowing them with
the task to ‘report back’ to their respective constituents. Those CFEs that operated under the single
ownership structure, instead, focused on establishing relationships with the media, such as
newspapers or television channels, as a means of passing on information to the community.
Figure 4 illustrates the trade-offs between the expectation of community involvement on
the one hand, and financial obligations on the other, which came about regardless of whether the
CFEs emerged with a mandate to provide economic recovery or practice environmentally
progressive approaches to forest management. In both cases, impasses arose where community
involvement suffered. This was addressed by the CFEs through the strategies described above for
mediating involvement and delegating it to particular actors.
85
In the case of CFEs with multiple owner structures, this was done by means of delegating
the task to the board members that held representation duties with their respective constituents,
and in the case of single-owned CFEs, by means of forming relationships with the local press.
86
Figure 4 Strategies for Addressing Trade-Offs
Community
Involvement:
Ought to be
applied
continuously
CFEs focused
on economic
revitalization
Challenge:
Trade-Offs
arise between
community
involvement
and financial
objectives
CFEs with
progressive
environmental
agenda
Solution:
Mediated
Involvement
is sought to
address
trade-offs
Relationships
with the local
media is formed
CFEs with
Single
Owner
Board members
‘report back’ to
their respective
constituents
CFEs with
Multiple
Owners
“He [the manager] actually struggles with
public involvement. But, that being said, he
doesn't have to because he has a community
board of directors who represent the
different values. He just has to work well
with his board.” (Board member-CFE 2)
“The people on the board, they're all
involved in either community associations or
some other local group. So, in a sense they
represent the community in various ways.”
(Board member-CFE 3)
“We had the newspaper lady come out with me
a couple of weeks ago and I showed her around.
She is really good and we need to do that more
regularly.”
(Board member-CFE 5)
“We have community television. That served us
really well in the past when we ran out of time.”
(Employee-CFE 5)
“The local press, I have them on my stakeholder
list and we make sure they write something in
the newspaper.” (Manager-CFE 6)
87
With respect to the second encountered challenge of keeping a balance between generalized
and individualized tactics, CFEs responded in two ways. In one practice, managers made different
choices as to how they would communicate the outcomes from involvement activities, whether
they were characterized by the generalized or individualized tactics for involvement that were
described in table 8.
These choices predominantly meant that managers avoided jargon so that themes and outcomes
would be easy to understand by the community at large. This is the case in both large public forums
and with small groups of specialists. Some managers and staff did this by removing professional
jargon from reports and meeting minutes, or adding a glossary with definitions. As the following
quote by a manager illustrates:
“So what I would do for example, in a report, I have like five categories or so and I do it
in a narrative style so that it’s fairly easy to read and it flows and it’s more conversational
than it would be if you were doing bullets. And so, every time I would use a term, I would
put the acronym behind it and then I’ll explain it… The feedback I have gotten is that people
like it because they all have become a lot more informed.” (Manager-CFE 3)
Other CFEs opted to improve their online presence and the regularity with which they
shared documents that were gathered when engaging with the general public, versus smaller
groups though individualized engagement. That way the whole community was able to access
information and stay involved. At the same time, it saved time for the CFE, as written information
on the website would prevent 87nnecessary calls or personal visits to clarify information. A board
member described this approach to handling updates on the website:
88
“We didn't have a good website. So we established a website that people could refer to,
and get our minutes from our meetings. We've improved the way that we write up the
minutes so that they're clearer and easier to understand.” (Board member-CFE 4)
Sharing information between outcomes of the generalized and individualized tactic for
engagement also involved oral tactics, which largely related to the ability of CFE managers to
communicate with a variety of stakeholders using jargon and language familiar to these diverse
audiences. For example, one CFE often saw itself in a position to mediate between the needs and
demands of loggers and local environmental groups, making it necessary to find the trust and
credibility of each side and then take insights from these meetings back to the respective other
groups, trying to foster dialogue and understanding for each position. As described in the following
quote:
“I hear from the old-school environmental folks and sometimes I have to explain to the
public what the operators are saying and what their frustrations might be, and vice versa,
explain to the operators: ‘look, I realize that this seems silly to you, to leave those trees, or
to have to wait before we do something, but that’s what you are working with here.’”
(Manager-CFE 1)
What this quote illustrates is that the CFE manager possessed the necessary terminology
and social behavior that fit the respective setting, whether it was an intimate setting with
environmentally-minded groups, or forest industry focused groups, or public meetings with the
average citizen that were versed in ecological and technical forestry jargon.
89
A second practice that helped CFEs apply generalized and individualized tactics for
involvement in moderation, relative to other goals, was to routinely consult physical and digital
artefacts that had a meaning to the organizations’ history of enabling community participation in
organizational decisions. The presence of these artefacts in the work environment of CFE leaders
and staff, provided cues as to the amount of time to be spent overall on a particular community
involvement process, as well as when to apply each tactic – generalized and individualized.
Common examples were print-outs of documents, or photographs, that had a connection to the
practice of community involvement in the history of the organization, as illustrated with the
following quotes:
“If you look up here in the corner. Those red framed sheets. That’s bad press from the
early days. Written by the recreation operators. They didn’t feel properly consulted by the
community forest. Whenever I feel like: ‘Oh, I don’t have time, I am just going to take a
shortcut’, I look at them and say: ‘No! This is a community forest, we have an obligation
to consult these people.’” (Manager-CFE 6)
“I keep a collection of photos from our logging operations. I often bring them to our open
houses. The environmental group that didn’t want to have anything to do with us looked at
them and said: This is logging? I said, yeah, this is what we've been doing and this is what
we're about and I want to invite you to come up and look at what we're doing. And so that
happened. They all came!” (Board member-CFE 2)
The presence of these artefacts in their physical form would provoke changes in behavior
related to the practice of community involvement, both by the CFE in charge of practicing
involvement, and for community members that are being engaged.
90
The following set of quotes illustrate the presence of artefacts and how they would structure
interactions such that cues could be obtained as to when a particular form of engagement ought to
be taken up, prolonged, stopped, or altered in its path:
“If you can base your argument on science I find that’s probably the only thing that you
have left. One person in particular was so opposed to this it was alarming. That’s when
you listen to the majority of the people who had approved of this. It’s the community forest
in the end. And you say, I go ahead with this!” (Manager-CFE 2)
“When the community forest started, there was a survey. What do you want this community
forest to do? That survey serves as mandate in difficult situations.” (Manager -CFE 1)
Figure 5 shows how individualized and generalized tactics for involvement are kept in
symbiosis though the targeted behavior of CFE managers. The dotted arrows represent the
trajectory that CFEs take if one tactic is applied excessively, causing imbalance and the risk that
community involvement overrides other critical goals. This tension can be managed either by
ensuring flow of information between the respective audiences associated with each tactic (i.e.,
the general public versus selected groups) using altered ways of communicating, so called
translation practices. On the other hand, the tension can also be addressed by strategically
consulting physical and digital artefacts, so called signaling devices, that provide cues on how to
proceed with a decision process that has community involvement. Both practices, translation and
use of signaling devices, help balance the emphasis on generalized and individualized engagement
(the thin dotted lines cycling back to the center circle).
91
Figure 5 Tensions and Tension Management
3.5 Discussion and Conclusions
This chapter asked how CFEs involve communities in organizational decision-making,
what challenges they may face in doing so, and how they can overcome challenges. This was done
based on a set of six case studies of CFEs in the province of British Columbia in Canada that
differed in their mission, structure, and original values, emergence and activities. The insights that
were generated through the qualitative case study approach, allowed for depth in observation
(internal validity) (Creswell, 2013), and revealed unique insights into the richness, and complexity,
of the managerial experience, as it relates to running an organization with a focus on community
participation practices, and shared decision-making.
Individualized Involvement
Generalized Involvement
Involvement
in decision-
making
needs to be
generalized, to
include the
community at
large,
yet
individualized,
to allow for
trusting
relationships to
emerge
Triggering Tension
Use of ‘signaling
devices’
Too much
generalized
Too much
individualized
Physical +
digitized
artefacts
directing action
Translating
Addressing
diverse
audiences in
speech and
writing
Management of TensionManagement of Tension
92
While future studies may explore the insights of this research in other regions, or types of
social enterprises, beyond the CFE context, the unique observations that were made in regards to
tensions facing the CFE managers in the process of community involvement, and management of
set tensions, provides useful insights that shed light on this understudied phenomenon in the
literature. The findings also provide practical guidance for managers in social enterprises, and their
boards. Specifically, the study results show that the six CFEs were able to establish structures for
enlisting community involvement in decision-making using individualized and generalized tactics
that complemented each other, allowing the organizations to tap into unique local resources.
Yet, despite their best intentions, the need for financial sustainability prevented the CFEs
from constantly upholding their commitment to practicing community involvement given
economic constraints. What stood out was that all CFEs, regardless of whether they were founded
top-down, by local governments, or bottom-up, as a result of citizen groups and environmental
activism, faced difficulties upholding their commitment to community involvement at times. The
fact that the bottom-up CFEs equally faced trade-offs is interesting in light of common
assumptions in the literature. A common observation in the literature on bottom-up, grassroots
driven initiatives is that an inclination towards organizational democracy, especially in the
cooperative model, prevails amid financial pressures (Defourny & Nyssens, 2006; Rothschild-
Whitt, 2017). The results, however, show a different experience. For CFEs, this is not necessarily
the case, likely the nature of natural resource sector is such that costs of capital, equipment, and
the dimension of the resource operations make it difficult to uphold this ideal, relative to other
social enterprise models.
93
However, where the top-down and bottom-up CFEs did differ, was in their approach to
addressing trade-offs between community involvement and financial objectives. Here, the CFEs
with a bottom-up structure, characterized by broad representation of diverse groups in the
governance of the organization, had a more direct means of communicating fallouts in engagement
activities with local stakeholders. The top-down driven CFE only had media and press channels at
their disposal, due to a lack of diversity in the ownership of the organization that would allow for
direct communication. The data also showed that even in the instance where CFEs practiced
community involvement, tensions surfaced as management sought a balance between two distinct,
yet interrelated tactics for involvement (generalized and individualized). Excessive efforts made
by managers to attend to both tactics consumed their attention to an extent that caused financial
risk in terms of missed market opportunities. Yet, the CFEs remained cognizant, at all times, of
the expectation that they ought to maintain a certain level of community participation. This was
the case even in times when formal community involvement was not possible. This prompted CFEs
to identify forms of mediated (weaker) community involvement until more resources became
available to practice full participation, the choice of which was influenced by organizational
ownership structure.
In addition, CFE managers, over time, learned to clarify for themselves ‘outcomes’ versus
‘process’ in attaining plural goals by improving their communication with the community through
translation practices and intentionally consulting artefacts that have a meaning in the
organizations’ history as it relates to practicing participation.
94
Both these practices provided CFE managers with cues when to switch between the
generalized and individualized tactics for involvement, and when to cease a particular community-
involving process to safeguard other critical goals. As such, setting up and running activities for
community involvement, and addressing challenges in that regard, can be understood in relation
to both the role of management executing these participatory practices, and the particular
ownership structure of the organization.
So far, research on SEs has studied the alignment of diverse constituents only with regards
to direct membership and employees (Battilana et al., 2015; Mitzinneck & Besharov, 2018; Ometto
et al., 2019), but not focusing on the local community at large. Using CFEs as a study context, this
research complements traditional analyses of SEs with a key distinction between a focus on
‘outcomes’ versus ‘process’ in goal attainment (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Woolley, 2009).
Specifically it adds to studies of competing commercial-social demands resulting from hybridity
in SEs and how these are addressed (Smith et al., 2013). Previous literature has highlighted the
important, but paradoxical, role of SE leaders in managing the commercial-social tension in
different aspects of the organization, from hiring (Battilana & Dorado, 2010) to growth (Kannothra
et al., 2017; Siegner, Pinkse, et al., 2018) to interpretation of outcomes (Jay, 2013).
The findings of this study highlight another characteristic of leadership in SEs: the ability
of management to recognize their own outcome foci (the ‘what’ in terms of problems the SE seeks
to tackle in a given locale) as well as their process foci (the ‘how’ of applying tactics and tools
with a social character, such as community involvement) in addressing plural goals.
95
This recognition leads to an important second step: the ability to apply communicative
tactics – translation – and consult physical and digital artefacts, both of which allows for
alternating between individualized and generalized tactics for community involvement – a process
focused goals – , and other – outcome focused – goals. Past research has alluded to the role of non-
human objects and paradox in addressing competing commercial-social demands in SEs (Michaud,
2014). However, this has been done through a focus on communicating about objects, rather than
strategically consulting artefacts that prompt management to enlist certain behaviors, as shown in
our findings.
To summarize, rather than contradicting previous research, the findings of this study enrich
insights into the study of SEs as hybrid organizations. It suggests an enhanced tension framework
that accounts for the distinction between an outcome focus and a process focus in attaining plural
goals (social and commercial). More importantly, through documenting how both management
and ownership structures influence SEs’approach to community involvement, we contribute to
emphasizing the importance of the qualities of leadership – notably paradox management – in
reconciling competing demands between commercial and social objectives. In addition, the
findings on managerial paradox as it relates to the task of community involvement in CFE
decision-making also contributes to the wider literature on public participation. That work largely
proposes that identification and adoption of locally befitting participatory activities solve the
‘involvement challenge’ (Bryson et al., 2013; Muthuri et al., 2012).
96
This study shows, however, that locally adapted tactics for participation are by no means
straightforward activities. They are riddled with tensions and contradictions that warrant active
alleviation with managerial strategies and practices of the kind identified in the chapter. This
research comes with the usual limitations of qualitative inquiry, notably context specificity and
issues with generalizability of findings, which were addressed through the sampling of cases that
depict variation in the phenomena of interest. The focus was on gathering rich and detailed insights
into the specifics and experiences of enlisting participatory process in a set of case studies of CFEs
in BC, Canada. Although the findings cannot definitely support or deny the viability of
participatory practices in SEs, the work points to more of a tension management and paradox
perspective, in which SEs identify strategies for involvement that are mutually enforcing, if
balanced well against other goals that form their social mission. Having an investigation into a
larger sample of SEs with regards to their community involvement could be the subject of future
studies. Moreover, attention could be paid to the interaction of non-management actors in enlisting
community involvement, such as employees (Depedri et al., 2010) or networks supporting SEs
(Huybrechts & Haugh, 2018). Therefore, future work may investigate SEs’ strategies for
community involvement in contexts other than developed economies, where strong institutions
and civil society structures encourage a culture of citizen engagement. Enlisting trust between
communities and organizations in contexts of deep poverty and inequality requires long-term
approaches to building trust (Mair et al., 2016).
97
Seeing how this would shape SEs’ strategies for community involvement could also be a
future avenue to explore. Around the globe, SEs, like CFEs, have an increasingly important role
to play in empowering marginalized rural and Indigenous communities by means of engaging them
in local businesses. The hope is that this chapter will spur further research into the practicalities of
SEs enlisting their participatory mandate in the local communities in which they operate, bringing
further insights and answers to this important characteristic of SE activity.
98
Chapter 4: Strategic Orientation in Community Forest Enterprises:
Implications for Effectiveness
4.1 Introduction
Community forest enterprises (CFEs) are social enterprises engaged in the trade of forest
products and services with the primary goal of fostering resource stewardship and economic
development among rural and Indigenous communities (Ambrose-Oji et al., 2015; Antinori &
Bray, 2005; Kozak, 2009). Their unique and innovative decentralized organizational structures are
well-suited to address sustainability concerns in natural resource extraction, as well as the
marginalization of some forest-dependent communities (Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018).
While CFEs are increasing in number around the world, their growth and ability to scale-
up have been longstanding issues (Macqueen, 2013; Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018). It has been
widely noted that CFEs frequently struggle financially, often having to rely on government
agencies and nonprofit organizations for financial support (Hajjar et al., 2012; Humphries et al.,
2012). As many of these agencies themselves lack adequate funds, it has been suggested that CFEs
need to find ways to become more competitive (Cubbage et al., 2015; Macqueen, 2008). Previous
literature defines two main strategies for CFEs to become more competitive, namely a growth- and
a niche-focused strategic orientation (Antinori & Bray, 2005; Macqueen, 2013). Proponents of the
growth-focused strategic orientation argue that CFEs must look for ways to lower the costs of
doing business, especially those related to production (Gomes-Casseres, 1997). In short, a growth
focus is a strategic orientation where CFEs would harvest and sell logs (Kozak, 2007).
99
This strategic orientation is premised upon an assumption that CFEs are vulnerable to
competition from larger forest companies that have inherent economies-of-scale advantages
(Benner et al., 2014; Macqueen, 2013). Indeed, CFEs are generally categorized as small and
medium forest enterprises (Kozak, 2007), typically having less than 50 full-time staff and
generating much smaller revenues than average sized forest sector firms (BCCFA, 2018;
Humphries et al., 2012). A growth-focused strategic orientation suggests that CFEs can overcome
scale disadvantages, for example, by seeking ‘strength in numbers’ and forming clusters with
similar organizations engaged in the trade of wood products (Villavicencio-Valdez et al., 2012).
Growth-orientation is also practiced by CFEs emerging in developed, forest rich, economies in
Europe and North America, where government-issued forest management licenses and timber
permits facilitate logging activities and timber sales in existing forest markets, often by means of
catering to nearby sawmills and wood manufacturing facilities (Pinkerton & Benner, 2013; Stoian
et al. , 2009). Because these CFEs sell to the same markets as large firm competitors, efficiencies
in harvest operations and identification of low-cost access for transport – sometimes through
forming agreements with larger forest sector firms (Bullock et al., 2009) – become important
components of their business strategies (Pinkerton & Benner, 2013).
However, adopting a growth-focused strategic orientation may be at odds with the multiple
goals of CFEs. For instance, a focus on growth may come at the expense of nimbleness, impede
CFEs from quickly adapting to the shifting demands of buyers and other changes in the
marketplace (Gomes-Casseres, 1997).
100
Moreover, a focus on growth may also serve to undermine CFEs’ founding values,
specifically those related to local participation, decentralized decision-making (Hajjar et al., 2011),
and the preservation of cultural and ecological values (Taylor, 2010).
The second strategy, a niche-focused orientation, suggests that CFEs should try to enter
lucrative niche markets to avoid competition from large firms, rather than focusing on lowering
costs. Technological innovations, service integration where non-timber forest products (NTFPs)
are being developed alongside experiential services (e.g. guided tours), and a shift from wild-
harvest to semi-cultivation, offers rising prospects for growth in marketing those products
(Meinhold & Darr, 2019; Weiss, Emery, et al., 2020). Proponents of the niche orientation (Ambus
et al., 2007; Kozak, 2009) argue that CFEs must position themselves in those markets with a focus
on product differentiation and higher value-added goods. CFEs may also look into investing in
specialty and custom production facilities which allow them to efficiently manufacture their
chosen product mixes (Tomaselli et al., 2014). For example, a niche-focused orientation has
allowed CFEs to appeal to targeted markets of environmentally conscious consumers with the sale
of environmentally certified wood products (Ambus et al., 2007; Kozak, 2009). A particular
strength of the niche-focused orientation has to do with strategies for scaling-up CFEs.
Specifically, a niche-focus can allow CFEs to achieve lasting impacts in a location without
necessarily having to grow, if they can identify a niche of loyal customers that are willing to pay
a premium price on the services offered by a CFE. Thus they can generate enough revenue to better
serve a larger number of local beneficiaries, i.e., community members (Ambus et al., 2007;
Macqueen, 2013).
101
In other words, in a CFE context, successfully scaling-up refers to the opportunity in CFEs
to develop business models, other than selling raw logs (Kozak, 2009; Macqueen, 2013). However,
there are also competitive risks inherent in a niche-focused strategic orientation, in so much as
niche markets can very quickly become attractive and vulnerable to the entry of larger firms
(Aragón-Correa et al., 2008). Further, this orientation requires that employees and managers
possess the entrepreneurial capacity to identify and retain niches (Ebben & Johnson, 2005), which
may be challenging for resource-constrained organizations like CFEs.
While there is a paucity of literature specifically devoted to the strategic orientations of
CFEs, what does exist parallels the discourse for the for-profit sector, where the pursuit of
competitiveness has traditionally been conceptualized in terms of cost leadership and creating
unique value through differentiation (Porter, 1980). The effectiveness of cost leadership and
differentiation strategic orientations – particularly in the for-profit forest sector – has typically
been conceptualized in terms of financial performance (Hansen et al., 2015; Korhonen et al., 2018;
Panwar et al., 2016). In the context of CFEs, however, the use of financial performance to measure
the effectiveness of strategic orientations is far too limiting. As described in Chapter 1,
effectiveness in the CFE refers to the simultaneous pursuit of plural social, environmental, and
financial goals. Specifically, the social enterprise nature of CFEs is such that performance must
be conceptualized in terms of attaining a plurality of goals – social, environmental, and financial
(Antinori & Bray, 2005).
102
While the extant CFE literature provides descriptions of the general nature and broader
benefits associated with the pursuit of competitive strategies (Cubbage et al., 2015; Frey et al.,
2019; Vega & Keenan, 2014), what has yet to be provided is a more nuanced picture of what it
actually means for CFEs to pursue competitiveness in light of plural goals. Thus far, it is not known
how the adoption of a particular competitive posture aligns with CFEs’ abilities to achieve
effectiveness in the form of balanced social, environmental and financial goals. The principal
objective of this chapter is therefore to address this gap through investigating the strategic
behaviour of a population of CFEs in the Cascadia region (British Columbia, Canada, and
Washington and Oregon, USA) and its relationship with the attainment of plural social,
environmental, and financial goals.
4.2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Theories on competitive advantage explain how and why organizations acquire superior
performance compared to similar organizations within their specific industry. Building on seminal
works from the mid-20th century (Ansoff, 1965; Chandler, 1962), competitive strategy has evolved
to become a central concept in the business planning process (Guerras-Martín et al., 2014;
Hoskisson et al., 1999). It encompasses decisions that an organization makes to become profitable
and relates to the efforts of a business to stake out a position of comparative advantage in a given
market.
Often, this is reduced to a choice between producing at a lower cost than competitors, or
obtaining a premium price. Porter (1980) famously recast this choice as two generic competitive
103
strategies, namely ‘cost leadership’ and ‘differentiation.’ Cost leadership is associated with a
strong focus on efficiency (notably through investment in state-of-the-art production equipment
and technology) and economies of scale. It can involve the removal of non-essential features from
product lines to maintain a low price in the marketplace. Airlines like EasyJet or discount grocers
like Alfie’s No-Frills are examples of companies that cut costs to a minimum and pass their saving
on to customers. Sophisticated supply chain management and business information systems also
play a role in the pursuit of cost leadership. For example, Walmart’s supply chain strategy involves
investing in advanced technology for tracking inventory and stocking shelves, allowing it to keep
consumer prices consistently low (Liechtenstein, 2009).
Porter’s second generic strategy, differentiation, refers to the creation of unique products
and services that cannot easily be imitated by competitors in the same market. A differentiation
strategy can be achieved through product designs which enhance the value of the relationships that
a business forms with its customers. The Apple iPhone, for instance, became globally successful
largely because of its features that spur loyalty, joy of use, and even passion among its users (Noble
& Kumar, 2008). Differentiation can also involve the creation of a user experience. IKEA is an
example of a company that integrates in-store appearances, layouts, and entertainment to appeal
to customers’ hedonic values with the intent of catalyzing higher levels of consumption
(Anderbygd & Asawapittayanon, 2011). The strategy field has demonstrated a link between
Porter’s generic strategies and firm outcomes (see Campbell-Hunt (2000) for a meta-analytic
review from 1983 to 2005, a well as Allen & Helms (2006) for a review of the link between generic
strategies and performance).
104
Research on competitiveness has shown that organizations can benefit from cost leadership
and differentiation, but also from the integration of both strategies. Indeed, despite Porter’s initial
claims that superior outcomes eventually necessitate a clear choice between either cost leadership
or differentiation, and despite empirical support for this assertation (Dess & Davis, 1984; Robinson
& Pearce, 1988), there is growing evidence that firms can effectively pursue hybrid strategies,
reaping rewards from combining premium prices with lower costs (Gopalakrishna & Subramanian,
2001; Hansen et al., 2015; Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2009).
The literature also points to negative performance outcomes associated with a lack of
strategic focus and past work has identified failing organizations that do not possess what can best
be described as ‘strategic thrust’ (Robinson & Pearce, 1988). When businesses forego
opportunities associated with the pursuit of competitiveness, the result has decisively been overall
lower performance (Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997; Hansen et al., 2015; Lechner & Gudmundsson,
2014). The bulk of the literature on the strategy-performance link is focused on financial
performance, where it is assumed that outcomes associated with strategic orientation are generally
positive. Research that studies goal plurality in organizations has pointed to a more nuanced link
between strategy and performance that may not be universally positive. Studies on firms’
community engagement activities, for instance, observed a positive relationship between the
adoption of a differentiation strategy and the ability to reap business benefits through social
activities (Boehe & Barin Cruz, 2010; McWilliams et al., 2006), a practice commonly denoted as
the ‘business case for corporate social responsibility’ (Orlitzky et al., 2003). However, it could not
uncover such a relationship with regards to cost leadership strategies (Banker et al., 2014; Panwar
105
et al., 2016). In some instances, like the energy and waste efficiency sectors, a focus on cost
leadership may be commensurate with environmental initiatives (Orlitzky et al., 2011), but this
focus has generally not been found to favour the advancement of the core community and
sustainability objectives that many other nonprofit and social enterprises espouse (Austin et al.,
2006; Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2012).
In nonprofit organizations and social enterprises, differentiation, rather than cost
leadership, is seen as commensurate with the simultaneous pursuit of social mission-related and
financial objectives. It has even been emphasized that social enterprises possess certain resource
advantages that allow them to naturally benefit from differentiation (Haigh & Hoffman, 2014).
Notably, attention has been focused on their favourable public image. They are seen as
organizations that are built from the ground up to empower marginalized communities (Fosfuri et
al., 2016), Attention is also on their proactive attitude towards partnerships and collaborations, for
instance, in programs for sustainability and ethical certification of products and services (Lee &
Jay, 2015).
On the other hand, it has been suggested that nonprofit and social enterprises have a certain
proclivity to place a low emphasis on overall strategic orientation (Battilana et al., 2012), putting
these organizations at a somewhat higher risk to miss out on market opportunities. Lack of business
savvy (Moizer & Tracey, 2010), or an internal culture that rejects ‘mainstream’ approaches to
business and marketing (Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2012), have been posited as reasons for
a tendency to place a lower emphasis on strategic orientation.
106
Competitive strategies for CFEs generally focus on growth and niche orientations, with the
former resembling elements of Porter’s cost leadership generic strategy and the latter being akin
to differentiation (Cubbage et al., 2015; Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018). Cost leadership, in a CFE
context, is inherently part of the clustering activities of many CFEs based in the Global South,
which form producer associations and joint ventures in wood manufacturing and distribution
(Cubbage et al., 2015; Tomaselli et al., 2014; Villavicencio-Valdez et al., 2012). Through the
sharing of resources and production capacities, these CFEs managed to achieve scale advantages
allowing them to enter mainstream forest product markets in their respective countries (Macqueen,
2013), with some even exporting internationally (Villavicencio-Valdez et al., 2012).
Differentiation strategies in CFEs revolve around the pursuit of a range of value-added activities
in markets for timber products and NTFPs, which has been documented in case studies involving
CFEs around the world (Ambus et al., 2007; Carías-Vega, 2019; Kozak, 2009). Here, CFEs
leverage unique local resources, notably the relationships they form with networks of community
and NGO partners, to explore product and service offerings that reflect CFEs’ nature as locally
and sustainability oriented social enterprises (Smith et al., 2018; Tomaselli et al., 2014)
Overall, the existing accounts of CFEs’ competitive strategy behaviors have generally been
associated with positive benefits. First, in developing a particularly competitive posture, be it cost
leadership or differentiation, CFEs are expected to gain more independence from government
grants and charitable donations as a prime source of income, positioning these organizations as
financially sustainable organizations in forest-based markets (Cubbage et al., 2015; Sanchez-
Badini et al., 2018).
107
Second, adopting competitive postures can also enhance CFEs’ image as business savvy
organizations (Macqueen, 2013), making it more likely to attract investments and develop business
partnerships beyond the circle of NGOs, government agencies, and the other ‘usual suspects’ that
support community forestry, such as researchers and community organizations. Yet, while the
extant CFE literature provides descriptions of the general nature and broader benefits associated
with the pursuit of competitive strategies, what has yet to be provided is a more nuanced picture
of what it actually means for CFEs to pursue competitiveness in light of plural goals. Just as in any
type of SE, CFEs’ structures and activities must support a balancing of plural goals (Diochon &
Anderson, 2009), and avoid ‘skewness’ in achieving financial sustainability at the expense of core
environmental and community objectives (Cornforth, 2014). CFEs seek a much larger goal of
addressing pressing challenges around social marginalization, responsible environmental
stewardship, and sustainability of forest-dependent communities (Bullock & Hanna, 2012). While
this certainly involves the need for financial sustainably, possibly even profitability, it is not the
primary motivation for their existence. Rather, they emphasize the importance of collective
governance structures that support community participation (Taylor, 2010). CFEs also emphasize
rotating available employment amongst locals (Hajjar et al., 2013) and, if CFEs are owned by
Indigenous groups, there is a focus on incorporating traditional ontologies and epistemologies in
the organizational process (Antinori & Bray, 2005). Thus far, however, it is not known how the
adoption of a particular competitive posture aligns with CFEs’ abilities to achieve effectiveness in
the form of balanced social, environmental and financial goals.
108
This lack of insight is also striking insofar as the majority of research on the growth
potential and competitiveness of CFEs focuses on developing countries (Carias-Vega & Keenan,
2016; Cubbage et al., 2015; Kozak, 2009; Molnar et al., 2008). What strategic choice looks like
for CFEs in high-income countries, such as Canada and the United States, where they are
embedded in an industrialized forestry context (Teitelbaum, 2014), is not yet known.
The small body of work on CFEs in high-income countries has focused on community-
managed woodlands in England (Ambrose et al., 2015; Ludvig et al., 2018), but does not extend
to Canada and the United States. This is not to say that scholars have not provided valuable case-
based evidence of CFEs operating as part of community forestry initiatives in Canada and the
United States (Belsky, 2008; Bullock et al., 2009; Teitelbaum et al., 2006), and the identification
of these multiple benefits. But more concerted efforts are warranted where insights from
management and organizational theory are drawn to explore prospects and challenges of CFEs in
this part of the world, with a particular focus on the business practices that allow them to deliver
on these outcomes while remaining competitive. Therefore, this dissertation chapter asks: What is
the relationship between CFEs’ strategic orientation and organizational effectiveness?
A focus on differentiation seems conducive to CFEs’ pursuit of plural goals as locally-
rooted, small organizations. Because of CFEs’ built-in features, such as collective governance and
rootedness in place, they may evade competition from larger timber producers if they explore
markets for specialty wood products, NTFPs, or recreational services, to name a few examples
(Bliss & Kelly, 2008).
109
Indeed, the localized character of CFEs might even be a strategic resource in and of itself
(Rangone, 1999) that allows them to reach a loyal customer base that values their focus on
community and locally-produced goods. For example, many CFEs supply timber to local sawmills,
as opposed to selling to faraway markets, and partner with other local actors in exploring
opportunities for business (Frey et al., 2019). In these instances, logging practices by CFEs have
been shown to be more acceptable to the public because their smaller scale is seen to be more
conducive to a stewardship orientation and ‘caring’ for the land (Bliss & Kelly, 2008). For all the
above reasons, this chapter will systematically assess this assumption by testing the following
hypothesis:
H1. Pursuit of a differentiation strategy is related with CFE effectiveness
An interesting question revolves around whether the two extremes of pure differentiation
or cost leadership are the only options available for CFEs to position themselves competitively.
Some CFE accounts report instances where the focus on efficiency in operations is accompanied
by a simultaneous exploration of value-added opportunities (Ambus et al., 2007; Villavicencio
Valdez et al., 2012). Adopting a hybrid strategic orientation could mean that CFEs not only engage
a variety of activities to be financially self-sufficient, but do so in a manner that is responsive to
local social and environmental objectives by engaging in value-added activities. This should, in
theory, translate into sustainable outcomes on all three sustainability dimensions. However,
whether these efforts can be regarded as intentional in terms of CFEs’ strategy-making is not
understood.
110
Therefore, this chapter will also explore the relationship between the pursuit of hybrid
strategies and the ability to perform well on plural dimensions by testing the following hypothesis:
H2. The relationship between strategic choice and effectiveness is higher in mixed CFEs,
compared to others
Some research on CFEs has observed that there may not only be a lack of business savvy within
the CFEs, but a certain reluctance amongst community members to fully engage with the
commercial mandate of the organization out of ideological convictions that CFEs ‘do things
differently’ than traditional forest businesses (Macqueen, 2013). However, being successful in the
marketplace has generally been found to be positively correlated with the ability to remain
commercially viable and accumulate the necessary resources to advance their broader social and
environmental objectives (Cubbage et al., 2015). In other words, CFEs that pursue some sort of
strategic orientation are expected to be better off than those that lack such a strategic thrust.
Therefore, this chapter will also assess the general claim that the pursuit of competitive orientations
will generally translate well into an ability for CFEs to meet their plural performance objectives
with the following hypothesis:
H3. There is a positive relationship between strategic orientation and effectiveness
111
4.3 Methods
4.3.1 Sample and Data
Data collection took place over a four-month period and began in May 2019. An electronic
survey was distributed to the managers of 89 CFEs in the Cascadia region (British Columbia,
Canada, and Oregon and Washington, United States) who have managed a working forest for at
least one year. The relatively large total number of active CFEs, and the diversity of organizational
forms, activities, and actors involved, make Cascadia a suitable region to investigate the research
questions in this chapter.
The region has seen a surge in community forestry activity since the late 20th century, albeit
under varying degrees of institutionalization. In 1998, the Province of British Columbia introduced
legislation in support of community forestry, allowing for the decentralized forest resource
management at the level of local and Indigenous governments, as well as by community
organizations (Ambus, 2016). Over 60 CFEs have since been established throughout the province
under a community forest tenure program.
Community forestry practices in Oregon and Washington, thus far, exist informally, with
civil society coalitions forming processes, groups, and organizations to re-orient forest
management practices towards decentralization, sometimes in partnership with county and forest
service authorities (Davis et al., 2020). This has resulted in the formation of a small, but growing,
number of CFEs, where community stakeholders, in partnership with local forestry practitioners,
create economic opportunities through the US Forest Service’s system for selling timber and
distributing service contracts (Abrams et al., 2015).
112
Despite differences in institutionalization, both Canadian and US CFEs in Cascadia receive
support from industry associations that provide training, business mentoring, and advocacy for
established and aspiring CFEs; these include the British Columbia (BC) Community Forest
Association (BCCFA) and the Northwest Community Forestry Coalition in Washington and
Oregon State.
The BC sampling frame included CFEs identified through consulting a publicly available
government list (dated January 10, 20193) of community forest agreement (CFA) holders, as well
as web searches and, when necessary, phone calls to the organizations to verify commercial
activity of CFA holders, which yielded 61 CFEs that fit the study criteria. The US CFE population
data – given the absence of an official community forestry policy in the states of Oregon and
Washington – was sought from a list published in a 2018 community forestry report commissioned
by the WA State legislature4.
A list of CFEs in Oregon and Washington, administered by the Northwest Community
Forest Coalition, served as additional source of information5. Cross-comparison of both lists and
verification of CFE status (i.e., commercial activity criterion) yielded a total of 28 CFEs for the
3https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/timber-tenures/community-
forest-agreements/current_cfa_status_report.pdf, accessed Feb 2, 2020. Two CFEs are not on the government lists of
CFA agreement holder because they are run under a Tree Farm License, but were included in the study because of
their nature as municipal forests and members of the BCCFA (British Columbia Community Forest Association,
2020). 4https://apps.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=Community%20Forest%20Program%
20Development%20Report%20%28Packaged%29_39eb763b-4fcd-4657-b4e0-a55511e9573e.pdf, accessed Feb 3,
2020. 5 This database also contained information on a few community forestry initiatives in Alaska, Idaho, and Montana.
However, initial assessment revealed that neither of these projects is currently involved in active forest management
to generate revenue, which is why they were not included in the study.
113
two US States combined. The email addresses of the managers for all of the 89 CFEs identified
(61 BC-based and 28 US-based) were obtained for the online survey through web searches or
phone calls to the organization. The survey was designed using Qualtricsxm software provided by
the University of British Columbia and distributed under the auspices of “CFE Manager Survey”
with the following e-mail subject line: “Help us identify effective business strategies for CFEs.”
Data collection followed the general principles of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman et al.,
2014), which included sending a second and third wave of reminders to participate in the online
survey (sent three weeks after the first and second wave, respectively)6.
A total of 55 questionnaires was received (Figure 6), 53 of which were online survey
responses and two were conducted via the telephone. The response rate for the US based CFEs
(39%) was lower than the BC sample, but still within the typical range of survey responses
(Dillman et al., 2014). One questionnaire was incomplete and three came from organizations that
indicated that they do not engage in any commercial activities, leaving a number of 51 complete
questionnaires that met the study criteria for the analysis, with an adjusted total response rate of
61%. Figure 6 shows the location of survey respondents on a map. Nonresponse bias was tested
by comparing early and late respondents (those that responded in the first wave, versus those
responding in the final, third wave), as recommended by Armstrong & Overton (1977).
6 An offer was also made to participants to conduct the survey via telephone instead during follow-up rounds.
114
Using a t-test, no statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in
any of the main study constructs7 (p>.05).
.
Figure 6 Locations of Survey Participants8
7 The main study constructs were competitive orientation (IV) and a three-dimensional – social, environmental,
financial – sustainability performance variable (DV). See Table 3-2 for an overview of the study constructs. 8 Location markers represent the geographic location of participants’ IP addresses at the time they completed the
survey and may not represent the locations of the CFEs themselves.
115
In a second test, a separate continuous variable (days taken to respond) was created and
included as a continuous variable in a regression model with performance as the dependent, and
competitive orientation (differentiation and cost leadership) as the independent variable (Lindner
et al., 2001). The model did not yield statistically significant results, providing further indication
that early and late respondents did not differ in the study.
4.3.2 Survey Design
Because of CFEs’ small size, effectiveness was not assessed using readily available
indicators (e.g., KLD scores9) which are typically used for large firms. Instead, a self-report
instrument was developed, as recommended in previous studies (Wall et al., 2004), alongside
collecting information on organizational demographics (e.g. age, location, sized, and type of
ownership) that are understood to affect strategic orientation and performance in the context of
small firms and social enterprises (Liu et al., 2014; Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2012). Self-
reporting was also deemed appropriate based on recommendations by Dess and Robinson (1984),
who note that the use of subjective measures lends itself well to the operationalization of broader,
non-economic dimensions (p.271). Scale items were primarily taken from the peer-reviewed
literature to increase content validity (Nunnally, 1994).
9 KLD standard of performance criteria were created by KLD Research & Analytics Inc., which became part of
Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) in 2001. Scores are awarded to companies which demonstrate social
and environmental commitment based on 5 key environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. Over 90 percent
of index holdings are dedicated to large companies. https://www.nbs.net/articles/msci-kld-scores, accessed September
16, 2020.
116
In the absence of a commonly accepted measure to study effectiveness in social and
nonprofit enterprises (Herman & Renz, 2004), multiple sources informed the development of scale
items. An initial pool of scale items was then reduced to those that focused on the operational
definitions used for the dependent and independent variables in this study. Traditionally, constructs
used to measure social enterprise effectiveness have been adopted from the literature that studies
for-profit enterprises, adding or amending items as applicable (Chen & Hsu, 2013; Herman &
Renz, 2004; Morris et al., 2007).
However, research on scale development has also focused on novel constructs that are
reflective of the dual social and commercial nature of social enterprises, capturing important
notions around moral principles, self-help, equity, and provision of long-term training and
education benefits (Coombes et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2014; Miles et al., 2014). In line with the
former approach, this study measured effectiveness using scale-items that examine subjective
opinions on CFEs’ performance in several broader areas related to their mission, rather than
measuring specific performance indicators (revenues, assets, fundraising ratios etc.). The scale that
best fit the above criteria was deemed to be a multi-item, dual-construct performance scale by
Miles and colleagues (2014). This uses six social performance and four financial performance
items to assess effectiveness in social enterprise organizations. Aside from measuring the
constructs of interest in the study, it was assessed for construct validity, yielding good results, with
coefficient alphas of 0.73 and higher (Bhattarai et al., 2019; Miles et al., 2014).
117
The use of simple, straightforward language was another criterion in incorporating scale
items that unambiguously measure constructs of interest. Examples of broader questions revolved
around respondents’ perceptions of “improvements in financial sustainably,” or “mobilization of
interest for the social benefits of community forestry.” Respondents were also asked to evaluate
statements of long-terms benefits, such as “advocating for local needs” or the extent of “positive
change brought to the community.” Since no applicable measures of the effectiveness of
environmental outcomes could be found, six scale items were developed for this study by drawing
from environmental indicators identified in the community forestry literature, such as “practicing
environmental advocacy” and “championing sustainable forest stewardship” (Hajjar et al., 2011;
Pagdee et al., 2006; Teitelbaum, 2014).
The wording of these items was then modeled based on formats used in published scales
on the social effectiveness of social enterprises (Miles et al., 2014). The new scale items were
assessed and approved by two senior academics with expertise in forest sector and management
research fields. Furthermore, scale items from widely used scales that operationalized Porters’
generic strategies (Dess & Davis, 1984; Robinson & Pearce, 1988) were re-worded to capture
central terminologies familiar to actors in the context of CFEs (e.g. value-added activities; sales of
primary commodities). The choice was to assess cost-focus and differentiation as two distinct
dimensions of strategic orientation, measured via separate scales, as opposed to two ends of a
continuum. This choice was motivated by the intent to capture pure, but also mixed strategies, as
well as CFEs with few strategic priorities (Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997). This resulted in a total
number of 24 scale-items, not including organizational demographics.
118
In total, three main constructs were used with a minimum of four positively-worded,
closed-ended questions (see Table 10). Response formats included measures of the levels of
agreement (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) on a 5-point Likert scale, which helped reveal
underlying variances in participant responses (Miles et al., 2014). Information on organizational
demographics (e.g., CFE age, size, and location) was collected at the end of the survey using
categorical and open-ended question formats, such as “what is the form of ownership of this
organization?” or “what products/services does the organization offer?” (See Appendix C for the
survey instrument in its entirety).
119
Table 10 Summary of study constructs
Construct Description References
Published
Scale
Effectiveness
Perceived opinions of the organizations’
performance
in areas related to the broader (social) mission
(Coombes et al., 2011)
(Liu et al., 2014)
Yes
Yes
Effectiveness
Contributions to long-term value creation
through moral principles, self-help, empathy,
training, and empowerment
(Miles et al., 2014)
Yes
Effectiveness
Perceived opinions of CFEs’ contributions to
environmental sustainability
Hajjar et al., (2011)
Pagdee et al., (2006)
Teitelbaum, (2014)
No
No
No
Strategic Orientation Perceptions of strategic priorities executed in the
organization
(Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997)
(Dess & Davis, 1984)
Yes
Yes
Strategic Orientation
Perceptions of internal importance ratings for
different sources of competitive advantage
(Miller & Friesen, 1986)
(Robinson & Pearce, 1988)
Yes
Yes
120
A number of steps were taken to minimize respondent fatigue and complacency. The
survey instrument was pre-tested through an internal expert review (Presser & Blair, 1994), using
ten research colleagues who were not affiliated with the study. This step resulted in minor revisions
for improved readability. Social desirability bias can be an issue in organizations focused on
demonstrating community and environmental responsiveness (Liu et al., 2014) In this study it was
minimized by asking CFE managers to rate performance during a certain time period in their own
organization, rather than enlisting comparisons with competitors in the same industry, as is
common practice in the study of for-profit organizations (Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997; Dess &
Robinson, 1984) .
Use of five-point response scales for the main constructs offered the opportunity for
participants to express a neutral response, rather than being forced to respond positively or
negatively (Nadler et al., 2015). As the same respondents were asked to rate both dependent and
independent variables in the same self-administrated survey, measures were taken to reduce risk
for common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This involved guaranteeing confidentiality of
responses, as well as strategically distributing variables in the questionnaire and altering question
formats. For example, constant-sum questions were used (where participants were asked to allot
100 points to the relative importance of social, environmental, and financial objectives in the
organization) and semantic differential questions (which sought additional information on CFEs’
strategic orientations). The presence of a common method bias was assessed with Harman’s single
factor test on the main study constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
121
Harman’s single factors model specifies that all of the items in the research model should
be subjected to an exploratory factor analysis, using unrotated principal axis factors analysis (fixed
one-factor only). Results showed that the single factor explained less than 50% of variance
(23.7%), a level that cannot invalidate the relationship between dependent and independent
variables (Fuller et al., 2016), and confirming that a common method bias was not an issue.
122
4.3.3 Data Analysis
Upon completion of the data collection, participants’ responses were exported into IBM
SPSS Statistics 26 program to conduct univariate and bivariate statistical analyses. First, mean
scores were computed on the Likert scale constructs in the study (Boone, 2012). A list of variable
names is included in Table 11.
Table 11 List of variables
Variable Name Variable
Dependent Variable
SP
EP
FP
Independent Variables
Diff
CostLead
Organizational Demographics
Size
Age
Location
Ownership
Certification
Performance
Social Performance
Environmental Performance
Financial Performance
Strategic Orientations
Differentiation
Cost Leadership
Size in forest hectare
Age in years
Location (Canada/US)
Form of ownership
Participation in forest certification program
123
To assess scale reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (a) were computed for the first-
order, multi-item constructs (Table 12). The performance constructs all indicated reliable measures
above the minimum value of 0.70, as suggested by (Nunnally, 1994). Cost leadership and
differentiation scales were below the recommended threshold, but still above 0.50, and therefore,
moderately reliable (Hinton et al., 2004, p. 364). Responses to the open-ended survey questions
were grouped into categories, whereby information about products and services offered was used
to create binary (yes/no) variables to distinguish between CFEs with multiple versus unitary
revenue streams, and to identify CFEs engaged in value-added activities and/or those which
participate in a forest certification program. Information about organizational ownership (closed
and open-ended question formats from the questionnaire) was re-grouped into five categories. CFE
age and size were measured as continuous variables, and reported as such.
124
Table 12 Reliability coefficients of variables
Factors and Items Means Std.
Deviations
Cronbach’s
Alphas (a)
a
if item deleted
Social Performance (SP)
SP_1
SP_2
SP_3
SP_4
SP_5
SP_6
Environmental Performance (EP)
EP_1
EP_2
EP_3
EP_4
EP_5
EP_6
Financial Performance (FP)
FP_1
FP_2
FP_3
FP_4
Cost Leadership (CostLead)
CostLead_1
Costlead_2
CostLead_3
CostLead_4
Differentiation (Diff)
Diff_1
Diff_2
Diff_3
Diff_4
24.94
24.93
16.84
14.10
13.4
2.85
3.15
2.96
2.54
2.73
.766
.828
.821
.545
.695
.749
.721
.782
.724
.690
.711
.810
.798
.813
.810
.789
.777
.806
.726
.757
.810
.575
.542
.369
.409
.616
.656
.727
.486
125
Pearson’s correlation coefficients (Table 13) showed that there were correlations between
financial performance and the main observed independent variables. The results also showed that
there were significant correlations between CFE location and CFE age, and between CFE location
and forest certification. However, these did not affect the main observed variables as the variance
inflation factor (VIF) was below 2 (O’Brien, 2007).
Table 13 Pearson’s correlations for observed dependent and independent variables
Specification A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A. Social
Performance 1 .67** .45** .13 .06 013 .11 -.19 .15 -.13
B.Environ.
Performance 1 .26 .03 .03 -.04 .22 -.11 -.09 -.10
C. Financial
Performance 1 .456** .32* .04** -.16 -.22 .04 .10
1.Cost
Leadership 1 .06 .17 -.20 .23 .01 .03
2.
Differentiation 1 -.01 -.17 .13 -.07 -.02
3. CFE
Ownershipi 1 -.13 .01 .09 -.06
4. CFE
Locationii 1 -.24 .35* -.31*
5.CFE Size 1 -.09 .07
6. CFE Age 1 -.19
7.Forest
Certificationiii 1
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level i1=Nonprofit, 2=Indigenous, 3=Cooperative, 4=Partnership, 5=Municipality/County ii1=Canada, 2=US iii Yes=1, No=2
126
4.4 Results
Analyses were based on the sample of 51 CFEs. Results of statistical techniques applied to
test each of the study hypotheses are reported below.
4.4.1 Descriptive Information
A k-means cluster analysis was performed to divide the CFEs in the sample based on their
effectiveness in balancing social, environmental and financial performance. The analysis was
performed on the composite mean scores of the sixteen survey items that measured performance.
A three-cluster solution was derived, based on comparing the iteration histories and F-values with
two and four cluster solutions respectively. Separately conducted ANOVAs further confirmed the
three-cluster solution. These were done with performance composites as the dependent variable
and the clusters as factors, using a post-hoc Tukey test. Cluster one (Balanced Performers) consists
of a large number of effective CFEs who did manage to perform well financially, while also doing
well socially and environmentally. Cluster two (Skewed Performers) comprises a relatively large
set of less effective CFEs that performed well financially but achieved only moderate social and
environmental performance. Finally, cluster three (Low Performers) is a small group of less
effective CFEs that performed well socially and environmentally but had very low financial
performance.
127
The k-means clustering methodology was also applied to the eight differentiation and cost
leadership items, which yielded a three-cluster solution using the same cluster validation
procedures as above (see table 14 for mean scores). Cluster 1 (Pure Differentiators) is a small
group of CFEs that strongly emphasized differentiation, with a low focus on cost leadership.
Cluster 2 (Mixed Strategists) includes CFEs that placed high emphasis on both differentiation and
cost leadership. Finally, Cluster 3 (Strategically Irresolutes) is a moderately sized group of CFEs
that have a low focus on differentiation, as well as cost leadership.
Table 14 Cluster means (n=51)
Performance Clusters Mean SP Mean EP Mean FP
Balanced Performers
Skewed Performers
Low Performers
4.53
3.91
3.75
4.51
3.79
4.00
4.64
4.32
3.03
Strategy Clusters Mean Diff Mean CostLead
Pure Differentiators
Mixed Strategists
Strategically Irresolutes
4.13
3.53
2.54
2.83
4.02
3.07
128
Both sets of clusters were then compared to each other using a chi-square test with the
Fisher’s exact test for small sample sizes (n=51, p=.013). In so doing, support could be found for
the first hypothesis, namely that the pursuit of differentiation is associated with effectiveness in
attaining a balancing of social, environmental, and financial performance dimensions. Half of the
CFEs that comprised the Pure Differentiators were also classified as Balanced Performers (Table
15). Additionally, the majority of the Strategically Irresolutes were also Low Performers,
indicating that low strategic orientation is associated with lower effectiveness in balancing social,
environmental, and financial performance.
Table 15 Results of chi-square analysis with k-means clusters
Pure
Differentiators
Mixed
Strategists
Strat.
Irresolutes
X2
n % n % n % .013*
Balanced
Performers 5 50% 14 52 4 22%
Skewed
Performers 3 30% 12 44 3 28%
Low
Performers 2 20% 1 4 7 50%
TOTAL 10 100% 27 100% 14 100%
*Results significant at the 0.05 level; Fisher’s Exact Test
129
The performance clusters were also compared with each other using descriptive
information (Table 16), providing further support for Hypothesis 1. Not only were Balanced
Performers the group with the largest share of Pure Differentiators, they were also the ones that
engaged the most in value-added activities and forest certification programs, two activities
commonly associated with the pursuit of differentiation in CFEs.
130
Table 16 Descriptive information based on k-means clusters
Characteristics Balanced
Performers
Skewed
Performers
Low
Performers
Strategic Orientation (%)
Pure Differentiators 22% 16.5% 20%
Mixed Strategists 61% 67% 10%
Strategically Irresolutes 17% 16.5% 70%
Average CFE Age (years) 17 18 12
Average Community Forest Size (ha) 22.000 31.200 37.000
CFE Location (%)
British Columbia 83% 89% 70%
Oregon & Washington 17% 11% 30%
Organization Form (%)
Nonprofit/Society 8,7% 16.7% 50.0%
Indigenous Ownership 13.0% 0.0% 10.0%
Cooperative 8,7% 0.0% 0.0%
Partnership 8,7% 22.1% 10.0%
Municipally/Country-Owned 60.9% 61.1% 30.0%
Forest Certification (%)
yes 13% 11% 10%
no 87% 89% 90%
Value-Added Activities (%)
yes 30.0% 17.0% 10.0%
no 70.0% 83.0% 90.0%
Multiple Revenue Sources (%)
yes 48.0% 50.0% 30.0%
no 52.0% 50.0% 70.0%
131
4.4.2 ANOVA Results
To test the second study hypothesis, one-way ANOVAs (α = 0.05) were conducted on all
sixteen individual performance items, using the k-means strategy groupings as the predictor
variable. The results indicate significant differences between CFE strategic orientations on all
financial performance items. However, only one social and one environmental performance item
(out of six each) showed statistical significance. In other words, there exists a weak association
between CFEs’ strategic orientations and these two performance dimensions.
With regards to financial performance, post-hoc Scheffe tests indicated partial support for
Hypothesis 2 (Table 17). For all financial performance variables, FP1 through FP4, the mean
scores for the Mixed Strategists were significantly different than the Strategically Irresolutes, but
not from Pure Differentiators, with the exception of FP4, where Mixed Strategists also differed
from Pure Differentiators at the 0.10 level. Thus, support can be found for the hypothesized
difference in financial performance between CFEs that adopt mixed strategic orientations versus
those that lack strategic thrust. However, only limited statistical support can be found for the
hypothesized difference in performance between Mixed Strategists and Pure Differentiators.
132
Table 17 ANOVA results
Variable
Pure
Differentiators
(PureDiffs)
Mixed
Strategists
(Mixed)
Strategically
Irresolutes
(NonStrats)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Sig.
Scheffe post-
hoc
FP1” […] generating
funds to support local
benefits”
4.40 0.69
4.48
1.21
3.64
0.75
0.031*b
Mixed differ
from NonStrats
(.024*)
FP2 “[…] we have
increased our
effectiveness”
4.40 0.69 4.44 0.10
1 3.50 0.68 0.002
Mixed differ
from NonStrats
(.003*)
FP3 “[…] our financial
situation has improved”
4.30
0.83
4.56
0.99
3.71
0.57
0.006*
Mixed differ
from NonStrats
(.006*)
FP4” We are financially
sustainable"
3.80
1.13
4.59
1.22
3.57
0.57
0.016*b
Mixed differ
from PureDiffs
(.072**) and
from NonStrats
(.005*)
EP5 “[…] we have met
our environmental
objectives”
3.8 0.91 4.41 0.61 4.07 0.57 0.041*
Mixed differ
from NonStrats
(.056*)
SP4 “[…] mobilize
interest for the social
benefits of community
forestry”
4.50 0.70 4.07 0.74 3.64 0.67 0.017*
PureDiffs differ
from NonStrats
(.018*)
SP5 “[…] met
objectives in terms of
local needs served”
4.1 0.87 4.26 0.72 3.71 0.59 0.066*
*
Mixeddiffer
from NonStrats
(.067**)
*Results significant at the .05 level; ** Results significant at the .10 level bBrown-Forsythe test See Appendix D for a full list of ANOVA results
133
4.4.3 OLS Regression Results
To test the third study hypothesis, simple linear regressions (ordinary leased squares OLS)
were used to predict CFE social performance (model 1), environmental performance (model 2),
and financial performance (model 3) based on strategic orientations using the mean composites of
the differentiation and cost leadership variables. Community forest size, CFE age, location, forest
certification status, and ownership were also included in the models as additional predictors. The
models for social, environmental, and financial performance were as follows:
Model 1: Social Performance = differentiation + costleadership + OrgSize_ha + OrgAge
+ Sustainability Certification + OrgLocation +OrgOwnership + e
Model 2: Environmental Performance = differentiation + costleadership + OrgSize_ha +
OrgAge + Sustainability Certification + OrgLocation +OrgOwnership + e
Model 3: Financial Performance = differentiation + costleadership + OrgSize_ha +
OrgAge + Sustainability Certification + OrgLocation +OrgOwnership + e
Models 1 and 2 on CFE social performance (F(7,41) = 0.696, p > .05, R2 = .106) and
environmental performance (F(7,41) = .792, p >.05, R2 = .119) were not statistically significant.
However, Model 3 indicated a good fit with the data and explained over 50 % of the variance in
financial performance (F(7,41) = 8.079, p < .001, R2 = .580). Therefore, partial support was found
for Hypothesis 3, that there exists a positive relationship between the pursuit of competitiveness
and performance in CFE.
134
The higher CFEs’ cost leadership (ß.442 p<.001) and differentiation orientations (ß.332
p<.001), the higher financial performance. Regression Model 3 also showed a positive relationship
between the type of CFE ownership and financial performance (ß.327 p<0.001)10. And, a
statistically significant negative relationship was found between CFE forest size (in hectare) and
financial performance, with smaller forestlands yielding higher financial outcomes (ß -.407
p<.001). This finding is in line with previous work that found evidence of decreasing returns to
scale, where smaller CFEs yielded relatively higher productivity per unit of input (Frey et al.,
2019). Case-based evidence from past literature demonstrates that CFEs, and similar small forestry
businesses that operate on smaller land areas, are more innovative with respect to environmental
practices (Egunyu et al., 2016; Panwar et al., 2016). Although, the regression results in this work
do not provide statistical evidence for the link between competitive strategy and environmental
performance. As for the Cascadia region, size of forest area allotted to CFEs does not imply more
timber harvest rights. In BC, some of the CFEs with the largest forest area hold relatively low
annual allowable cut rates, compared to CFEs that operate on small forestlands (British Columbia
Community Forest Association, 2020). With CFEs being small organizations, having oversight
over large forestlands, major parts of which might be reserved for conservation, can post a liability
in terms of the costs of oversight (Davis et al., 2020; Pinkerton & Benner, 2013).
10Ownership was computed as categorical variable, where 1 = Nonprofit, 2 = Indigenous-Owned, 3 = Cooperative, 4
= Limited Partnership, 5 = Municipally-Owned. In the regression model, the positive relationship connotes that the
higher financial performance, the higher the rating in the categorical ownership variable (i.e. limited partnership and
municipal ownership, as opposed to lower number categories) .
135
4.5 Discussion
CFEs are generally perceived to generate positive socio-economic and environmental
effects in the communities where they exist. Yet, few studies have investigated empirically the
viability of CFEs in terms of their strategic positioning on markets for forest products and services
(Cubbage et al., 2015; Frey et al., 2019). The main objective in this chapter was to assess the
relationship between CFEs’ competitive positioning and performance in the North American
Cascadia region where CFEs are on the rise amid a declining forest industry and increased public
demand for policy towards greater sustainability in forest management. This was done by: a)
situating CFE competitiveness within classic competitive strategy frameworks, b) identifying
types of strategic orientations in CFEs in Cascadia, and c) establishing whether the pursuit of these
strategies is commensurate with CFEs’ effectiveness in terms of attaining plural social,
environmental and financial goals. Table 18 summarizes the study hypotheses that formed the
basis of the investigation. The results reveal that all three hypotheses were supported, but the latter
two only partially so.
136
Table 18 Original study hypotheses and test results
Hypotheses Analysis Result
H1. Pursuit of a differentiation strategy is related to CFE
effectiveness
k-Means Cluster
Analysis &
Chi-Square Test
Supported
H2. The relationship between strategic choice and
effectiveness is higher in mixed CFEs compared to others
One-Way
ANOVAs
Partially
supported
H3. There is a positive relationship between strategic
orientation and effectiveness
Linear
Regressions
Partially
supported
The results of this study inform ongoing debates about the need for CFEs to become more
competitive, while being able to also meet their wider community and environmental goals (Frey
et al., 2019; Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018). For example, this study found support for the assertion
that the pursuit of differentiation strategies, where CFEs compete through tapping niche markets
for value-added products and services, are a particularly suitable strategy given CFEs’ focus on
plural goals (Ambus et al., 2007). The CFEs that indicated a strong focus on differentiation in their
strategic postures reported consistent outcomes across social, environmental, and financial
performance (the ‘Balanced Performers’ in the cluster analysis).
137
Notably, many of these ‘Balanced Performer’ CFEs were cooperatives and/or Indigenous-
owned, yet only comprised a small group (ten organizations) within the Cascadia region. The
descriptive statistical analyses revealed that the majority of the CFEs in the study sample were
municipally and/or county owned and classified as Mixed Strategists. That is, they predominantly
indicated cost leadership in their strategic orientation, emphasizing efficiency gains and growth in
forest management and timber sales, while also exploring opportunities for differentiation. The
literature has suggested that CFEs largely follow either a cost leadership or a differentiation path
(Cubbage et al., 2015; Macqueen, 2013) – that is, they make a choice between obtaining scale
advantages, for instance, through clustering with similar organizations (Villavicencio-Valdez et
al., 2012), or by tapping into novel niche markets, like those for custom-manufactured and
sustainably-grown wood products (Ambus et al., 2007; Kozak, 2009). This chapter shows,
however, that CFEs in the Cascadia region appear to do a bit of both, albeit with a stronger focus
on cost leadership orientation.
The attention that was given to cost leadership may seem expected, considering the
industry that CFEs belong to. Forest sector organizations, by and large, are known to emphasize
cost leadership (Hansen et al., 2015; Toppinen et al., 2013). Yet, the findings still surprise. Given
that CFEs stand for a different approach in the forest sector, one that emphasizes community and
stakeholder participation in sustainably utilizing forestlands, one may expect differentiation to be
more prevalent in CFEs’ competitive orientations.
138
A possible explanation why this was not the case might be the context of this study. In the
Cascadia region, CFEs emerge against a backdrop of a declining forest industry, which results in
the closure of large mills and high rates of unemployment in traditional forestry towns (Abrams et
al., 2015; Pinkerton et al., 2008). While many large companies have ceased operations,
experienced workers and industry professionals still reside in these communities, and some are
finding employment with newly created CFEs (Bullock et al. 2017). Previous research has
recognized that behaviours reflecting organizational and industry-specific norms, once
internalized, are remarkably resistant, even under changing environmental conditions (Wright &
Geroy, 2001). Thus, for the CFEs that operate in the forestry-centric Cascadia region, selling raw
logs through existing markets – a practice associated with cost leadership in CFEs – may simply
appear to CFEs as the most feasible option because of its obvious alignment with adopted norms
and skills amongst the workforce. It’s also a relatively easy and fast way to achieve financial
sustainability (Benner et al., 2014). Furthermore, given that CFEs in the Cascadia region exist
within an established forest sector, they can draw from a wide pool of experienced professionals
that know how to translate strategic orientations into financial success. The above context can thus
provide some cues as to why cost leadership dominated in the hybrid strategic mix. It was the most
prevalent in the study sample, and was statistically associated with gains in financial performance,
but not with social and environmental performance.
139
Neither the ANOVAs nor the linear regression models indicated that social and
environmental improvements made by CFEs have anything to do with the strategic postures that
they adopt. On the upside, this means that the types of decisions that CFEs take with regards to
their strategic orientations do not put their social or environmental missions at risk.
However, it also means that any measures associated with the pursuit of differentiation,
cost leadership, or a mixed strategy, do not necessarily lead to investments in any particular social
or environmental measures. CFEs are small and relatively novel organizations. Much more work
is needed to develop these sorts of skills, be it through training their own staff or attracting savvy
leaders that know how to translate strategic postures into performance benefits, beyond mere
financial outcomes. Despite the limited conclusions regarding the relationship between strategic
orientation and plural performance outcomes, it seems that it can still pay off for CFEs to adopt
strategic orientations. The results clearly showed that those CFEs that lacked strategic thrust (i.e.,
the Strategically Irresolutes) were predominantly owned by non-profit societies and consistently
performed worse financially, compared to CFEs that emphasized pure differentiation or hybrid
strategic orientations.
Similarly, the linear regressions showed a positive relationship for the pursuit of cost
leadership, differentiation orientations, and financial performance. That is, those CFEs that scored
low for strategic orientation dimensions seem to be missing out on financial opportunities. Past
research has shown that social enterprises, which are typically formed at the community level,
often face a mistrust of the adoption of business-like behaviours among their staff and boards
(King, 2004).
140
Conscious attempts to develop a competitive posture might simply not be regarded as
necessary out of a conviction that the organization ‘does things differently’ than traditional
companies (Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2012). However, the chapter shows that it still pays
off for CFEs to adopt a strategic posture. It enhances their financial sustainability and, as shown
by the small group of Balanced Performers identified in the surveyed CFEs, it can lead to success
in achieving social, environmental, and financial goals.
4.5.1 Limitations and Future Research
While this study has its limitations, the data can lead to future research opportunities. First,
the overall population of CFEs in the studied region is small. While the response rate was
acceptable with respect to the population of total CFEs in the studied region, it was a small sample,
and results must, therefore, be approached with caution. Also, this study represents CFEs in
developed countries. Hence, extrapolation of these results to developing regions must be done with
care and caveats, if at all.
To that end, studies that compare CFEs’ strategic orientation and performance implications
across different regions would be very useful. So would studies that co pare different types of CFE
clusters (e.g. differences in forest markets, forest species compositions, economic systems and
policy environment). Follow-up studies could also look at the boundary effects of both CFE
strategic orientation and effectiveness. The study cannot explain with full clarity, for instance,
whether there exists an intentional match between a CFEs’ general mission and vision and its
strategic orientation.
141
In-depth, qualitative research may reveal further insight on this matter. Such studies may
also help further reveal why some CFEs seem to rely on cost leadership (e.g., a focus on selling
logs), despite increased argumentation in the literature of the potential advantages of
differentiation, particularly in the form of value-added opportunities.
4.6 Conclusions
Although they increase in numbers around the world, CFEs are widely perceived to lack
competitiveness due to their small size and high costs of operations. This is partly owed to the fact
that CFEs hold community and environmental objectives at their core, such as providing stable
employment for locals. An important question facing the CFE sector is thus how these unique
organizations can compete in national and international markets, while successfully pursuing the
community and resource sustainability goals that they desire. This chapter furthered the analyses
of competitiveness in CFEs with the largest survey sample of CFEs in U.S and Canada, and
demonstrated that CFEs indeed adopt strategic orientation, and benefit financially from doing so.
Aside from case studies that explore pathways toward market success for CFEs, there is a
lack of studies that systematically assesses the relationship between CFEs’ competitive
orientations and their ability to effectively attain plural social, environmental, and financial
performance objectives. The few studies that do exist in this realm portray the pursuit of
competitiveness for CFEs largely as a choice between the adoption of growth strategies to save
costs (i.e., clustering with similar organizations) or to tap into niche markets.
142
Contrary to these findings, this chapter shows that a mixed strategic posture in fact allows
CFEs to enhance their performance. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that pursuit of differentiation
is associated with effectiveness in balancing plural social, environmental, and financial
performance objectives. Finally, it is shown that overall, having a strategic orientation pays off for
CFEs. Understanding the factors that enable CFEs to succeed as a social enterprise model must
continue, as has been done in this chapter. Only with this understanding can these unique
organizations – which must be profitable – successfully pursue the community and resource
sustainability goals that they desire.
143
Chapter 5: The Effect of Managerial Characteristics on Community
Forest Enterprise Performance – Evidence from British Columbia
5.1 Introduction
The multiple goals that community forest enterprises (CFEs) must simultaneously pursue
pose unique and nontrivial management challenges for CFEs. Created under non-traditional
governance models, whereby authority over forests is shifted towards community-based
management of forests, CFEs engage local people in operating forest businesses and reinvest
revenues within communities for financing projects in education, recreation, health, and other
domains that a community might deem important for its well-being and flourishing (Ambrose et
al., 2015; Molnar et al., 2007). In other words, CFEs involve local people to make decisions related
to sustainable use of forest resources – i.e., generating revenues that must be channeled to advance
interests of the surrounding communities while also protecting the integrity of local ecosystems
(Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018; Siegner et al., 2021). Thus, the senior staff of CFEs must have skills
and mindsets atypical of managers of commercial firms (Antinori and Bray, 2005). They must not
only be good at generating revenue, but also skilled in using that revenue for good. Indeed, they
must be excellent community workers too, who must masterfully engage community members for
making important decisions. The finding of the second chapter in this dissertation highlighted the
important role that managers play in making decisions for the organization that suits their identity
as social enterprises pursuing plural goals.
144
This chapter delves further into the managerial profiles of managers in CFEs, specifically
inquiring about the characteristics that position senior staff in CFEs to deliver on these plural and
complex goals better than others. Despite a rich body of literature on CFEs, this important question
– with profound staffing implications – remains largely unaddressed, and thus motivated the study
for this final chapter.
Research suggests that the role of the CFE manager resembles that of small business
owner-managers (Carias-Vega and Keenan, 2016), specifically highlighting the importance of a
strong personal commitment to use intuition over formal planning in organizational decisions
(Gibb and Scott, 1985). The employees, volunteers, and support staff that comprise the typical
CFE workforce are familiar with their local forests and environment, but often lack technical skills
and competencies to run a successful business (Macqueen, 2013). Consequently, the CFE manager
is often like a novice owner-manager (MacMahon and Murphy, 1999). They have to perform
multiple roles, ensure that their organizations operate smoothly, train people, understand market
conditions and adapt to changes, all the while learning on the job (Antinori and Bray, 2005). In
addition, CFE managers must be adept at building and maintaining relationships with many
different actors, proactively creating opportunities for their organizations and caring for the values
and aspirations of the communities that they serve (Ambrose et al., 2015). Research has also shown
that CFEs are not homogenous, but rather a diverse group of businesses that differ in the objectives
they aspire to achieve and the structures that they employ to accrue community benefits from local
forests (Furness et al., 2015; Hajjar et al., 2011).
145
Some CFEs apply a consensus-based approach to business processes and place a strong
emphasis on environmental stewardship of the land by employing cooperative forms of
organization (Egunyu et al., 2016; Teitelbaum, 2014). Others primarily exist for the creation of
economic opportunities, operating as incorporated, legally autonomous companies that enjoy
broad powers to hire staff and carry out commercial activities, while securing the desired local
benefits (Pinkerton and Rutherford, 2021; Villavicencio Valdez et al., 2012). These differences
likely influence the types of managers that CFE boards and community members bring to the
organization. It follows, then, that managerial characteristics, including demographics, values, and
motivations, can influence the performance of CFEs in turn.
Hambrick and Mason (1984) posited that managerial characteristics have a strong influence
on organizational performance. A plethora of scholarly works on the role of ‘upper echelons’ has
since demonstrated that managers make choices based on their individuals attributes, even if faced
with the same environmental conditions (Bromiley and Rau, 2015; Carpenter et al., 2004;
Hambrick, 2007; Miller and Toulouse, 1986). To date, no complete picture exists of the role that
managerial characteristics play in CFE performance, despite some evidence which suggests that
certain qualities in managers, such as orientations towards stewardship and people, are associated
with positive organizational outcomes like improved employee motivation and transparency
(Carias-Vega and Keenan, 2016; Sinha and Suar, 2005). This chapter sets out to address this gap
in knowledge and to formulate a path forward for research and practice on the topic of how
managerial characteristics influence CFE performance.
146
5.2 Study Aim and Focus
Previous research on CFE employees has offered a revealing glimpse into staffing
arrangements made by CFEs (Carias-Vega and Keenan, 2016; Macqueen, 2013; Molnar et al.,
2007). In Canada, for example, community forests allow for the multiple use of landscapes on
designated public and private land areas, including forming enterprises for timber sales, wood-
processing, and value-added processing (Bullock et al., 2017; Teitelbaum, 2016). British Columbia
is among the provinces with the highest concentration of community forests, with over 2.0% of
the provincial forest harvest being conducted by community forest agreement (CFA) holders (BC
Government, 2020). These include non-profit associations, cooperatives, Indigenous enterprises,
municipal corporations, and limited partnerships that oversee forest management in accordance
with local values and preferences (British Columbia Community Forest Association, 2020). British
Columbia’s community forestry initiatives count among their ranks an eclectic mix of local
volunteers and elected officials who have set up the governance structures, prescribe membership
rules, engage in forest planning, and hire staff that performs the daily operations of the enterprise
(Bullock et al., 2017; Mulkey and Kenneth, 2012). These managers, who can either be contracted
or hired full-time to run the commercial interests of BC’s community forests, have diverse
backgrounds that reflect the heterogeneity of the operations in this sector (Benner et al., 2014;
Furness et al., 2015). For example, CFEs that are oriented towards more diversified approaches to
forest management have been reported to choose general managers with backgrounds in
ecologically sensitive forest practices, including the need to tap into local memory and traditional
ecological knowledge (Devisscher et al., 2021; Egunyu et al., 2016).
147
Those CFEs that exist primarily to create economic opportunities tend to hire professionals
with industry backgrounds, for example, former employees of companies and sawmills that closed
their operations in the community (Pinkerton and Rutherford, 2021). The Community Forest
Indicators Survey that is conducted annually by the BC Community Forest Association, has also
revealed some general insights into managerial characteristics (British Columbia Community
Forest Association, 2020). It shows managers are typically driven and proactive individuals who
focus on effective communication with diverse stakeholders. They emphasize social networking
to advance plural goals. Such anecdotes apart, broader understanding between managerial
characteristics and the performance of CFEs has not yet been developed. To address this gap, this
the following research question is asked: Is there a relationship between managers’ personal
characteristics and CFE performance?
5.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
5.3.1 Managerial Characteristics, Decision-Making, and Outcomes
At its core, research that delves into the relationship between managerial characteristics
and organizational performance assumes that key-decision-makers have significant control over
the general direction of their organizations (Child, 1972). Because of their importance in the
decision-making process, questions typically revolve around the presence of certain qualities in
managers’ characters, experiences, and abilities, and how these relate to organizational success.
148
An often referenced framework by which the role of managerial characteristics can be
interpreted within the organization is Hambrick and Masons’ (1984) work on the upper echelons
(i.e., the CEO and top management). Work on the upper echelons draws from behavioural theory
(March and Simon, 1958), which emphasizes the behavioural component in all decision-making.
That is, organizational decisions are a direct reflection of the idiosyncrasies of decision-makers,
rather than the result of rational economic optimization. By adding to behavioural theory the
perspective of managerial attributes, Hambrick and Mason (1984) arrived at a model that formed
the basis for a plethora of studies on the links between managerial characteristics and organization-
level outcomes (Carpenter et al., 2004; Hambrick, 2007), and has also been applied in the context
of small businesses (Friedman et al., 2016; Kickul and Gundry, 2002).
The chapter adopts a novel approach to the question of effective organization in CFEs by
focusing on the influence of managerial characteristics in the social, environmental, and financial
domains. CFEs are an example of community-based social enterprises (Siegner et al., 2021) that
adopt locally benefiting business practices which support the social and cultural fabric of the
community, notably through adopting collective forms of governance and participation in
decision-making. A theoretical framework was developed for this study that attempts to explain
how managerial characteristics influence performance (Figure 7). Each component of the
framework is explained below, followed by the corresponding hypothesis.
149
5.3.1.1 Proactive Personality and Performance
Like other small businesses, CFEs commonly face limitations with regards to the
availability of qualified labor and access to capital (Cubbage et al., 2015; Humphries et al., 2012;
Teitelbaum, 2014). This presents management with added responsibilities (Gagnon et al., 2013).
Small business managers have been observed to simultaneously wear the hats of operations
planners, innovation strategists, and growth entrepreneurs (Lefebvre, 1992). It makes
proactiveness – the ability to scan for opportunities, take action, and persevere (Bateman and
Crant, 1993) – a critical quality to look for in making choices about leadership. Kickul and Gundry
(2003), for example, elucidated how small firms increased their innovation capabilities as a result
of managers’ proactive personality traits. Searle and Rooney (2013) found the same relationship
to hold in regards to small firms’ environmental and social activities. It is therefore expected that
CFEs similarly benefit from management that exhibits strong proactiveness traits in growing
opportunities for the organization in their varied goal domains. Therefore, I propose the following
hypothesis:
H1. There is a positive relationship between CFE managers’ proactive personalities and
CFE performance
150
5.3.1.2 Perceived Work Discretion and Performance
CFEs constitute a relatively novel type of organization in that they challenge existing
norms and institutions due to their multi-pronged focus on community-level objectives and
profitability (Ambus, 2016; Furness et al., 2015; Hajjar and Oldekop, 2018). In fact, CFEs have
been described as an ‘experiment’ (Bullock & Hanna, 2012) where management operates in the
absence of established rules and best-practice templates on how to perform their job. In other
words, CFE managers are often allowed to experiment and apply outside-of-the-box thinking
(Wangrow et al., 2015) to address the novel sets of challenges related to social issues and
environmental sustainability (Hahn et al., 2014; Lamm et al., 2015). This higher degree of work
discretion leads to an increasing range of options that managers have at their disposal to alter firms’
decisions, actions, and performance (Boyd and Gove, 2006). The influence of managerial
characteristics, thereby, can be higher in businesses that promote discretion in managers and afford
them the opportunity to take fuller advantage of their skills and abilities (Wangrow et al., 2015).
Therefore, CFE can be expected to benefit from granting work discretion to management as a
means to facilitate effective and adaptive decision-making. Specifically, it is hypothesized:
H2. There is a positive relationship between CFE managers’ perceived work discretion
and CFE performance
151
5.3.1.3 Social Networking and Performance
The external ties of management are generally perceived as an asset in terms of
organizational outcomes (Geletkanycz and Hambrick, 1997). Managers that maintain networks
across diverse groups and economic sectors are better able to open doors for the organization, in
terms of novel ideas and partnerships. All of this can help in attaining long-term success
(Fernandez-Perez, 2012). CFEs tend to rely on forming associations and partnerships, both among
themselves (Macqueen et al., 2006), but also with governments, funding agencies, and other actors
that can help them gain legitimacy and resources (Ludvig et al., 2018; Weiss et al., 2020).
Similarly, other smaller types of businesses in the forest sector, such as woodlots and small land
holdings, have benefited from maintaining social networks that help them identify opportunities
for innovation and value-added strategies (Nybakk et al., 2009; Ruseva et al., 2014). We would
expect the same relationship to hold for managers of CFEs. It has been well established in the
literature that CFEs need to draw from specialized skills and knowledge for practices like small-
scale timber harvesting and marketing (Ambus et al., 2007; Egunyu et al., 2016), and also in
responding to natural disturbances and climate change risk (Devisscher et al., 2021; Furness and
Nelson, 2012). To effectively execute these activities, it can also be expected that CFEs, whose
managers interact with professional groups and diverse sets of people, would be better able to help
their organizations succeed in the social, environmental, and financial domain. Therefore, it is
hypothesized:
H3. There is a positive relationship between CFE managers’ degree of social networking
and CFE performance
152
Figure 7 Theoretical Framework of the Study
5.4 Methods
5.4.1 Measures
Most upper echelons research focuses on CEOs and their top-management teams in larger
companies, and well-known industrial sectors (Carpenter et al., 2004). There are major differences
between those large firms and the CFEs in this study, including numbers of employees, scales of
their activities, levels of professional management, and in the means in which goals and criteria
for success are set. Therefore, substantial modification was needed in some of the scales used. This
used wording from pre-existing work where the researchers had equally adapted proven scales to
small forestry organization contexts (Furness and Nelson, 2012; Nybakk et al., 2009).
H1:
Proactive
Personality
CFE PerformanceS
oci
al
H2:
Perceived
Work
Discretion
H3:
Social
Networking
Managerial Characteristics
(+)
En
vir
on
men
tal
Fin
anci
al
153
It also meant using scales (e.g., for social networking), as opposed to quantification of
corporate proxies (e.g., interorganizational mobility, trade association ties), as is the standard in
upper echelons research for larger firms (Carpenter and Reilly, 2006). Performance in CFEs
generally addresses social and environmental needs in local communities, as well as financial self-
sufficiency in business operations (Antinori and Bray, 2005). As such, items from social enterprise
performance scales were used (Coombes et al., 2011; Miles et al., 2014) that were developed
specifically to account for the diverse nature of social enterprises’ objectives (Kroeger and Weber,
2014). In particular, subjective self-reported measures that rate managers’ levels of agreement with
statements about progress made towards achieving set goals were incorporated into the
questionnaire (Bhattarai et al., 2019). Adapted items from Miles et al.’s (2014) proven scale were
also used. This comprises a six-item social performance and a single-item financial performance
construct (‘we are financially sustainable’). Six items measuring environmental performance were
developed specifically for this study. The scale was designed to capture ecological outcomes that
previous studies identified as particularly germane to the community forestry context (Teitelbaum,
2014).
In order to measure proactive personality, five items from the accepted scale by Bateman
and Crant (1993) were adapted. In a similar fashion, five items from a widely used scale by
Hornsby et al. (2002) were used to measure perceived work discretion. This scale consistently
yields good reliability when measured alongside other factors influencing internal opportunity for
innovation and entrepreneurship (Kuratko et al., 2005).
154
Social networking was measured by using a version of the scale by (Nybakk et al., 2009),
who adapted a widely used scale (Antia and Frazier, 2001) to fit the context of small forest owners.
All main study constructs were measured on a 5-point Likert scale from (1) Strongly Disagree to
(5) Strongly Agree. Additionally, because previous studies have established that organizational
performance is affected by ownership type and the mode of managerial employment (hiring in-
house versus contracting services) (Chrisman et al., 2012; MacMahon & Murphy, 1999), these
variables were included as controls. CFE ownership was assessed a categorical variable, and hiring
a full-time manager in-house was assessed as a binary variable with 1= denominating in-house
status, and 0 = contracting management services.
5.4.2 Sampling and Data Collection
A complete and official list of community forests located in British Columbia was obtained
from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. This was used to identify
names and contact information of the managers via a web search. The BC Community Forest
Associations’ (BCCFA) website was used to identify additional community forestry operations,
including a few initiatives in their membership that operate under a Tree Farm License. But, due
to their governance and legal status as community corporations, they rank in the category of CFEs
as per their mission and redistribution objectives, and are therefore commonly included in
empirical research on CFEs in Canada (Pinkerton and Rutherford, 2021; Teitelbaum et al., 2006).
The community forests that were identified as commercially active (i.e., classified as CFEs
per our study criteria) were then added to an adjusted list of 61 CFEs. An online questionnaire and
155
cover letter explaining the objectives and importance of the study were e-mailed to the managers
in spring 2019. A second and third wave followed the initial survey invitation in three to four-
week intervals (Dillman et al., 2014). These also offered a telephone survey as an alternative option
(two managers made use of this option). Data collection ended in September 2019, at which point
41 complete questionnaires that met the study criteria had been received, resulting in an adjusted
overall response rate of 67%. Non-response bias was assessed by comparing early and late
respondents. Differences between early and late respondents for social, environmental, and
financial performance were not significant, so non-response errors were not evident.
5.4.3 Analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 26. Three ordinary leased
squares (OLS) regression models were tested with social, financial, and environmental
performance as the respective dependent variables. The final data set included 41 CFE manager
responses that were complete and met the study criteria. Means, standard deviations, reliability
analyses, and correlations for all study constructs are presented in Table 19. All of the values of
the main study constructs indicated reliable measures. Among all variables, the lowest value of
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.66, all well above the alpha cut-off score range (Bryman & Cramer, 2009).
156
Table 19 Descriptive statistics and correlations of regression variables
Mea
n
S.D. Cronbach
’s Alpha
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Social
Performance
4.14 0.48 0.76 1
Environmental
Performance
4.10 0.51 0.81 .705**
1
Financial
Performance
4.27 0.74 . .258 .245 1
Proactive
Personality
4.05 0.48 0.66 .620**
.469**
.393*
1
Work
Discretion
3.95 0.68 0.73 .368*
.294 .275 .317*
1
Social
Networking
3.60 0.73 0.70 .508**
.295 .126 .465**
-
.02
6
1
Ownership 2.05 1.53 . -
.116
.030 -
.399**
-
.154
.00
7
.06
3
1
Mode of
Manager
Contract
0.63 0.48 . .121 .012 -
.086
.424**
.21
3
.21
3
.002 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
5.5 Results and Discussion
The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 20. The models explain 55.5%
of the variation in social performance, 32.7% of the variation in environmental performance, and
37.2% of the variation in financial performance. Based on the standardized regression coefficients,
Hypothesis 1 is supported. CFEs that hire managers with a proactive personality see better social
performance in their organizations (ß=0.319, p<0.05). Hypothesis 2 also receives support. CFEs
in which managers perceive a high degree of work discretion perform better on their social
dimensions (ß=0.244, p<0.001), as well as environmental dimensions (ß=0.112, p<0.10).
157
Finally, hypothesis 3 also receives support. CFEs in which managers engage in social
networking (ß=0.292, p<0.001) perform better on their social dimensions. Therefore, the proposed
model behaves largely as expected (Fig. 7), providing support for all three hypotheses for some of
the CFE performance variables, notably social performance.
Quite surprisingly, however, financial performance is not affected by any of the managerial
variables in the model (p > 0.05). That is, managerial characteristics seem to not have any direct
bearing on financial performance. This suggests that other factors, aside from managerial
characteristics, determine financial success in the CFE. This could be considered good news, from
the perspective of CFEs being organizations with plural goals, that exist to provide positive social
and environmental impact in the communities in which they operate. Choosing the ‘right’ people
in terms of work ethic, level of discretion, and networking activities directly affects social and
environmental outcomes in CFEs. However, the same relationship does not hold for financial
performance.
While it has been argued that financial outcomes, specifically in small business
organizations, strongly rely on the qualities of the managers in charge of organizational decision-
making and operations (Kickul & Gundry, 2003; Nybakk et al., 2009), the results of this study
imply that CFEs do not necessarily select their leadership for those criteria. It might not be that
manager characteristics are a criteria for financial success, but talent among the body of
community members, as well as seeking input from support organizations (e.g. government
agencies, industry association, small business grant programs).
158
Table 20 Results of the regression analyses
Among the control variables, mode of managerial contract (hiring in-house versus
contracting hourly management services) and ownership (whether a CFE is configured as
cooperative, nonprofit society, Indigenous enterprise, or a form of community or partnership-
owned for-profit venture) both have a bearing on CFE financial performance. There is a negative
relationship between hiring a manger in-house and financial outcomes. In other words, financially,
it makes more sense for CFEs to contract hourly services with a management company.
This could be simply due to the costs of having a full-time manager, which can
disproportionality affect the bottom-line for CFEs operating as small forest businesses (Pinkerton
Variables Model 1
(SP)
Model 2
(EP)
Model
(FP)
Proactive Personality 0.319* 0.209 0.601
Work Discretion 0.244*** 0.112* 0.059
Social Networking 0.292*** 0.131 0.383
Ownership 1=Municipal; 2=Ltd.
Partnership;3=Indigenous
Enterprise;4=Cooperative; 5=Society
-0.172 0.162 -0.538*
Mode of Manager Contract 1 = in-house, 0 = consultant
-0.021 0.047* -0.206**
R2 0.555 0.327 0.372
F 8.48*** 3.309** 4.025**
*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05;***p < 0.001
159
& Rutherford, 2021). However, with regards to environmental outcomes for the organization,
having a full-time manager results in positive outcomes. Similarly, CFEs that are configurated as
municipal corporations, limited partnerships, or Indigenous companies, perform better financially,
compared to cooperatives, and nonprofit societies. This confirms previous findings in the literature
that associate the legal status of the CFE with the success in financial terms (Pinkerton &
Rutherford, 2021; Pinkerton & Benner, 2013).
Based on the results of this study, it appears that the community and pro-environment
orientation of CFEs is, at least in part, the outcome of the managers making decisions and running
the day-to-day operations for these organizations. It is hypothesized in this chapter that proactive
personality will be positively related to performance. CFEs benefit from managers that persevere
through research, and outside-of-the-box-thinking until they reach closure in bringing about
certain interventions. Proactive personality was positively related to CFE social performance.
This finding is consistent with organizational management literature that confirms the link
between managers’ proactive personalities and business outcomes (Kickul and Gundry, 2003).
Board members and support organizations can facilitate success in CFEs by supporting managers
in their search processes, by providing best-practices, access to data, visits to conferences, and
other activities that encourage experimentation and uptake of novel approaches. Furthermore, the
results show that managers’ perceived work discretion is an important determinant of both social
and environmental performance.
This is also consistent with the general business literature, which emphasizes that
organizations that grant autonomy to apply novel thinking and creativity in promoting community-
160
oriented initiatives will achieve higher sustainability outcomes for the organization (Arnaud and
Wasieleski, 2014; Buchholtz et al., 1999). Given the fundamental responsibilities that CFEs have
in the communities in which they are situated – reinvesting returns in local infrastructure,
employing a local workforce, and so on – it is vital that managements be granted the discretion to
work towards achieving these plural aims. With CFEs in British Columbia promoting diversity of
local values and meaningful adaptation to environmental sustainability and climate change
(Devisscher et al., 2021; Furness and Nelson, 2012), individuals with a strong grounding in
community engagement practices and environmental work are well-positioned to take on
leadership roles in these organizations.
The results also show that CFE managers’ degree of social networking is a critical
antecedent for social performance. These findings are consistent with earlier literature on small
forest tenures (Ruseva et al., 2014; Sikora et al., 2016). Managers cannot work towards achieving
community-level objectives alone, but must do so in cooperation with others. Networking can
generate ideas that are conducive to the use of local forest resources in a manner consistent with
community values and objectives. It provides managers access to resources and knowledge transfer
to turn commercial opportunities from local forests into desirable benefits for communities
(Nybakk et al., 2009). Accordingly, CFE managers who invest in social networking activities can
garner advantage for their organizations by considering new ideas and finding new and better ways
to generate social impact at the local level. By developing opportunities at the policy and industry
161
level, external agents can play an important role in helping to catalyze meaningful social impact
among CFEs. For example, the BC Community Forest Association (Mulkey and Kenneth, 2012;
Teitelbaum, 2016) organizes events and publishes materials for managers to connect with each
other and benchmark their activities,
No evidence was found that managerial characteristics influence financial outcomes in
CFEs. This could be because CFEs do not have the scale and resources to be selective in matching
the profiles of their managers with particular characteristics in financial management, and growth
of profits. While matching these desired outcomes with the search of a competitive pool of
applicants is the standard in large firms (Chen and Nadkarni, 2017; Hambrick, 2007; Papadakis
and Barwise, 2002), it may not be a feasible option for the small CFEs.
At the same time, it confirms the common assumption that CFEs are indeed ‘different’
types of organizations. Due to their emphasis on plural social, environmental, and financial
sustainability criteria, they cannot be measured with the same tools and frameworks as mainstream
business organizations (Markman et al., 2016). This is not to say that managerial characteristics
affecting financial performance do not matter. Rather, the CFE sector may simply not have the
vision, mission, capacity and resources, where mangers are selectively chosen for those
performance targets (Macqueen, 2013).
162
5.6 Conclusions
This chapter set out to investigate the influence of managerial characteristics on the social,
environmental, and financial performance of community forest enterprises. This decision was
based on observations in the second dissertation chapter, where managers proved influential for
decision-making. They notably safeguarded the practice of community engagement in the studied
CFEs. Many of the findings are interesting in light of hiring and staffing strategies which can
adequately equip CFEs to scale-up and succeed in the growing social forestry space. Specifically,
the study offers three key messages. First, CFEs seeking to improve social performance must
emphasize – both in hiring and training programs – the social networking skills, and the ability of
senior staff to exert discretion and proactive behavior in identifying strategies for pro-social
outcomes in the community. Second, CFEs seeking to improve environmental performance should
allow managers to expand their discretion in taking actions that affect pro-environmental
initiatives. Third, CFEs seeking to improve financial performance should focus on decision-
making bodies in the organizational and institutional environment, rather than focusing on hiring
managers for their ability in influencing financial performance. Overall, the findings demonstrate
the importance of enhancing research on senior decision-makers as a means to enhance
competitiveness of the CFE model. Doing so will generate valuable insights on the hiring decisions
and choices about staffing that influence a CFEs’ ability to perform along plural goals. Future
studies should address the shortcomings of this study and expand the scope of these results as a
means to help understand the potential and development of these novel types of business entities
in the forest sector.
163
Chapter 6: Conclusions
6.1 Introduction
Forests are key to achieving sustainable development. Curbing deforestation and ensuring
sustainable management of the world’s forests is critical to limit global temperature rise and secure
the well-being of more than 1.5 billion people that depend on forests globally. However, these are
complex, if not “wicked” problems (Panwar et al., 2015) that span across sectors, actors, and
scales. Associated interventions to solve them may carry unintended consequences. Indeed, while
decades of attempts to solve issues related to deforestation and the development of forest
communities may have contributed to lessening these problems, they have not solved them by any
meaningful standard (Kozak, 2014; Levin et al., 2012). On the contrary, levels of deforestation
and economic injustices surrounding local forests continue to worsen in many parts of the world
(Panwar et al., 2020). Faced with the seemingly intractable, yet urgent nature of these issues,
experimental modes of intervention are becoming more commonplace. Decision-makers are
seriously evaluating top-down and linear problem-solving – which, in recent history, has
constituted the modus operandi in the governance of the worlds’ forests (Ribot & Peluso, 2009).
Against this backdrop, decentralized forest management – providing communities with the
rights and powers to manage local forests – is one means of evolving institutions in resource
management that is becoming increasingly popular (Agrawal et al., 2008). At its core,
decentralization entails that communities become empowered to address forest resource problems
and create locally benefiting solutions rooted in principles of collective decision-making and
164
participatory governance (Berkes, 2007). Today, decentralized management of forests, in one form
or another, exists in all forested regions of the world (Hajjar & Oldekop, 2018).
Decentralized forest management is often carried out by community forest enterprises
(CFEs). CFEs are commercial entities that generate profits from forest resource use . But they also
ensure that these resources are conserved and that communities’ social and cultural fabric is
maintained, notably by engaging local people in organizational decisions (Antinori & Bray, 2005).
Case-based evidence suggests that well-managed CFEs are able to meet their plural objectives
(Molnar et al., 2007). At the same time, there is ample evidence that CFEs face multifaceted
challenges achieving these objectives, including financial constraints, issues with administration,
weak leadership and governance, and disadvantageous legal and economic contexts (Hajjar,
Mcgrath, et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2005). It is crucial to find ways to help CFEs overcome
these challenges.
The purpose of this dissertation was to advance the literature that reflects on ways for CFEs
to succeed (Macqueen, 2013; Sanchez-Badini et al., 2018). To that end, this dissertation drew upon
the bourgeoning literatures in social entrepreneurship and hybrid organizations to enable CFEs to
overcome challenges so that they can more effectively meet their plural objectives. This
concluding chapter discusses the implications of the results of the dissertation in three parts. The
first part comprises a summary of the key findings of the four chapters comprising this dissertation.
The second part presents key contributions that this dissertation makes to practice, policy, and
research. The third part outlines the limitations of this research and offers avenues for and future
research opportunities.
165
6.2 Summary of Findings
Chapter 2 integrates theoretical and empirical works to articulate how CFEs and their
operations can be understood and analyzed within the social enterprise and the organizational
hybridity literatures. Both scholarly fields have a shared interest in advancing progress towards
sustainable development, but hitherto have seen little in the way of cross-fertilization. Based on
this analysis, a solutions framework is developed that contributes to both of these fields to progress
towards understanding the effective pursuit of plural goals in community forest enterprises.
Specifically, the chapter offers a set of actionable insights for CFEs to address management
challenges facing their hybrid organizations. The lessons offered by this solutions framework are
applicable to managing human resources, marketing products and services, generating funds, and
developing conducive organizational cultures.
Chapter 3 sought to understand how CFEs can take steps towards engaging local
communities in organizational decision-making. An inductive, multiple case study design was
deployed based on a theoretical framework comprising scholarly works on organizational
paradoxes, tensions, and dualities. The chapter suggests that, despite differences in context of
origin (i.e., rootedness in ideals of economic revitalization versus grassroots environmental
activism) all CFEs experience trade-offs between meeting community involvement in
organizational decisions and meeting financial obligations. These trade-offs are addressed with a
separation strategy – so called mediated engagement. Depending on a CFEs’ ownership structure,
mediated engagement entails compartmentalizing community participation and business
166
procedures at different levels of the organization, or outsourcing the execution of participation of
key stakeholder groups in the community. Chapter 3 also demonstrates (i) how managers in CFEs
would identify particular participatory tactics – some of which are more generalized (i.e., target
the public as a whole) and others more individualized (i.e., aim at engaging particular groups of
stakeholders) – and, (ii), illustrate how managers would apply these tactics, while, at the same
time, keeping their focus on other critical goals. In this way, the study builds on prior research on
paradoxical tensions that can surface in hybrid organizations, and ways of navigating these, as
leaders attend to different sustainability-focused goals . In particular, the findings offer
encouraging evidence to suggest that issues in participatory process may be overcome by leaders
who deliberately recognize the tensions between CFEs’ commercial and community-level duties,
and develop appropriate response strategies.
Chapter 4 sought to understand the factors that influence the ability of CFEs to become
more competitive. This was achieved by surveying CFEs in the Cascadia region of Canada and the
United States on their competitive strategies. In Chapter 4, well-known theories of competitive
advantage were used to determine the relationships between CFEs’ strategic choices and their
effectiveness in simultaneously balancing social, environmental, and financial goals. This
particular study began with the expectation that CFEs that practice differentiation will be more
effective. Yet, the results painted a somewhat different picture. Pure differentiators were rare
among sampled CFEs. Instead, the majority seem to be mixed strategists. They apply a competitive
blend of both cost leadership and differentiation orientations, with the overall attention afforded
to cost leadership being higher, compared to differentiation. One possible explanation for these
167
unexpected results could be that the surveyed CFEs are predominantly from areas with historically
strong forest industries. This is to say that a focus on efficiency in operations might align with an
emphasis on community needs, most notably the creation and maintenance of local forestry-related
jobs. The results also suggest that, regardless of a particular type of competitive orientation, CFEs
are better off if they pursue some form of competitiveness strategy, as opposed to lacking strategic
thrust. The evidence shows that CFEs that emphasized a mix of both cost leadership and
differentiation are, indeed, more effective in attaining their goals.
Chapter 5 delved even deeper into the effectiveness question by examining whether CFE
managers’ personal traits and demographic characteristics are associated with performance
outcomes. Drawing from upper echelons theory (UET) and a survey sample of 41 CFEs in British
Columbia, Canada, the data show a relationship between social performance and manager
proactive personalities, social performance, and social networking respectively. The chapter
further demonstrates a link between work discretion and environmental performance in the CFE.
These findings are novel beyond just the context of CFEs. While prior work has shown social
networking to be aligned with financial performance, there has yet to be conclusive evidence that
it can also be tied to community and environmental outcomes. Contrary to common assumptions
in UET, however, no relationship could be detected between managerial characteristics and
financial performance. This could mean that CFE financial performance, for the most part, is
dependent on a host of other factors, beyond managerial background. Managers seem to matter for
social and environmental performance.
168
6.3 Key Contributions
The results of this dissertation offer guidance to managers of CFEs, but also managers of
social enterprises (SEs) more broadly. They also offer important recommendations for policy
makers seeking to grow CFEs and add novel insights to the literatures on CFEs, social enterprises,
and the management of tensions in sustainability-oriented organizations.
6.3.1 Contributions to the Literature
The goal of this dissertation was to provide information that could be used to enable CFEs
in overcoming existential challenges so they can more effectively meet their plural objectives. By
studying six CFEs with varying ownership structures, goals, and activities, insight into the
managerial roles in CFEs was gathered and used to explain the nature of CFEs as hybrid social
enterprises. Very limited work has looked into how CFEs organize themselves internally with
regards to their leadership and management (Antinori & Bray, 2005; Carias-Vega & Keenan,
2016). This research provides understanding of strategic decision-making in CFEs and
predispositions of management in terms of recognizing and managing competing sustainability
objectives within the organization.
This dissertation also contributes to the literature on social enterprises. The notion of
decentralization is gaining traction as a means of providing economic development that is inclusive
of the ‘third pillar’ (Rajan, 2019) – local communities and their jurisdictions. The literature has
extensively investigated how governments adopt social enterprise strategies (Kerlin, 2010). They
focus on specific social enterprise policies, as well as government-funded programs for social
169
entrepreneurs (Borzaga & Defourny, 2003; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004). This dissertation further
reveals the peculiarities of social enterprises. Specifically, there are social enterprises that emerge
due to a push for decentralization (Berkes & Hunt-Davidson, 2010; Finlayson & Roy, 2019). CFEs
are emblematic for these forms of social enterprise activities. As shown in this dissertation, many
CFEs are municipally founded and controlled, or involve multiple shareholders who represent
different local constituents. Navigating these complex structures requires a set of unique
managerial strategies, some of which are identified and described in this dissertation. Thus, in
studying CFEs, the findings from this dissertation can inform future work on the peculiarities and
variations of social enterprises.
Lastly, these findings also advance the literature on organizational paradox. Previous
studies (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; Smith & Lewis, 2011) suggested that the source of many
persistent tensions in organizations essentially emanates from their outcomes. For example,
organizational purpose, i.e., profit versus social value creation, could be a source of tension (Hahn
et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2013). The research in this dissertation shows that, in addition to
outcomes, paradoxes can also emanate from organizational processes. Specifically, it shows that
in their pursuit of community empowerment, CFEs face tensions about the extent to which
communities should be engaged in decision-making. It also illustrates ways to address the tension.
170
6.3.2 Managerial Implications
A central managerial insight from this dissertation is the importance of mechanisms and
skills for the alignment of social purpose and commercial activities in CFEs. As shown in the
solutions framework presented in Chapter 2, the fundamental strain between CFEs’ commercial
natures and their mission to serve the greater good (the community) is unlikely to be resolved. One
of the goals of this research is to demonstrate the value of paradoxical thinking – accepting and
embracing strategic contradictions between competing sustainability objectives, rather than
dismissing the tension that exists between them (Hahn et al., 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The
findings demonstrate that employing paradoxical thinking can make CFEs more effective, but
skillsets like this are rarely considered in the natural resource practitioner literature. Knowledge
around forests, their management, and markets for their goods and services is unlikely to fully
equip leaders to address the multitude of social, environmental, and economic issues that CFEs
seek to address. As the data in this dissertation show, CFEs tend to engage in hybrid competitive
orientations. They adopt a blend of cost-leadership and niche orientations in entering markets.
Pursuit of this strategy requires a diverse set of skills and capabilities in the organization.
Breadth of prior knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and a generalist background
(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) are traits that have been favourable for managing trade-offs and
paradoxical tensions in organizations. Similarly, Chapter 3 demonstrates that CFE managers tend
to follow unconventional career paths, having worked in professional fields beyond just forestry.
This indicates that CFEs may want to search for generalists, not functional specialists, in their
171
leadership. Because a managers’ personalities relate closely to the strategies deployed in small
organizations (Miller & Toulouse, 1986), CFEs might want to extend their searches for human
resources beyond conventional channels (Guerci & Carollo, 2016). Having boards with expertise
in diverse fields, from the social and nonprofit sector, to forestry, environmental start-ups,
technology, and public administration, may provide an opportunity to identify talent with the
ability to leverage CFEs’ unique structures and activities. A diverse board will also aid in
facilitating the managerial tactics identified in the qualitative portion of this dissertation. For
instance, the board can employ separation strategies to address the tension between participatory
and commercial duties requires a climate of reflexivity in the organization (Waldman & Bowen,
2016). Boards, whose members have close ties to the community, and are well-connected and
trusted, will be more successful in executing the types of mediated engagement strategies that were
described in Chapter 3. Taken together, these findings provide managerial insights that can make
it easier to build, lead, and work in CFEs, and generate greater positive impact.
While theories on organizational dualities, paradox, and tensions informed my research on
the managerial role in CFEs, specifically the findings presented in the qualitative data chapter of
this dissertation, it must be mentioned that the types of organization-level insights that my
dissertation generates offer fruitful avenues for future work on sustainable business models
(Dentchev et al., 2018). The insights on the ‘inner workings’ of CFEs that were generated in my
dissertation can serve to inform types of sustainability innovation, as expressed in the way CFEs
172
are structured, managed, and maintained. Chapter 2 of this dissertation showcased the varied
problems that CFEs tackle around the world. Chapter 3 delved deeper into variations of activities
and organization structures, specifically how those influence the role of management in executing
community engagement activities.
CFEs comprise a variety of approaches to generating social impact locally. This includes
traditional forestry operations like logging and harvesting forest products, other non-goods based
sustainability innovations, such as forest carbon (Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2017), and consulting
services in sustainable land use and management (Devisscher et al., 2021). Categorizing and
studying variations of CFEs by how they sustainably create and capture value can make for an
insightful analysis into the effectiveness of the CFE model.It also informs research on sustainable
business models and sustainability innovation broadly (Dentoni et al., 2016).
6.3.3 Policy Implications
The findings suggest that more training and mentorship for CFEs are key ingredients for
their success. Also valuable are are collaborations between natural resources and social sectors
which provide for enhanced funding and business support. Both the government and civic support
structures, like community organizers, associations, and research institutions, have roles to play in
this regard.
173
6.3.3.1 The Role of Government
Government has an important role to play in ensuring that novel community forestry
legislation is adequately linked with support for CFEs. When it comes to addressing problems
pertaining to the environment, communities, and the economy, inducing government agencies with
more interprofessional and cross-agency collaboration has been recommended (Daley, 2009). As
this dissertation demonstrates, enabling CFEs to grow presents a multi-pronged endeavor that may
benefit from greater networking across government agencies to provide the best possible support.
The Forest Tenures Branch of the BC provincial Government currently has no mandate to equip
community forest licensees with strategic resources to set-up and run commercially viable
businesses. Adding the position of a business development officer to the Forest Tenures Branch,
and endowing that position to the ability to connect small tenure holders with training opportunities
and learning resources, may help to set CFEs on a straighter path towards financial success.
More coordinated collaborations between government agencies could also facilitate the
streamlining of information and support with respect to bio-economy and circular economy
strategies. Both areas are currently being targeted by the BC Provincial government as key drivers
of sustainable growth in rural areas, but have had little in the way of impact on how small forest
licenses are handled. The qualitative and survey data in this dissertation have illustrated the
activities of CFEs in sustainably managing biomass, ecosystem services, NTFPs, and wood
residues. It can be argued that these diverse activities position CFEs as exemplary local actors in
transitioning to bio-economy and circular economy models.
174
Catalyzing this sort of new economy thinking among small tenure holders will be critical
to ensure an inclusive transition to the bio-economy and circular economy. (Siegner et al., 2017).
Strategic support for CFEs to help them consolidate their positions as local actors in the bio-
economy ought not to be underestimated by government bodies and other funding institutions.
6.3.3.2 The Role of Support Organizations
The results of the solutions framework presented in the Chapter 2 of this dissertation
suggest that civic actors, notably nonprofit and community organizers, as well as associations, can
play a role in positioning CFEs more prominently as social enterprises. Activities around social
enterprises, decentralization, and rural revitalization are intrinsically linked, and while this
dissertation contributes to a consideration of these links, advocates of CFEs should take note of
this potential for cross-fertilization.
In 2016, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) officially
launched a National Social Enterprise Directory, which serves to increase the visibility of
Canadian social enterprises and connect them with critical funding, tools, resources, and support.
However, no currently active CFEs are listed in this directory. Countries, such as the United
Kingdom where the government is active in officially promoting social enterprises (Kerlin, 2010),
already recognize CFEs as a particular type of social enterprises and promote them as such
(Ambrose et al., 2015).
175
Advocates of CFEs in Canada could push for such recognition at provincial and federal
levels. The BCCFA provides a good example in terms of connecting CFEs with rural initiatives
and critical resources in the natural resource field. However, strategic links to formalized social
innovation-related activities in Canada, such as The Social Enterprise Institute, Centre for Social
Enterprise Development, and InnovateBC, are still lacking. CFE support organizations may
consider recruiting researchers who can help with the identification of these opportunities in a
relative cost-effective manner. For example, the province of Ontario is providing funds for recent
graduate students that want to support social enterprises in their strategies via the Business Growth
and Competitiveness Youth internship program. The Mitacs nonprofit research organization could
be used to promote placements of student-professor teams in helping CFEs get connected with
social enterprise resources and support. Figure 8 summarizes key contributions of this dissertation
with regards to CFEs’ desired outcomes, namely: resource sustainability, community
empowerment, and competitiveness.
176
Figure 8 Summary of Key Contributions of this Dissertation
Enable CFEs to overcome challenges so they can more
effectively meet their plural goals
in Three
Desired
Outcomes
RESOURCE
SUSTAINABILITY
COMMUNITY
EMPOWERMENT COMPETITIVENESS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Add to
organizational
scholarship on
paradox, tensions,
and dualities, the
notion of process,
as opposed to
outcomes, in
managing divergent
sustainability
objectives
Explain the link
between CFEs’
choice of
competitive
strategy and
organizational
effectiveness; and
the relationship
between
managerial
characteristics and
CFE performance
Present a solutions
framework for
CFEs to overcome
challenges as a
social enterprise
model that seeks
localized versions
of forest resource
utilization and
sustainable
development
Managerial Policy-Level
Hire, train, and socialize
leadership (CFE boards
and management) with a
focus on the ability to
embrace, rather than
dismiss, tensions between
plural sustainability
objectives (paradoxical
leadership)
Move beyond the boundaries
of natural resource and rural
sector in positioning CFEs
officially as social enterprises;
systematically connect
government and support
organizations with existing
federal and provincial-level
programs that inform, fund,
and offer training for
social enterprises
KEY CONTRIBUTIONS
177
6.4 Shortcomings and Limitations
This study is not devoid of limitations and shortcomings. First, use of the qualitative meta-
synthesis method, which was applied in chapter two, did not contain an exhaustive list of key
works on CFEs and social enterprise. For example, some articles that are published in a language
other than English were missed. Furthermore, the focus on highly-cited studies from the peer-
reviewed literature may have overlooked informative book chapters or materials from the grey
literature.
Despite clear advantages of the qualitative design deployed in Chapter 3, for example, the
ability to explore the understudied phenomenon of community participation in CFEs’ decision-
making, this method raises questions about generalizability. As is typical in qualitative research,
and case studies in particular, the focus of this study was on the generation of internal credibility,
not external validity of the data (Creswell, 2013). The methods deployed here allowed for the in-
depth exploration of the complexities of a particular setting as a means to inform practice and
theory into social phenomena that are little understood, such as managerial decision-making in the
CFE as it relates to community participation and the balancing of plural goals. Therefore, while
observations could be made on how organizational members crafted strategies for community
involvement, it was not possible to test causal relationships, for instance, between a CFEs’ decision
to separate participatory activities from the core business and its effects on performance. Future
work could test these relationships more directly, for example, through the use of experimental
and survey research designs.
178
Also, this study investigated CFEs that are located in a developed country, as opposed to
developing countries, with different institutional contexts. Furthermore, British Columbia,
Canada, where the majority of the data for this dissertation was collected, is a region where novel
legislation mandates community participation in return for obtaining commercial harvest rights.
This contextual feature is valuable, allowing a study of the detailed process of how participation
unfolds to emerge, given that all studied CFEs could be expected to enlist at least a minimum level
of engagement. However, many other approaches for measuring community engagement in
organizations exist. For example, in some organizations the participatory ideal may be formed
organically within the organization, or as a result of imitating practices from other organizations.
It is not clear whether the processes and managerial tactics identified in this study would be similar
under varied contexts and organizational forms. More research would be needed to establish these
claims. While the qualitative design of this study allowed for an investigation of how community
involvement in CFEs’ decision-making unfolds over time and across different levels of the
organization, it did not allow for any strong causal claims.
In Chapter 4, Porter’s strategy model (Porter, 1980) was used, which was developed for
the traditional corporate sector, and whose model assumptions include pursuit of financial gains
as the primary motive. Thus, in the results, as would be expected, using cost differentiation and
cost-leadership yielded a positive relationship between competitive strategy and CFE financial
performance (Hypothesis 3, Chapter 4).
179
While the dissertation explicitly explored elements of commercial activities and
competitiveness in CFEs, it has to be acknowledged that Porter’s model has limitations for the
application in social enterprises, where multiple social, environmental, and financial goals are
being pursued simultaneously (Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2012). It has been espoused in
previous studies that, while established theories of competitive advantage can well-inform research
on social enterprises, researchers should be alert to the identification of constructs that fit the
unique context of these organizations (Liu et al., 2014). In this dissertation, it entailed choosing
strategic orientation measures from a small-firm context and amending scale items to reflect the
competitive and business environment of CFEs. Nonetheless, future work on competitive strategy
in CFEs may draw from an emerging body of competitive strategy models that explicitly
acknowledge plurality of goals in the sustainability-oriented organization, including Blue Ocean
Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005), the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), and Socio-
Ecological Wellbeing (Dyck et al., 2018). The balanced scorecard in particular has been adopted
to measure performance in social enterprises (Mamabolo & Myres, 2020), but there is potential
for future research to further investigate strategic objectives and competitive demands in
organizations, including CFEs.
Finally, while extensive steps were taken to minimize bias in the quantitative surveys for
Chapters 4 and 5, some errors are likely. The survey population was defined based on official lists
of CFEs in the studied region. While BC has official government lists that could be used, this was
not the case in Washington and Oregon, where no official tenure for community forests exists yet
and sampling frames were derived from lists of nonprofit associations.
180
These may not have captured all organizations that classify as CFEs. Thus, there is the
potential for error. Because ome CFEs that were not captured in the sampling may significantly
differ in the constructs under study. Aside from potential sampling errors, both studies relied on
the adaptation of proven scales for the assessment of competitive orientation and managerial
characteristics. With respect to the insights gathered from the qualitative case studies (Chapter 3)
on the importance of managers networking with diverse groups in the community, the data
illustrates that follow-up studies could further develop CFE-specific competitiveness constructs
and measurement scales for managerial characteristics that are endogenous to the CFE context.
6.5 Future Directions
CFEs, as a distinct manifestation of social enterprises, remain under-researched. This study
revealed unique features of CFEs, and their potentials and perils as hybrid organizations that
combine commercial and non-profit missions to empower forest communities. While this
dissertation resolves many critically important ambiguities, many more questions remain that can
inspire future inquiry. For example, why are some managers better equipped than others in coming
to terms with goal plurality in CFEs? Is it a function of core personality traits or learned behaviors
within organizations and their particular cultures? It might also be worth exploring whether certain
organizational structures exist that are suited to facilitate the application of workable solutions for
tensions between goals? In all likelihood, there are many more nuances to the management of
tensions in CFEs than those discussed here.
181
For example, future studies could explore underlying motivations for the adoption of a
separation strategy to resolve tensions between participatory and business goals. Further research
on community empowerment as a core objective in social enterprises might also prove particularly
insightful. For example, this dissertation studied a set of organizations that are, by law, monitored
for their efforts to practice community participation in exchange for economic support (relief on
royalties for timber harvested). While this enabled a valuable glimpse into the ‘how’ of designing
participation processes amid plural sustainability objectives, conclusions as to whether motives
were substantive versus symbolic cannot be inferred from the data.
Finally, additional research with organizations in other socioeconomic or cultural contexts
would likely yield fascinating and important insights. This dissertation was carried out as a means
of enabling CFEs to increase the likelihood of succeeding at meeting their plural objectives. Each
chapter of this dissertation offers insights from a distinct perspective to address this core goal.
While the findings are useful in and of themselves, the contexts of this study and the theoretical
lenses used, provide a practical and theoretical departure point that future scholars could use.
A particularly notable aspect of this dissertation is the focus on community participation,
which offers an integrative perspective to analyze democracy in organizations. Some management
scholars view community participation as a hinderance to organizational performance (Pfeffer,
2013; Williamson, 1964), whereas others view it as a source of innovation and competitive
advantage (Pateman, 1970; Rothschild-Whitt, 2017). This work shows that either outcome is
possible. The outcome is contingent upon how an organization recognizes, interprets, and handles
tensions in engaging communities.
182
Future work in this domain will be inspired by this integrative view to extend our
understanding about participation and democracy in organizations. If current trends of
hybridization continue, and society keeps moving away from traditional notions of sectoral
boundaries (public, private, and non-profit), the dynamics of community participation identified
in this dissertation could become uniquely informative.
Today, by and large, we are observing a gradual shift in designing pathways to more
sustainable social and economic systems from feedback to co-design, hand-holding to individual
experience, and consultation to collaboration and empowerment. The natural resources sector, and
forestry in particular, is an exemplary context to observe this trend towards decentralization. More
than ever before, the inclusion of voices that have historically been on the ‘outside looking in’ –
poor, rural, Indigenous and otherwise marginalized communities – are seen as critical for realizing
proposed transition pathways to sustainable development. Since most social enterprises emphasize
empowerment of local constituents and financial self-sufficiency, it is critical to understand the
approaches and the necessary skills for CFEs to achieve greater sustainability. The results of this
dissertation offer multifaceted guidance to CFEs’ managers and policymakers, and to inspire future
scholars to further extend this work.
183
Bibliography
Abrams, J., Davis, E. J., & Moseley, C. (2015). Community-Based Organizations and Institutional Work in the
Remote Rural West. Review of Policy Research, 32(6), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12148 Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2006). Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the
Indian Himalaya. World Development, 34(1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2005.07.013 Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Against Mono-consequentialism: Multiple Outcomes and their Drivers in
Social-Ecological Systems. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.007 Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Hardin, R. (2008). Changing Governance of the World ’ s Forests. Science, New Series,
320(5882), 1460–1462. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155369 Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in
India and Nepal. Politics&Society, 29(4), 485–514. https://doi.org/0803973233 Allen, R. S., & Helms, M. M. (2006). Linking Strategic Practices and Organizational Performance to Porter’s
Generic Strategies. Business Process Management Journal, 12(4), 433–454.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610678069 Ambrose, B., Lawrence, A., & Stewart, A. (2015). Community Based Forest Enterprises in Britain: Two Organising
Typologies. Forest Policy and Economics, 58, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.005 Ambus, L. (2016). Communtiy Forestry in British Columbia: From a Movement to an Institution. In Sara
Teitelbaum (Ed.), Community Forestry in Canada: Lessons from Policy and Practice (pp. 155–178). UBC
Press. Ambus, L., Davis-Case, D., Mitchell, D., & Tyler, S. (2007). Strength in Diversity: Market Opportunities and
Benefits from Small Forest Tenures. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 8(2), 88–99. Ambus, L., & Hoberg, G. (2011). The Evolution of Devolution: A Critical Analysis of the Community Forest
Agreement in British Columbia. Society & Natural Resources, 24(9), 933–950.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2010.520078 Anderbygd, E., & Asawapittayanon, M. (2011). The 21st Century Retail Experience : A case study of IKEA in
Sweden. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1015408&dswid=-9956 Anderson, R. B., Dana, L. P., & Dana, T. E. (2006). Indigenous land rights, entrepreneurship, and economic
development in Canada: “Opting-in” to the global economy. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 45–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWB.2005.10.005 Ansoff, H. . (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion.
McGraw-Hill. Antinori, C., & Bray, D. B. (2005). Community Forest Enterprises as Entrepreneurial Firms: Economic and
Institutional Perspectives from Mexico. World Development, 33(9 SPEC. ISS.), 1529–1543.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.011 Aragón-Correa, J. A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S., & García-Morales, V. J. (2008). Environmental strategy and
performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 88–
103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2006.11.022 Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320 Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–
224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of Dysfunction: Managing the Dynamics of an Organizational
Duality in a Natural Food Cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 474–516.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214537811 Austin, J., Wei-Skillern, J., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different or
Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practise, 30(1), 1–22. Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who Sustains Whose Development? Sustainable Development and the Reinvention of
184
Nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024001341 Barichello, R. R., Porter, R. M., & van Kooten, G. C. (1995). Institutions, Economic Incentives and Sustainable
Rural Land Use in British Columbia. Chapter 2 in Managing Natural Resources in British Columbia.
Markets, Regulations, and Sustainable Development (pp. 7-53) edited by A. Scott, J. Robinson and D. Cohen.
Vancouver: UBC Press. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial
Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318391 Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social
Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.893615 Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In Search of the Hybrid Ideal. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 10(3 (Summer)), 51–55. http://search.proquest.com/docview/57512844?accountid=47392 Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing Productive Tensions in Hybrid
Organizations: The Case of Work Integration Social Enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6),
1658–1685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903 Bauwens, T., Huybrechts, B., & Dufays, F. (2019). Understanding the Diverse Scaling Strategies of Social
Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Renewable Energy Cooperatives. Organization and
Environment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619837126 Belsky, J. M. (2008). Creating Community Forests. In Forest community connections: Implications for research,
management, and governance (pp. 219–242). Routledge. Benner, J., Lertzman, K., & Pinkerton, E. W. (2014). Social contracts and community forestry: How can we design
forest policies and tenure arrangements to generate local benefits? Canadian Journal of Forest Research,
44(8), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0405 Berkes, F. (1995). Community-based management and co-management as tools for empowerment. In N. Singh & V.
Titi (Eds.), Empowerment: Towards Sustainable Development (pp. 138–146). Zed Books. Berkes, F. (2007). Community-Based Conservation in a Globalized World. Pnas, 104(39), 15188–15193.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702098104 Berkes, F. (2010). Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future. Environmental
Conservation, 489–500. Berkes, F., & Hunt-Davidson, I. J. (2007). Communities and Social Enterprise in the Age of Globalization. Journal
of Enterprising Communities, 10(4), 29. Berkes, F., & Hunt-Davidson, I. J. (2010). Innovating through Commons Use in Community-Based Enterprises.
International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 1–7. Bhattarai, C. R., Kwong, C. C. Y., & Tasavori, M. (2019). Market orientation, market disruptiveness capability and
social enterprise performance: An empirical study from the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Research,
96(March 2018), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.042 Billis, D. (2010). Towards a Theory of Hybrid Organizations. In D. Bilis (Ed.), Hybrid Organizations and the Third
Sector. Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy. (pp. 46–69). Palgrave Macmillan. Bliss, J. C., & Kelly, E. C. (2008). Comparative Advantages of Small-Scale Forestry Among Emerging Forest
Tenures. Small-Scale Forestry, 7(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-008-9043-5 Blundel, R. K., & Lyon, F. (2015). Towards a ‘Long View’: Historical Perspectives on the Scaling and Replication
of Social Ventures. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 80–102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2014.954258 Boehe, D. M., & Barin Cruz, L. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility, Product Differentiation Strategy and
Export Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(S2), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0613-z Boehm, A. (2005). The participation of businesses in community decision making. Business and Society, 44(2),
144–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305275770 Boone, H. N. . J. |Boone. D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1042448
185
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (1997). Perceptions of strategic priorities, consensus and firm performance. Journal
of Management Studies, 34(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00050 British Columbia Community Forest Association. (2020). Community Forestry Indicators 2020.Measuring the
Benefits of Community Forestry. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 & 16: A guide for social scientists.
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing Public Participation Processes.
Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/23355431 Bullock, R. C. L., Broad, G., Palmer, L., & Smith, M. A. (2017). Institutional Diversity in Canada’s Community
Forests. In R. Bullock, G. Broad, L. Palmer, & P. Smith (Eds.), Growing Community Forestry. Practice,
Research and Advocacy in Canada (pp. 1–26). University of Manitoba Press. Bullock, R. C. L., & Hanna, K. S. (2012). Community Forestry. Local Values, Conflict and Forest Governance.
Cambridge University Press. Bullock, R. C. L., Hanna, K. S., & Slocombe, D. S. (2009). Learning from community forestry experience:
Challenges and lessons from British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle, 85(2), 293–304. Campbell-Hunt, C. (2000). What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200002)21:2<127::AID-
SMJ75>3.0.CO;2-1 Carias-Vega, D., & Keenan, R. J. (2016). Agents or Stewards in Community Forestry Enterprises? Lessons from the
Mayan Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Land Use Policy, 52, 255–265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.016 Carías Vega, D. (2019). Community-based forestry and community forestry enterprises in quintana roo, mexico and
petén, guatemala: how have policies, history, and culture shaped their trajectories? Journal of Sustainable
Forestry, 38(7), 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2019.1598875 Carías Vega, D. E., & Keenan, R. J. (2016). Situating community forestry enterprises within New Institutional
Economic theory: What are the implications for their organization? Journal of Forest Economics, 25, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2016.07.001 Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz1, M. A., & Sanders1, W. G. (2004). Upper Echelons Research Revisited:
Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Management Team Composition. Journal of Management,
30(6), 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JM.2004.06.001 Cashore, B. (2015). Achieving Sustainability Through Market Mechanisms. In R. Panwar, R. Kozak, & E. Hansen
(Eds.), Forest, Business and Sustainability (pp. 59–83). Routledge. Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press. Chen, H. L., & Hsu, C.-H. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in non-profit service
organizations: contingent effect of market orientation. The Service Industries Journal, 33(5), 445–466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.622372 Chhatre, A., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from
forest commons. Science, 106(42), 17667–17670. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family Involvement, Family Influence, and
Family-Centered Non-Economic Goals in Small Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–
293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00407.x Clare, S. M., & Hickey, G. M. (2019). Modelling Research Topic Trends in Community Forestry. Small-Scale
Forestry, 18(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9411-8 Colbourne, R. (2017). Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures. In A. Corbett & J. Katz (Eds.), Hybrid
Ventures (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth) (19th ed., pp. 93–149). Emerald
Group Publishing. Coombes, S. M. T., Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., & Webb, J. W. (2011). Behavioural Orientations of Non-Profit
Boards as a Factor in Entrepreneurial Performance: Does Governance Matter? Journal of Management
Studies, 48(4), 829–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00956.x Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing
186
Grounded Theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and Combating Mission Drift in Social Enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal,
10(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-09-2013-0036 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE
Publications. Cubbage, F. W., Davis, R. R., Rodríguez Paredes, D., Mollenhauer, R., Kraus Elsin, Y., Frey, G. E., González
Hernández, I. A., Albarrán Hurtado, H., Cruz, A. M. S., & Salas, D. N. C. (2015). Community Forestry
Enterprises in Mexico: Sustainability and Competitiveness. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 34(6–7), 623–
650. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2015.1040514 D. Banker, R., Mashruwala, R., & Tripathy, A. (2014). Does a differentiation strategy lead to more sustainable
financial performance than a cost leadership strategy? Management Decision, 52(5), 872–896.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2013-0282 Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2011). Timber (5th ed.). Polity Press. Davis, E. J., Hajjar, R., Charnley, S., Moseley, C., Wendel, K., & Jacobson, M. (2020). Community-based forestry
on federal lands in the western United States: A synthesis and call for renewed research. Forest Policy and
Economics, 111(October 2019), 102042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102042 de Jong, W., Pokorny, B., Katila, P., Galloway, G., & Pacheco, P. (2018). Community Forestry and the Sustainable
Development Goals: A Two Way Street. Forests, 9(6), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9060331 DeBoer, J., Panwar, R., Kozak, R., & Cashore, B. (2020). Squaring the circle: Refining the Competitiveness Logic
for the Circular Bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.003 Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Defining Social Enterprise. In Social Enterprise: At the Crossroads of Market,
Public Policies and Civil Society. Routledge. Dentchev, N., Rauter, R., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Snihur, Y., Rosano, M., Baumgartner, R., Nyberg, T., Tang, X., van
Hoof, B., & Jonker, J. (2018). Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: A prolific field of
research and a future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 695–703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.156 Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-Sector Partnerships and the Co-creation of Dynamic
Capabilities for Stakeholder Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 35–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2728-8 Depedri, S., Tortia, E. C., & Carpita, M. (2010). Incentives, Job Satisfaction and Performance: Empirical Evidence
in Italian Social Enterprises. Ssrn, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1698598 Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group
Membership and Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 467–488.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256040 Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures:
The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–
273. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050306 Devisscher, T., Spies, J., & Griess, V. (2021). Time for change: Learning from community forests to enhance the
resilience of multi-value forestry in British Columbia, Canada. Land Use Policy, 103(September 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105317 Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys : the
tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fhQNBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Dilman+2014+&ot
s=JvSUwjPHIP&sig=9n857--Fv5iezFAZo1mD0JYeodA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Dilman 2014&f=false Diochon, M., & Anderson, A. R. (2009). Social enterprise and effectiveness: a process typology. Social Enterprise
Journal, 5(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508610910956381 Doherty, B., Haugh, H. M., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research
Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028 Dyck, B., Caza, A., & Starke, F. A. (2018). Management: Financial, Social, and Ecological Well-being. Sapajo
Publishing.
187
Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in
small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1249–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.503 Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The Governance of Social Enterprises: Mission Drift and
Accountability Challenges in Hybrid Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001 Egunyu, F., Reed, M. G., & Sinclair, J. A. (2016). Learning Through New Approaches to Forest Governance:
Evidence from Harrop-Procter Community Forest, Canada. Environmental Management, 57, 784–797.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0652-4 Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–
550. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385 Erbaugh, J. T., Pradhan, N., Adams, J., Oldekop, J. A., Agrawal, A., Brockington, D., Pritchard, R., & Chhatre, A.
(2020). Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities. Nature Ecology &
Evolution, 4(11), 1472–1476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01282-2 Erwin, E. J., Brotherson, M. J., & Summers, J. A. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and
opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3), 186–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111425493 FAO. (2018). SOFO 2018 - The State of the World’s Forests. FAO. http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/ Farmer, J., De Cotta, T., Kamstra, P., Brennan‐Horley, C., & Munoz, S. (2020). Integration and segregation for
social enterprise employees: A relational micro‐geography. Area, 52(1), 176–186.
https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12567 Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited.
Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742 Finlayson, E., & Roy, M. J. (2019). Empowering communities? Exploring Roles in Facilitated Social Enterprise.
Social Enterprise Journal, 15(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-04-2018-0035 Fosfuri, A., Giarratana, M. S., & Roca, E. (2016). Social Business Hybrids: Demand Externalities, Competitive
Advantage, and Growth Through Diversification. Organization Science, 27(5), 1275–1289.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1080 Frey, G. E., Cubbage, F. W., Holmes, T. P., Reyes-Retana, G., Davis, R. R., Megevand, C., Rodríguez-Paredes, D.,
Kraus-Elsin, Y., Hernández-Toro, B., & Chemor-Salas, D. N. (2019). Competitiveness, certification, and
support of timber harvest by community forest enterprises in Mexico. Forest Policy and Economics, 107,
101923. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2019.05.009 Fujimoto, Y., Azmat, F., & Subramaniam, N. (2016). Creating Community-Inclusive Organizations: Managerial
Accountability Framework. In Business and Society (Vol. 58, Issue 4).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316680060 Fujimoto, Y., Azmat, F., & Subramaniam, N. (2019). Creating Community-Inclusive Organizations: Managerial
Accountability Framework. Business & Society, 58(4), 712–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316680060 Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in
business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2015.12.008 Furness, E., Harshaw, H., & Nelson, H. (2015). Community Forestry in British Columbia: Policy progression and
Public Participation. Forest Policy and Economics, 58, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.12.005 Furness, E., & Nelson, H. (2016). Are Human Values and Community Participation Key to Climate Adaptation?
The Case of Community Forest Organisations in British Columbia. Climatic Change, 135(2), 243–259.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1564-2 Gabaldon, P., & Gröschl, S. (2015). A Few Good Companies: Rethinking Firms’ Responsibilities Toward Common
Pool Resources. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(3), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2361-y Galera, G., & Borzaga, C. (2009). Social Enterprise: An International Overview of its Conceptual Evolution and
Legal Implementation. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508610911004313 Gilmour, D. A. (2016). Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry : A Review of its Extent and Effectiveness. In
FAO Forestry Paper (FAO) eng no. 176. FAO. http://agris.fao.org/agris-
188
search/search.do?recordID=XF2017000018 Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on
the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151 Glasmeier, A. K., & Farrigan, T. (2005). Understanding Community Forestry: A Qualitative Meta-study of the
Concept, the Process, and its Potential for Poverty Alleviation in the United States Case. Geographical
Journal, 171(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x Glew, D. J., O’leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1995). Participation in Organizations: A
Preview of the Issues and Proposed Framework for Future Analysis. Journal of Management, 21(3), 395–421.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100302 Gold, S., Muthuri, J. N., & Reiner, G. (2018). Collective action for tackling “wicked” social problems: A system
dynamics model for corporate community involvement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 662–673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.11.197 Gomes- Casseres, B. (1997). Alliance Strategies of Small Firms. Small Business Economics, 9(1), 33–44.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007947629435 Gopalakrishna, P., & Subramanian, R. (2001). Revisiting the Pure versus Hybrid Dilemma. Journal of Global
Marketing, 15(2), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1300/J042v15n02_04 Guerras-Martín, L. Á., Madhok, A., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2014). The evolution of strategic management
research: Recent trends and current directions. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17(2), 69–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BRQ.2014.03.001 Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative
Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5 Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2014). The New Heretics: Hybrid Organizations and the Challenges they Present to
Corporate Sustainability. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 223–241.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614545345 Hajjar, R., Kozak, R., El-Lakany, H., & Innes, J. L. (2013). Community Forests for Forest Communities: Integrating
Community-defined Goals and Practices in the Design of Forestry Initiatives. Land Use Policy, 34, 158–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.03.002 Hajjar, R., Kozak, R., & Innes, J. L. (2012). Is decentralization leading to “real” decision-making power for forest-
dependent communities? Case studies from mexico and Brazil. Ecology and Society, 17(1).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04570-170112 Hajjar, R., Mcgrath, D. G., Kozak, R., & Innes, J. L. (2011). Framing Community Forestry Challenges with a
Broader Lens : Case Studies from the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(9),
2159–2169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.042 Hajjar, R., McGrath, D. G., Kozak, R., & Innes, J. L. (2011). Framing community forestry challenges with a broader
lens: Case studies from the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(9), 2159–2169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.042 Hajjar, R., & Molnar, A. (2016). Decentralization and Community Based Approaches. In Rajat Panwar, R. Kozak,
& E. Hansen (Eds.), Forests, Business and Sustainability (pp. 132–152). Routledge. Hajjar, R., & Oldekop, J. A. (2018). Research Frontiers in Community Forest Management. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 32, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.06.003 Hajjar, R., Oldekop, J. A., Cronkleton, P., Etue, E., Newton, P., & Jm, A. (2016). The Data not Collected on
Community Forestry. Conservation Biology, 30(6), 10.1111/cobi.12732.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12732.This Haley, D., & Nelson, H. (2007). Has the Time Come to Rethink Canada’s Crown Forest Tenure Systems? Forestry
Chronicle, 83(5), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc83630-5 Hansen, E., Nybakk, E., & Panwar, R. (2015). Pure Versus Hybrid Competitive Strategies in the Forest Sector:
Performance Implications. Forest Policy and Economics, 54(1), 51–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.02.001 Haugh, H. M. (2007). Community-Led Social Venture Creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 161–
189
182. Haugh, H. M. (2021). Social economy advancement: from voluntary to secure organizational commitments to public
benefit. Journal of Management History, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-06-
2020-0035 Haugh, H., & Talwar, A. (2016). Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change: The Mediating Role of
Empowerment. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2449-4 Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2004). Doing Things Right: Effectiveness in Local Nonprofit Organizations, A Panel
Study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00416.x Hervieux, C., & Voltan, A. (2019). Toward a Systems Approach to Social Impact Assessment. Social Enterprise
Journal, 15(2), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-09-2018-0060 Hinton, P., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS Explained. Routledge. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings
of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500307 Humphries, S., Holmes, T. P., Kainer, K., Koury, C. G. G., Cruz, E., & de Miranda Rocha, R. (2012). Are
community-based forest enterprises in the tropics financially viable? Case studies from the Brazilian Amazon.
Ecological Economics, 77, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.018 Huybrechts, B., & Haugh, H. M. (2018). The Roles of Networks in Institutionalizing New Hybrid Organizational
Forms: Insights from the European Renewable Energy Cooperative Network. Organization Studies, 39(8),
1085–1108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617717097 Idemudia, U. (2014). Corporate-Community Engagement Strategies in the Niger Delta: Some Critical Reflections’.
Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.07.005 Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public
Administration Review, 64(1), 55. http://80-
proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/pqdlink?did=525731991&Fmt=7&clientId=45248&RQT=309&VN
ame=PQD Islam, D., & Berkes, F. (2017). Between a business and a social enterprise. Journal of Enterprising Communities:
People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(5), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-06-2016-0018 Jackson, B., Nicoll, M., & Roy, M. J. (2018). The Distinctive Challenges and Opportunities for Creating Leadership
Within Social Enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-03-2017-0016 Jay, J. (2013). Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772 Kannothra, C. G., Manning, S., & Haigh, N. (2017). How Hybrids Manage Growth and Social–Business Tensions in
Global Supply Chains: The Case of Impact Sourcing. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3585-4 Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the Balanced Scorecard as Strategic Management System. Harvard
Business Review, 74(1), 75–85. Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining Social Enterprise Across Different Contexts: A Conceptual Framework Based on
Institutional Factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84–108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011433040 Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. (2003). Prospecting for Strategic Advantage: The Proactive Entrepreneurial Personality and
Small Firm Innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-
627x.00042 Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy: From Theory to Practice. California Management
Review, 47(3), 105–121. King, N. K. (2004). Social capital and nonprofit leaders. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 471–486.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.48 Korhonen, J., Hurmekoski, E., Hansen, E., & Toppinen, A. (2018). Firm-level competitiveness in the forest
industries: review and research implications in the context of bioeconomy strategies. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research, 48(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0219 Kozak, R. (2007). Small and medium forest enterprises: instruments of change in the developing world.
190
Api.Ning.Com. Kozak, R. (2009). Alternative Business Models for Forest Dependent Communities in Africa: A pragmatic
consideration of small-scale-enterprise and a path forward. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 4(2),
76–81. Kozak, R. (2014). What Now Mr. Jones? Some Thoughts About Today’s Forest Sector and Tomorrow’s Great Leap
Forward. In R. Panwar, R. Kozak, & R. Vlosky (Eds.), The Global Forest Sector: Changes, Practices and
Prospects. (pp. 431–443). CRC Press. Lam, D. P. M., Martín-López, B., Wiek, A., Bennett, E. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Horcea-Milcu, A. I., & Lang, D. J.
(2020). Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban
Transformations, 2(3), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9 Lambin, E. F., Gibbs, H. K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M., Fleck, L. C., Garrett, R. D., le Polain de Waroux, Y.,
McDermott, C. L., McLaughlin, D., Newton, P., Nolte, C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L. L., Streck, C., Thorlakson,
T., & Walker, N. F. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate
Change, 8(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1 Lawler, J. H., & Bullock, R. C. L. (2019). Indigenous control and benefits through small-scale forestry: A multi-case
analysis of outcomes1. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(4), 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-
2018-0279 Lechner, C., & Gudmundsson, S. V. (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm strategy and small firm performance.
International Small Business Journal, 32(1), 36–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612455034 Lee, M., & Jay, J. (2015). Strategic Responses to Hybrid Social Ventures. California Management Review, 57(3),
126–148. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.3.126 Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems:
Constraining our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global climate Change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0 Liechtenstein, N. (2009). The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Businesss. Picador. Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43–53. Liu, G., Takeda, S., & Ko, W. W. (2014). Strategic Orientation and Social Enterprise Performance. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012468629 Ludvig, A., Wilding, M., Thorogood, A., & Weiss, G. (2018). Social Innovation in the Welsh Woodlands:
Community Based Forestry as Collective Third-Sector Engagement. Forest Policy and Economics,
95(March), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.07.004 Lumpkin, G. T., Bacq, S., & Pidduck, R. J. (2018). Where Change Happens: Community-Level Phenomena in
Social Entrepreneurship Research. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 24–50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12379 Lyon, F., & Fernandez, H. (2012). Strategies for scaling up social enterprise: lessons from early years providers.
Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211226593 MacMahon, J., & Murphy, E. (1999). Managerial effectiveness in small enterprises: implications for HRD. Journal
of European Industrial Training, 23(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599910253519 Macqueen, D. (2008). Forest Connect: reducing poverty and deforestation through support to community forest
enterprises. International Forestry Review, 10(4), 670–675. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.4.670 Macqueen, D. (2013). Enabling Conditions for Successful Community Forest Enterprises. Small-Scale Forestry,
12(1), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9193-8 Macqueen, D., Bolin, A., Greijmans, M., Grouwels, S., & Humphries, S. (2020). Innovations towards prosperity
emerging in locally controlled forest business models and prospects for scaling up. World Development, 125,
104382. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2018.08.004 Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight.
Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002 Mair, J., Wolf, M., & Seelos, C. (2016). Scaffolding: A process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale
societies. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2021–2044. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0725
191
Mamabolo, A., & Myres, K. (2020). Performance Measurement in Emerging Market Social Enterprises using a
Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 65–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1561499 Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing Development. In Localizing Development. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-
8213-8256-1 Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G. T., Jennings, P. D., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a Platform for
Pursuing Multiple Goals: A Special Issue on Sustainability, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship. Journal of
Management Studies, 53(5), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12214 Mason, C., & Doherty, B. (2016). A Fair Trade-off? Paradoxes in the Governance of Fair-trade Social Enterprises.
Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2511-2 Mazzei, M. (2017). Different Ways of Dealing with Tensions. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(3), 299–314.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-07-2016-0026 McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups, Interaction and Performance. Prentice Hall. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications*.
Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x Meinhold, K., & Darr, D. (2019). The Processing of Non-Timber Forest Products through Small and Medium
Enterprises—A Review of Enabling and Constraining Factors. Forests, 10(11), 1026.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f10111026 Michaud, V. (2014). Mediating the Paradoxes of Organizational Governance through Numbers. Organization
Studies, 35(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495335 Miles, M. P., Verreynne, M. L., & Luke, B. (2014). Social Enterprises and the Performance Advantages of a
Vincentian Marketing Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(4), 549–556.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2009-3 Millar, R., Hall, K., & Miller, R. (2013). A Story of Strategic Change: Becoming a Social Enterprise in English
Health and Social Care. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 4–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2012.694371 Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1986). Porter’s (1980) generic strategies and performance: An empirical examination
with American data. Part II: Performance implications. Organization Studies, 7(3), 255–261.
https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068600700303 Mitzinneck, B., & Besharov, M. L. (2018). Managing Value Tensions in Collective Social Entrepreneurship: The
Role of Temporal, Structural, and Collaborative Compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 381–400.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4048-2 Moizer, J., & Tracey, P. (2010). Strategy Making in Social Enterprises: The Role of Resource Allocation and ITs
Effects on Organizational Sustainability. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27, 252–266.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres Molnar, A., Gomes, D., Sousa, R., Vidal, N., Hojer, F., Arguelles, L. A., Kaatz, S., Martin, A., Donini, G., Scherr,
S., White, A., Kaimowitz, D., Hojer, F., Arguelles, L. A., Kaatz, S., Martin, A., Donini, G., Scherr, S., White,
A., … Kaimowitz, D. (2008). Community Forest Enterprise Markets in Mexico and Brazil : New
Opportunities and Challenges for Legal Access to the Forest Community (Vol. 27, Issues 1–2).
https://doi.org/10.1080/10549810802225259 Molnar, A., Liddle, M., Bracer, C., Khare, A., White, A., Bull, J., Aldridge, C. H., Angu, K. A., Antinori, C.,
Branney, P., Fonseca, A., Baput, B., Benneker, C., Blomley, T., Camara, K., Gatto, F., Kozak, R., Orozco, C.
G., Martin, A., … Wilshusen, P. (2007). Community-based Forest Enterprises in Tropical Forest Countries:
Status and Potential (Vol. 2007, Issue July). Morris, M. H., Coombes, S., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2007). Antecedents and Outcomes of Entrepreneurial
and Market Orientations in a Non-profit Context: Theoretical and Empirical Insights. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 13(4), 12–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130040401 Moulaert, F., & Ailenei, O. (2005). Social economy, third sector and solidarity relations: A conceptual synthesis
from history to present. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2037–2053. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279794 Mulkey, S., & Kenneth, D. . (2012). The Community Forestry Guidebook II: Effective Governance and Forest
192
Management. Muñoz, S.-A., Steiner, A., & Farmer, J. (2015). Processes of Community-Led Social Enterprise Development:
Learning from the Rural Context. Community Development Journal, 50(3), 478–493.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsu055 Muthuri, J. N., Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2009). An Integrated Approach to Implementing “Community
Participation” in Corporate Community Involvement: Lessons from Magadi Soda Company in Kenya. Journal
of Business Ethics, 85(SUPPL. 2), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9739-7 Muthuri, J. N., Moon, J., & Idemudia, U. (2012). Corporate Innovation and Sustainable Community Development in
Developing Countries. Business & Society, 51(3), 355–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312446441 Nadler, J. T., Weston, R., & Voyles, E. C. (2015). Stuck in the Middle: The Use and Interpretation of Mid-Points in
Items on Questionnaires. The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 71–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.994590 Newton, P., Miller, D. C., Byenkya, M. A. A., & Agrawal, A. (2016). Who are Forest-Dependent People? A
Taxonomy to Aid Livelihood and Land Use Decision-Making in Forested Regions. Land Use Policy, 57, 388–
395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.032 Nicholls, A. (2010). The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre-Paradigmatic
Field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2010.00397.x NIEDB. (2019). Indigenous Economic Progress Report. http://www.naedb-cndea.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/NIEDB-2019-Indigenous-Economic-Progress-Report.pdf Nielsen, J. O., & D’Haen, S. a. . (2014). Asking About Climate Change: Reflections on Methodology in Qualitative
Climate Change Research Published in Global Environmental Change since 2000. Global Environmental
Change, 24, 402–409. Nikolakis, W., Akter, S., & Nelson, H. (2016). The Effect of Communication on Individual Preferences for
Common Property Resources: A Case Study of Two Canadian First Nations. Land Use Policy, 58, 70–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.007 Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development
Goals. In Nature (Vol. 534, Issue 7607, pp. 320–322). Nature Publishing Group.
https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a Noble, C. H., & Kumar, M. (2008). Using product design strategically to create deeper consumer connections.
Business Horizons, 51(5), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2008.03.006 Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education. Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E., & Lunnan, A. (2009). Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An
investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(2),
608–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.040 O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5),
673–690. Ometto, M. P., Gegenhuber, T., Winter, J., & Greenwood, R. (2019). From Balancing Missions to Mission Drift:
The Role of the Institutional Context, Spaces, and Compartmentalization in the Scaling of Social Enterprises.
Business and Society, 58(5), 1003–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318758329 Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis.
Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Sustainability. Business & Society, 50(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310394323 Orozco-Quintero, A., & Davidson-Hunt, I. (2009). Community-based enterprises and the commons: The case of San
Juan Nuevo Parangaricutiro, Mexico. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 8.
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.138 Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization : Selective Coupling As a Response To
Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405
193
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What Makes Community Forest Management Successful: A Meta-
Study from Community Forests Throughout the World. Society & Natural Resources, 19, 33–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500323260 Panwar, R., Hansen, E., & Kozak, R. (2014). Evaluating Social and Environmental Issues by Integrating the
Legitimacy Gap With Expectational Gaps: An Empirical Assessment of the Forest Industry. Business &
Society, 53(6), 853–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312438884 Panwar, R., Hansen, E., & Kozak, R. (2015). Many Paths to Sustainability, But Where Are We Going? In R.
Panwar, R. A. Kozak, & E. G. Hansen (Eds.), Forests, Business and Sustainability (pp. 1–7). Routledge. Panwar, R., Hansen, E., Reynolds, P. D., & Juslin, H. (2006). Corporate Responsibility Balancing Economic,
Environmental, and Social Issues in the Forest Products Industry. Forest Produc, 56(2), 4–12. Panwar, R., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E., & Pinkse, J. (2016). The Effect of Small Firms’ Competitive Strategies on their
Community and Environmental Engagement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.141 Panwar, R., Pinkse, J., Cashore, B., Husted, B. W., & Koh, L. P. (2020). Deforestation, global value chains, and
corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, bse.2639. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2639 Parnell, J. A., & Wright, P. (1993). Generic Strategy and Performance: an Empirical Test of the Miles and Snow
Typology. British Journal of Management, 4(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1993.tb00159.x Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). SAGE. Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods,
and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–1608. Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azoran, J. F., & Claver-Cortes, E. (2009). Competitive Strategies and Firm
Performance: a Comparative Analysis of Pure, Hybrid and a Stuck-in-the-middle Strategy in Spanish Firms.
British Journal of Management, 20(4), 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00597.x Peterson St-Laurent, G., Hagerman, S., & Hoberg, G. (2017). Emergence and Influence of a New Policy Regime:
The Case of Forest Carbon Offsets in British Columbia. Land Use Policy, 60, 169–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.025 Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. A Practical Guide. Blackwell
Publishing Inc. Pfeffer, J. (2013). You’re Still the Same: Why Theories of Power Hold over Time and Across Contexts. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 27(4), 269–280. Pinch, S., & Sunley, P. (2015). Social Enterprise and Neoinstitutional Theory: An Evaluation of the Organizational
Logics of SE in the UK. Social Enterprise Journal. Pinkerton, E., Heaslip, R., Silver, J. J., & Furman, K. (2008). Finding “Space” for Comanagement of Forests within
the Neoliberal Paradigm: Rights, Strategies, and Tools for Asserting a Local Agenda. Human Ecology, 36(3),
343–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9167-4 Pinkerton, E., & Rutherford, M. (2021). Evaluating British Columbia’s Municipally Owned Community Forest
Corporations as Governance Structures. Environmental Management, 67(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01384-4 Pinkerton, E. W., & Benner, J. (2013). Small sawmills persevere while the majors close: Evaluating resilience and
desirable timber allocation in British Columbia, Canada. Ecology and Society, 18(2).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05515-180234 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. The Free Press. Presser, S., & Blair, J. (1994). Survey Pretesting: Do Different Methods Produce Different Results? Sociological
Methodology, 24, 73. https://doi.org/10.2307/270979 QS Software, Version 11.3.2. International Pty Ltd. (2016). Rangone, A. (1999). A Resource-Based Approach to Strategy Analysis in Small-Medium Sized Enterprises. Small
194
Business Economics, 12(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008046917465 Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2009). A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153–181.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x Robinson, R. B., & Pearce, J. A. (1988). Planned patterns of strategic behavior and their relationship to business-unit
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090105 Rothschild-Whitt, J. (2017). The Logic of A Co-Operative Economy and Democracy 2 . 0 : Recovering the
Possibilities for Autonomy , Creativity , Solidarity , and Common Purpose. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(1),
7–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12138 Roy, M. J., Sato, K., & Calò, F. (2015). Further Limits to Institutional Isomorphism? Introducing the ‘Neo-
contingency Approach’’ to the Field of Community-Led Social Ventures.’ Voluntas, 26(6), 2536–2553.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9529-z RRI. (2018). At a Crossroads: Consequential Trends in Recognition of Community-Based Forest Tenure from 2002-
2017. Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2011). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (3rd ed.). Sage.
https://www.amazon.ca/Qualitative-Interviewing-Art-Hearing-Data/dp/1412978378 Sanchez-Badini, O., Hajjar, R., & Kozak, R. (2018). Critical Success Factors for Small and Medium Forest
Enterprises: A Review. Forest Policy and Economics, 94, 35–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2018.06.005 Sawyer, S., & Gomez, E. (2012). The Politics of Resource Extraction. Indigenous Peoples, Multinational
Corporations and the State. Palgrave Macmillan. Saxton, D. G. (2005). The Participatory Revolution in Nonprofit Management. The Public Manager, Spring, 34–39. Schneider, A. (2020). Bound to Fail? Exploring the Systemic Pathologies of CSR and Their Implications for CSR
Research. Business & Society, 59(7), 1303–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319856616 Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems
Perspectives. Routledge.
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aNRRCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=nHzhZWBUTy&si
g=Tr7cwJsmtAPAK2e4zZovh1S3QZk#v=onepage&q&f=false Siegner, M., Hagerman, S., & Kozak, R. (2018). Going deeper with documents: A systematic review of the
application of extant texts in social research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 92(May), 128–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.001 Siegner, M., Pinkse, J., & Panwar, R. (2018). Managing Tensions in a Social Enterprise: The Complex Balancing
Act to Deliver a Multi-Faceted but Coherent Social Mission. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1314–1324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.076 Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on Time : Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability. Organization
Science, 26(2), 531–549. Slee, B. (2020). Social innovation in community energy in Scotland: Institutional form and sustainability outcomes.
Global Transitions, 2, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2020.07.001 Smith, A. V, Sheppard, S. R. J., & Pinkerton, E. W. (2018). Community Forestry Practice and Visible Stewardship:
a Case Study Evaluation in British Columbia Community Forest Tenure in British Columbia. Visual Resource
Stewardship Conference Proceedings, Pearse 1992, 161–175. https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-p-
183papers/17-smith-VRS-gtr-p-183.pdf Smith, W., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research
Agenda for Social Enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq2C1323327 Smith, W., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing.
Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958 Stoian, D., Donovan, J., & Pooler, N. (2009). Unlocking the development potential of community forest enterprises :
findings from a comparative study in Asia , Africa , Latin America , and the United States. October, October,
18–23. Stubbs, W. (2017). Sustainable Entrepreneurship and B Corps. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 331–
195
344. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1920 Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., Reyes-García, V., &
Shively, G. (2014). Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global
Comparative Study. World Development, 64(S1), S56–S66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.003 Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive
perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326349 Taylor, P. L. (2010). Conservation, Community, and Culture? New Organizational Challenges of Community Forest
Concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve of Guatemala. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(2), 173–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.09.006 Teitelbaum, S. (2014). Criteria and indicators for the assessment of community forestry outcomes: A comparative
analysis from Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 132, 257–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.013 Teitelbaum, S. (2016). Community Forests in Canada: Lessons from Policy and Practice. UBC Press. Teitelbaum, S., Beckely, T. M., & Nadeau, S. (2006). A National Portrait of Community Forestry in Canada. The
Forestry Chronicle, 82(3), 416–428. The World Bank. (2015). Indigenous Latin America in the 21st Century: The First Decade.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/145891467991974540/pdf/98544-REVISED-WP-P148348-
Box394854B-PUBLIC-Indigenous-Latin-America.pdf The World Bank. (2019). Indigenous Peoples Overview.
https://doi.org/https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples Thompson, J., Elmendorf, W., McDonough, M., & Burban, L. (2005). Participation and Conflict: Lessons learned
from Community Forestry. Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 6, 174–178.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=nrem_pubs Tomaselli, F., & Hajjar, R. (2011). Promoting community forestry enterprises in national REDD+ strategies: A
business approach. Forests, 2(1), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.3390/f2010283 Tomaselli, F., Kozak, R., Hajjar, R., Timko, J., Jarjusey, A., & Camara, K. (2014). Small Forest-based Enterprises in
The Gambia: Opportunities and Challenges. In K. . Galloway, W. de Jong, P. Pacheco, & G. Mery (Eds.),
Forests under Pressure: Local Responses to Global Issues (pp. 315–328). IUFRO/WFSE. Toppinen, A., Wan, M., & Lähtinen, K. (2013). Strategic orientations in the global forest sector. Global Forest
Sector: Changes, Practices and Prospects. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and
Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09652540903536982 UN. (2020). IDF 2020: UN Secretary-General’s Message. UN Deartment of Economic and Social Affairs. Valente, M. (2012). Indigenous Resource and Institutional Capital: The Role of Local Context in Embedding
Sustainable Community Development. Business & Society, 51(3), 409–449.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312446680 Van der Byl, C. a., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: A Review of Research
From Win-Wins and Trade-Offs to Paradoxes and Beyond. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575047 Vega, D. C., & Keenan, R. J. (2014). Transaction Cost Theory of the Firm and Community Forestry Enterprises.
Forest Policy and Economics, 42, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.01.006 Vickers, I., & Lyon, F. (2014). Beyond Green Niches? Growth Strategies of Environmentally-motivated Social
Enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 32(4), 449–470.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612457700 Vidal, N., & Kozak, R. (2008). The Recent Evolution of Corporate Responsibility Practices in the Forestry Sector.
International Forestry Review, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.1.1 Villavicencio Valdez, G. V., Hansen, E., & Bliss, J. (2012). Factors Impacting Marketplace Success of Community
Forest Enterprises: The Case of TIP Muebles, Oaxaca, Mexico. Small-Scale Forestry, 11, 339–363.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9188-5
196
Voltan, A., Hervieux, C., & Mills, A. (2017). Examining the Win-Win Proposition of Shared Value Across
Contexts: Implications for Future Application. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(4), 347–368.
https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12159 Waddock, S., & Smith, N. (2000). Relationships: The Real Challenge of Corporate Global Citizenship. Business and
Society Review, 105(1), 47–62. Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheenan, M., Clegg, C. W., & West, M. (2004). On the Validity
of the Subjective Measures of Company Performance. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 95–118.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02485.x Webler, S. T. T. (1999). Voices from the Forest: What Participants Expect of a Public Participation Process. Society
& Natural Resources, 12(5), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419299279524 Weerawardena, J., & Sullivan Mort, G. (2012). Competitive Strategy in Socially Entrepreneurial Nonprofit
Organizations: Innovation and Differentiation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 91–101.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.11.034 Weiss, G., Emery, M. R., Corradini, G., & Živojinović, I. (2020). New Values of Non-Wood Forest Products.
Forests, 11(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11020165 Weiss, G., Ludvig, A., & Živojinović, I. (2020). Four decades of innovation research in forestry and the forest-based
industries – A systematic literature review. Forest Policy and Economics, 120, 102288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2020.102288 Wiersum, K. F., Humphries, S., & van Bommel, S. (2013). Certification of Community Forestry Enterprises:
Experiences with Incorporating Community Forestry in a Global System for Forest Governance. Small-Scale
Forestry, 12(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9190-y Williamson, O. E. (1964). The Economics of Discretionary Behavior: Managerial Objectives in a Theory of the
Firm (P. Hall (Ed.)). Woolley, A. W. (2009). Means vs. ends: Implications of process and outcome focus for team adaptation and
performance. Organization Science, 20(3), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0382 Wright, P. C., & Geroy, G. D. (2001). Changing the mindset: the training myth and the need for world-class
performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), 586–600.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190122342 Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AjV1AwAAQBAJ&pgis=1 Zeng, Y., Sarira, T. V., Carrasco, L. R., Chong, K. Y., Friess, D. A., Lee, J. S. H., Taillardat, P., Worthington, T. A.,
Zhang, Y., & Koh, L. P. (2020). Economic and social constraints on reforestation for climate mitigation in
Southeast Asia. Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 842–844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0856-3 Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
53(3), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x
197
Appendices
Appendix A
Research Consent Form
Title: A Study of Community Forestry Enterprises in British Columbia
Principal Investigator: Dr. Robert Kozak, Faculty of Forestry at the University of British
Columbia (UBC), [email protected]; phone +1 (604) 822-2402)
Co-Investigator: Meike Siegner, Doctoral Candidate in the Faculty of Forestry at the University
of British Columbia (UBC), [email protected]
Purpose: Understand managerial decision-making in community forestry enterprises by
conducting personal interviews and participant observation (presence of the researcher during
public events, guided tours in community and enterprise facilities)
Funding: This research is funded by a grant of the Social Sciences Research Council (SSHRC)
Duration: ___30-40___minutes
Research Procedures: In this study we will ask you about some demographic information and
your experience with and/or observation of managerial activities in community forestry
enterprises. Specifically how community forestry enterprise management can balance the various
social, ecological and economic demands embedded in community-based forestry activity. If you
agree to participate in the study, the interviewer will audio record the interview with your
198
permission. The study may also entail observation of meetings and/or public events that you
participate in. In that case, the researcher will present you (and all other present individuals) with
this consent form and ask for permission to be present during the event. The researcher will further
ask for permission to audio record the event. If you do not wish to be audio recorded during your
participation, the researcher will only take handwritten notes.
Confidentiality: Your confidentiality will be respected at all times. All documents will be
identified only by code numbers and kept in a locked filing cabinet. You will not be identified by
name in any written outcomes. Interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed for qualitative
analysis. The interviews, as well as observation notes and your identity remain confidential at all
times. No information that discloses your identity will be released or published. The data records
will be kept on a computer hard disk that will be accessible only by password. Only the principal
and co-investigator shall have access to the password protected data records. Pursuant to UBC
policy, the data will be kept in storage for five years after the completion of the study. At the end
of the five years, the records will be destroyed.
Risks: We do not anticipate any discomfort arising out of participating in this research assignment.
However, in case you feel you are experiencing any risks or discomfort, you are free to withdraw
from further participation at any stage.
Study Results: The research is part of Meike Siegner’s (co-investigator) doctoral dissertation
project. The findings from this study may be presented at academic conferences and published in
academic journals.
Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions or desire further information
with respect to this research or the results (for example, if you would like to have insight in the
interview transcript) you may contact Meike Siegner via e-mail [email protected], or
199
Dr. Robert Kozak, Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia via e-mail
[email protected]; or phone +1 (604) 822-2402)
Contact for concerns about the rights of research subjects: If you have any concerns or
complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating
in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research
Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail [email protected] or call toll free 1-877-822-
8598
Consent: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to participate
or withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Your signature below indicates that
consent to participate in this research assignment.
_______________________________ _____________
Participant signature Date
_____________________________
Print name
Do you agree to being audio recorded during your participation in this research?
(YES or NO, by checking the corresponding box)
YES •
(the researcher will audio-record and take handwritten notes)
NO •
(the researcher will take only handwritten notes)
__________________________________ _____________
Participant signature Date
__________________________________
Print name
200
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Participant Information: Participant Code:
Name:
Age:
Organization:
I: Role in the Organization
Can you describe your job to me?
(What does your work as manager/board member/employee/other look like? Can you describe a
typical day in your organization/work routine?)
II. Goal plurality
Community forests are said to pursue many different social, environmental, economic goals.
What is your view on the mission and goals of your organization? What does it mean for your
work as manager?
Probes:
- Do you sometimes find that it is not possible to do all of them?
o If yes, can you describe some situations
o If no, what does it take to balance these goals? Can you provide some examples?
201
III. CFE Competitiveness
Some say community forestry enterprises should scale-up and grow in size and revenue, while
others say, that they should remain small and develop novel products. What is your take on it?
Probes:
- Can you provide some examples?
- What has your experience been in this organization?
o Have certain activities replaced others? If so, why and how?
o Is the current strategy working well, compared to past activities?
IV. Participation in decision-making
The BC Forest Act requires community forestry license holders to involve the community in all
decision-making. How do you make that happen?
Probes:
- Can you provide examples of decisions that the community gets consulted about?
- What are “key ingredients” of successful community involvement?
- Are there situations where it is more difficult to involve the community?
o How do you do it?
- Can you describe some situations where the outcomes of a community consultation were
not in line with your opinion?
o How did you handle those situations?
V. Collective ownership
The board composition of community forestry enterprises can be quite diverse. Often there are
municipalities involved, First Nations Bands, the local hiking club, or other citizen groups. How
do you manage the presence of diverse groups on the board?
202
Probes:
- How easy/difficult is it to satisfy board requests?
- Is it useful at all to have a diverse boards?
o Why yes, why not? Please provide examples
- Generally, how invested are the different groups forming the board?
VI. Future of community forest enterprises
In your opinion, how does the future of community forestry (community forest enterprises)
currently look like?
Probes:
- What are challenges?
- What are opportunities?
- Can you provide examples
- Are community members the forward looking ones? Management? The board? How and
why?
VII. Wrap-up, final remarks
Is there anything you would like to add or comment on?
203
Appendix C
Survey Instrument
Drivers of Strategic Choice in CFEs (Cascadia Region (BC Canada, and Washington and
Oregon, U.S.))
Q1 WELCOME TO OUR SURVEY
This research seeks to assess effective business strategies in community forests in Western
Canada and the Northwestern United States from an executive staff perspective.
You are invited to participate in this survey because you are the manager of a community forest
organization, or because you are overseeing a community forest as part of your work for an
environmental organization (e.g. land trust) or for an Indigenous or local government.
By community forests, we refer to working forests that are owned or managed through devolved
governance (e.g. band and tribal councils, cooperatives, municipalities, nonprofits) to
provide local benefits according to community values.
If you are involved in more than one community forest organization, please choose the one in
which you have (or had) the most recent and meaningful involvement. The estimated time for
completion is approximately 15 minutes.
If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your
experiences while participating in this study, please contact the Research Participant Complaint
Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail
[email protected] or call toll free 1-877-822-8598.
For questions and/or concerns about this study, please contact the research team: Meike Siegner,
Primary Researcher ([email protected]) or Dr. Robert Kozak, Research Supervisor
([email protected]), Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
You may start the survey by clicking on the arrow.
204
Q2 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the social performance of your
organization from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
The community
is very satisfied
with our social
performance (1) o o o o o
We operate in a
socially
sustainable
manner (2) o o o o o
We advocate
for the needs of
the local
community (3) o o o o o
We help
mobilize interest
for the social
benefits of
community
forestry (4)
o o o o o
In the past few
years, we have
met our
objectives in
terms of local
needs served (5)
o o o o o
We are often
perceived as an
organization that
brings positive
change to the
community (6)
o o o o o
Q3 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the environmental performance
of your organization from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
205
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
The community is
very satisfied with
our environmental
performance (1) o o o o o
We operate in a
environmentally
sustainable manner
(2) o o o o o
We advocate for
sustainable forestry
in this community
(3) o o o o o
We help mobilize
interest for the
environmental
benefits of
community
forestry (4)
o o o o o
In the past few
years, we have met
our environmental
objectives (5) o o o o o
We are often
perceived as an
organization that
champions
sustainable forestry
(6)
o o o o o
Q4 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the financial performance of
your organization from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
206
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
We are effective
in generating
funds to support
local benefits (1) o o o o o
In the past few
years, we
increased our
effectiveness (2) o o o o o
In the past few
years, our
financial
situation has
improved (3)
o o o o o
We are
financially
sustainable (4) o o o o o
Q5 Community forests may have goals according to the ability to generate social, environmental and economic
value. Please allocate a total of 100 points across these three categories as it pertains to your organizations' goals.
Social : _______ (1)
Environmental : _______ (2)
Economic : _______ (3)
Total : ________
207
Q6 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the main business strategy of
your organization from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
We focus on
selling primary
commodities (e.g.
raw logs) (1) o o o o o
There is constant
pressure to cut
costs (2) o o o o o
We emphasize
competitive prices
in our sales
communication
(3)
o o o o o
We work to
improve
efficiency (5) o o o o o
208
Q7 Again, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding the main business
strategy of your organization from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
We focus on
selling products
and services that
enable us to
charge an extra
premium (e.g. by
targeting local
niche markets) (1)
o o o o o
There is a focus
on exploring
value-added
products and
services (2)
o o o o o
We emphasize the
community
character of our
organization in
our sales
communication
(3)
o o o o o
We work to offer
superior products
and services
compared to our
competitors (5)
o o o o o
Q8 Please describe the strategic orientation of your organization by selecting a box on the scale from 1 (Focus on
Cost Leadership) to 7 (Provision of Differentiated Products and Services)
Cost Leadership Differentiated
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
1 ()
209
Q9 Thinking about the work that you specifically perform in your organization, please indicate your level of
agreement with the following statements from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
I feel that I am
my own boss (1) o o o o o I can be creative
and try my own
methods of
doing the job (2) o o o o o
I can do
something that
makes use of my
abilities (3) o o o o o
It is basically
my own
responsibility to
decide how my
job gets done (4)
o o o o o
I seldom have to
follow the exact
same methods or
steps for getting
the job done (5)
o o o o o
210
Q10 Thinking about the work that you specifically perform in your organization, please indicate your level of
agreement with the following statements from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
I am constantly
on the lookout
for
improvements
(1)
o o o o o
I feel driven to
make a
difference
through my
work (2)
o o o o o
When a problem
comes up, I
tackle it head-on
(3) o o o o o
I love being a
champion for
my ideas, even
against others’
opposition (4)
o o o o o
I have been told
that I am a force
for constructive
change (5) o o o o o
211
Q11 Again, thinking about the work that you specifically perform in your organization, please indicate your level of
agreement with the following statements from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) (next page)
212
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
I consider how
things might be
in the future and
try to influence
those things with
my day to day
work (1)
o o o o o
I often engage in
a particular
behavior in order
to achieve
outcomes that
may not result
for many years
(3)
o o o o o
I am willing to
sacrifice
immediate goals
in order to
achieve future
outcomes (4)
o o o o o
I think it is
important to take
warnings about
negative
outcomes
seriously even if
the negative
outcome will not
occur for many
years (5)
o o o o o
213
I think it is more
important to
support goals
with major
distant
consequences
than goals with
minor immediate
consequences (6)
o o o o o
Q12 Thinking about the work that you specifically perform in your organization, please indicate your level of
agreement with the following statements from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
214
Strongly
Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4)
Strongly Agree
(5)
I cooperate with
a wide range of
actors (1) o o o o o
I frequently
discuss common
problems with
other
community
forest executives
(2)
o o o o o
I have a central
position in my
professional
network (e.g. as
board member
of a professional
association) (3)
o o o o o
I am frequently
involved in
voluntary work
that aims to
grow awareness
for community
forestry (4)
o o o o o
When others
have some
questions about
new ideas for
utilization of the
forest, they
often come to
me for help (5)
o o o o o
Q13 Next, we would like you to provide some general information about your organization
215
Q14 Does your organization have forest certification?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Skip To: Q16 If Does your organization have forest certification? = No
Q15 What is the name of the certification scheme? Please write the information in the field below
________________________________________________________________
Q16 How old is your organization? Please write the number of years in the field below
________________________________________________________________
Q17 How many full-time staff work for your organization? Please write the number in the field below
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q18 What products and services does your community forest organization offer? Please write the information on all
earned revenue activities of the organization in the field below
________________________________________________________________
Q19 How many hectares/acres of forest land does the organization administer? Please write the number in the field
below
________________________________________________________________
216
Q20 Where is your organization located? Please select a choice below
o British Columbia (Canada) (1)
o Alaska (2)
o Idaho (3)
o Montana (4)
o Oregon (5)
o Washington (6)
Display This Question:
If Where is your organization located? Please select a choice below = Alaska
Or Where is your organization located? Please select a choice below = Idaho
Or Where is your organization located? Please select a choice below = Montana
Or Where is your organization located? Please select a choice below = Oregon
Or Where is your organization located? Please select a choice below = Washington
Q21 What is the form of ownership in this organization? Please select a choice below
o Corporation (1)
o Cooperative (2)
o Land Trust (3)
o Limited Liability Company (4)
o Society (5)
o Tribe (6)
o Other (7) ________________________________________________
217
Display This Question:
If Where is your organization located? Please select a choice below = British Columbia (Canada)
Q22 What is the form of ownership in this organization? Please select a choice below
o Corporation (1)
o Cooperative (2)
o First Nation (3)
o Partnership (4)
o Society (5)
o Other (6) ________________________________________________
Q23 Finally, we would like you to provide some information about yourself
Q24 How many years have you worked in the organization? Please write the number in the field below
________________________________________________________________
Q25 What is your highest level of education? Please write the degree in the field below. (You may skip this question
by clicking on the arrow)
________________________________________________________________
Q26 What is your age? Please write the number in the field below. (You may skip this question by clicking on the
arrow)
________________________________________________________________
218
Q27 What is your gender? Please select a choice below
o Female (1)
o Male (2)
o Transgender, transitioning (5)
o Other (3) ________________________________________________
o Prefer not to answer (4)
219
Appendix D
ANOVA Results
Variables
Mean F
p
Pure Differentiators Mixed
Strategists
Strategically
Irresolutes
SP1 The community is very satisfied
with our social performance 3.89 4.11 3.79 1.16 .32
SP2 We operate in a socially
sustainable manner 4.29 4.37 4.43 0.58 .56
SP3 We advocate for the needs of the
local community 4.7 4.52 4.21 1.88 .16
SP4 We help mobilize interest for the
social benefits of community forestry 4.5 4.07 3.64 4.44 .02*
SP5 In the past few years, we have met
our objectives in terms of local needs
served
4.1 4.26 3.71 2.87 .06
SP6 We are often perceived as an
organization that brings positive
change to the community
4 4.11 3.86 0.39 .67
EP1 The community is very satisfied
with our environmental performance 3.7 3.96 3.71 0.99 .37
EP2 We operate in a environmentally
sustainable manner 4.2 4.44 4.29 0.50 .61
EP3 We advocate for sustainable
forestry in this community 4.6 4.52 4.43 0.20 .81
EP4 We help mobilize interest for the
environmental benefits of community
forestry
4.1 3.96 3.86 0.24 .78
EP6 We are often perceived as an
organization that champions
sustainable forestry
4.2 4.15 3.86 0.86 .42
FP1 We are effective in generating
funds to support local benefits 4.4 4.48 3.64 4.26 .03*b
FP2 In the past few years, we
increased our effectiveness 4.4 4.44 3.5 6.94 .00*
FP3 In the past few years, our financial
situation has improved 4.3 4.56 3.71 5.67 .00*