A Framework for Stakeholder Analysis of Forest and Wood-Based Industry Clusters – Case Study at the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Abstract

Concepts and methods for stakeholder analysis in forestry need further development and refinement in the context of the cluster concept and there is a lack of suitable information concerning the communication and cooperation patterns between stakeholders of the different industry branches and along the chain of production and value-adding.Within this research project, a framework for stakeholders analysis of forest and wood-based industry clusters was developed and tested as a case study at the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) in Germany.The study is based on methods of cluster and stakeholder analysis as well as the analysis and assessment of stakeholder and corporate networks. The case study was carried out based on a questionnaire survey among 632 stakeholder organizations (response rate 35.9%).The framework consists of three moduls: stakeholder identification, stakeholder analysis and assessment, and stakeholder networking and cluster management. The NRW forest sector is characterized by more than 630 stakeholder organizations, covering a wide range of industry branches and different spatial scales. The institutional characteristics vary highly. Stakeholder communication and cooperation mostly takes place between directly linked industry branches along the chain of production and value-adding. Recommendations for improved communication and cooperation include the establishment or further development of cooperation platforms or networks.The presented framework supports stakeholder analysis under the cluster perspective. If applied in a consistent and transparent way, the framework of stakeholder analysis can contribute to more holistic, standardized, replicable and comparable descriptions of forest and wood-based industry clusters in Europe and abroad.

The Application of Stakeholder Networking Theory for Strategic Planning in the New Zealand Public Sector

“…Jennings & Ewalt. 1998;Sipple, 1999;Provan & Milward, 2001;Miskel & Song, 2004;Cronin & Jackson, 2004;Mahon et al, 2004;Timur, 2005;Vandekerckhove&Dentchev, 2005;Musso, et al, 2006;Shannon & Walker, 2006;Stokes, 2006;Gomes & Gomes, 2008;Mrosek, Aβmann, Kies, Allen & Schulte, 2010). This is further supported by Achterkamp and Vos (2007) whoconfirm the contribution of critical systems thinking (CST), in the form of "boundary critique", as a means for stakeholder identification.…”

“…This should occur prior to any form of information gathering to ensure that all subsequent steps are primarily focussed on the defined issue and stakeholder definition, otherwise there could be a mis-investment of resources in activities that are not contributing to the defined outcomes of the process. The need to confirm the stakeholder definition early on in the process is supported by Mrosek et al (2010) who report a similar finding in their framework for stakeholder analysis in the German forestry industry.…”

“…Due to the limited research available on the application of stakeholder networking theory in practice, it is difficult to compare and contrast the reported interdependencies in a Framework of this nature. However, Mrosek et al (2010) who recently developed a stakeholder analysis framework, which incorporates stakeholder networking as one of three modules, devotes a large chunk of the methods section to defining the context of the framework, and reviewing and clarifying the definition of stakeholders in that context to enable stakeholder identification. This suggests support for clarifying these two things at the outset, as proposed by this Framework.…”