IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa02p192.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Generating competitiveness through interfirm co-operation: the forest industry of South Karelia and small and medium size subcontracting companies

Author

Listed:
  • Karhu, Esa Kristian
  • Laine, Kalle
  • Ahola, Jyrki
  • Kotonen, Ulla

Abstract

After the depression in the beginning of 1990's the regional development has been unequal in Finland, favouring some rapidly growing growth centres. The motors of the development in these centres have essentially been universities and IT-firms. At the same time when IT-based regions have been very successful many of the more traditionally oriented production areas have had problems in ensuring economic growth and balanced development of the whole region. In South-Karelia (province which lies at the South-East border of Finland) the development of the whole region is heavily related to one economic branch, forest industry. This is due to the fact that South-Karelia and it's surroundings forms production area in which the production is (even in the world scale) most intensively focused on chemical forest industry. There are four major forest industry production plants in the area: Stora-Enso / Imatra Mills, UPM-Kymmene / Kaukas Mills, Metsä-Serla / Simpele Mills and Metsä-Botnina / Joutseno Mills. In South Karelia case it is very clear that large scale enterprises have a significant role in the balanced and comprehensive development of the whole province. This applies especially to the development of economical circumstances and smaller companies in the area, but also to other aspects of human life: social, cultural and political. When we look at the structure of the companies in the area, we can determine that the situation is very biased. There are large scale companies and small companies but almost none of the medium size companies. In these economical conditions it's very clear that there might be several barriers to develop successful and multilateral co-operation between the two company-clusters, which are formulated according to company size. One of the most important barriers between the two parties is the capacity of production: The differences in production capacities hinders companies ability to develop interfirm co-operation. This study focuses on two central concepts, interfirm co-operation and competitiveness. The aim of the study was to find operation modes through which the companies in the South-Karelian region would be able to improve their competitiveness. The main objective of the study was to determine how the large scale enterprises of the woodprocessing industry in the South-Karelian region could increase their subcontracting activities among local small and medium size companies. The sub-objective of the study was to clarify the weight that those companies have on the economic structure of the South-Karelian region, and to determine the different interfirm co-operation forms that were used in the area. The methodology of the study included several characteristics of both concept analytical and constructive paradigms. The study was divided into two parts: theoretical and empirical. The theoretical part of the study forms a frame of reference in order to determine the concept of interfirm co-operation and also to classify different forms of interfirm co-operation. The theoretical part of the study was used as a basis for questionnaire and interviews. The results of the study show that interfirm co-operation is significant if the woodprocessing industry increases their subcontracting activities among the local small and medium size companies. The results show quite clearly, that interfirm co-operation can increase the competitiveness of companies. Especially useful are those modes of action which are based on long term relationships and create so called win-win situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Karhu, Esa Kristian & Laine, Kalle & Ahola, Jyrki & Kotonen, Ulla, 2002. "Generating competitiveness through interfirm co-operation: the forest industry of South Karelia and small and medium size subcontracting companies," ERSA conference papers ersa02p192, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa02p192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa02/cd-rom/papers/192.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elsie Echeverri-Carroll & Lynn Hunnicutt & Niles Hansen, 1998. "Do Asymmetric Networks Help or Hinder Small Firms' Ability to Export?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 721-733.
    2. J. Carlos Jarillo, 1988. "On strategic networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 31-41, January.
    3. Hans B. Thorelli, 1986. "Networks: Between markets and hierarchies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 37-51, January.
    4. Håkansson, Håkan & Snehota, Ivan, 1989. "No business is an island: The network concept of business strategy," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 187-200.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laaksonen, Toni & Jarimo, Toni & Kulmala, Harri I., 2009. "Cooperative strategies in customer-supplier relationships: The role of interfirm trust," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 79-87, July.
    2. Nancy J. Miller & Carol Engel-Enright & David A. Brown, 2021. "Direct and moderation effects on U.S. apparel manufacturers’ engagement in network ties," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 17(3), pages 67-113.
    3. Tseng, C. -H. & Yu, C-M. J. & Seetoo, D. H. W., 2002. "The relationships between types of network organization and adoption of management mechanisms: an empirical study of knowledge transactions of MNC's subsidiaries in Taiwan," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 211-230, April.
    4. Sturgeon, Timothy J., 1997. "Does Manufacturing Still Matter? The Organizational Delinking of Production from Innovation," UCAIS Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, Working Paper Series qt2g22d9d2, UCAIS Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, UC Berkeley.
    5. Michael Paul Kramer & Linda Bitsch & Jon Hanf, 2021. "Blockchain and Its Impacts on Agri-Food Supply Chain Network Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Sophie Giordano & Elisabeth Roucolle, 2001. "Modele Comptable Et Representation Des Organisations En Reseau," Post-Print halshs-00584651, HAL.
    7. Ahlert, Klaus-Henning & Corsten, Hans & Gössinger, Ralf, 2009. "Capacity management in order-driven production networks--A flexibility-oriented approach to determine the size of a network capacity pool," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 430-441, April.
    8. Björkman, Ingmar & Kock, Sören, 1995. "Social relationships and business networks: The case of Western companies in China," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 519-535.
    9. Wei-ping Wu & Alicia Leung, 2005. "Does a Micro-Macro Link Exist Between Managerial Value of Reciprocity, Social Capital and Firm Performance? The Case of SMEs in China," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 445-463, December.
    10. Mausumi Saha & Sharmistha Banerjee, 2015. "Impact of Social Capital on Small Firm Performance in West Bengal," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 24(2), pages 91-114, September.
    11. Bernard Baudry & Virgile Chassagnon, 2012. "The vertical network organization as a specific governance structure: what are the challenges for incomplete contracts theories and what are the theoretical implications for the boundaries of the (hub," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(2), pages 285-303, May.
    12. Esa Storhammar & Timo Tohmo, 2011. "Innovation activity in the SMEs and local environment," ERSA conference papers ersa10p240, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Sroka Włodzimierz, 2011. "Problem of Trust in Alliance Networks," Organizacija, Sciendo, vol. 44(4), pages 101-108, July.
    14. Xhoxhi, Orjon & Imami, Drini & Hanf, Jon & Gjokaj, Ekrem, 2022. "Too much power or no power: when does intermediary's power result into better wine and happier farmers?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(5), December.
    15. Jean-Marie Nkongolo-Bakenda, 2002. "Inter-firm Networking Propensity in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)," Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, vol. 7(1), pages 99-122, Spring.
    16. Ritter, Thomas & Gemunden, Hans Georg, 2003. "Interorganizational relationships and networks: An overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 691-697, September.
    17. Wiśniewska-Paluszak, Joanna A. & Paluszak, Grzegorz T., 2020. "Development of sustainable resource ties in the agrifood industry: the case for the Polish fruit and vegetable industry," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(2), March.
    18. Régis Dumoulin & Pierre-Xavier Meschi & Thomas Uhlig, 2000. "Management, contrôle et performance des réseaux d'entreprises : étude empirique de 55 réseaux d'alliances," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 3(2), pages 81-112, June.
    19. Tom Lahti & Joakim Wincent & Vinit Parida, 2018. "A Definition and Theoretical Review of the Circular Economy, Value Creation, and Sustainable Business Models: Where Are We Now and Where Should Research Move in the Future?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Udo Mildenberger, 2001. "Systemische Kompetenzen und deren Einfluss auf das Kompetenzentwicklungspotenzial in Produktionsnetzwerken," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 53(7), pages 705-722, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa02p192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.