Report: Forestry Companies Lack Readiness to Meet EU Nature Targets  

European forestry industry companies are not yet prepared to comply with EU legislation and strategies aimed at combating biodiversity loss, according to a report by Associate Professor at the Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy Metodi Sotirov (University of Freiburg), Senior Researcher Nataša Lovric (University of Eastern Finland), and Researcher Ragnar Jonsson (Svenska Lantbruksuniversitet).  

The report compares 16 forestry industry companies that are market leaders in Europe and globally, based on revenue and business scale.  

According to the report, none of the companies currently act as industry frontrunners, as none were largely or fully prepared to meet the EU’s biodiversity goals.  

The studied companies represent various parts of the forestry industry supply chain. Some manufacture only end products, such as disposable paper products or hygiene paper. Others produce cardboard and paper, while some focus on producing pulp as a raw material. Some companies cover the entire supply chain, from forest ownership to pulp production and final product manufacturing.  

The Finnish companies included in the study were UPM, Metsä Group, Stora Enso, Ahlstrom, and Huhtamäki.  

The comparison scored companies on a scale from zero to one hundred, where achieving a perfect score of one hundred required full compliance with EU biodiversity regulations and strategies on protecting biodiversity. A score of less than 100 points means that the business is not yet fully aligned with EU regulations and targets.

The two highest-scoring companies, UPM and SCA, received 60 points. According to the report, this result at best indicates that these companies have the potential to progress toward readiness to meet biodiversity goals, but their preparation is still incomplete.  

Among the 16 companies, ten — including Stora Enso and Metsä Group — scored between 45 and 55 points. Their readiness to meet the targets is considered only satisfactory: while measures have been taken, there remains a significant gap between actions taken and those required.  

The scores of all examined companies ranged between 25 and 60. None received an excellent score (80–100 points) or a very poor score (below 20 points). 

Source: Companies’ own public reports

The report’s sources included the companies’ publicly available annual reports and sustainability reports, which serve as primary sources for both customers and investors.  

Based on the data, the assessment examined how well the companies considered the following EU regulations and strategies: the Biodiversity Strategy, the Forest Strategy, the Birds Directive, the Nature Restoration Regulation, the Timber Regulation, the Deforestation Regulation, the Renewable Energy Directive, the LULUCF Regulation, and the Taxonomy Regulation.  

Additionally, the study sought to determine whether the European forestry industry is ready to transition toward ecological sustainability. Information on various indicators was sought from the companies’ reports, including: promoting natural forest regeneration, tree species diversity, intensity of forest use, deadwood levels in commercial forests, preference for continuous growth forestry, avoidance of clear-cutting, protection of natural and semi-natural forests and old-growth forests, amount of strictly protected forests, protection of high conservation value forests, and protection of forest bird habitats. Previous research literature was used to define the indicators and research design. 

In the assessment scoring, each indicator was assigned threshold values. A company received 2 points if it exceeded the threshold with verifiable figures. If the company acknowledged the factor but did not demonstrate whether the target was met, it received 1 point. The total score was then multiplied by five, producing a scale from zero to one hundred.  

The companies were given the opportunity to comment on the report’s findings before its publication. 

Certificates guide wood purchases, but outsource environmental responsibility to third parties

The report finds that most of the companies surveyed rely on FSC and PEFC certificates as a guarantee of responsible wood sourcing. However, buying certified wood or fibre does not always guarantee an effective capacity to meet forest biodiversity objectives. Buying certified wood outsources corporate responsibility for sustainability to third parties, thus reducing companies’ own environmental responsibility. In reality, the actual responsibility for adapting the company’s business to nature objectives and regulations lies with the companies themselves.
 

The results of the report suggest that the more control a company has over its supply chain – for example, by owning forests and producing biomass upstream and processing wood or fibre in its own mills downstream – the better its capacity to meet its biodiversity targets. This could be explained by the fact that the company has more experience and direct contact with forest management and thus with forest biodiversity upstream.  
 

On the other hand, the less control a company has over the supply chain – it does not own forests but buys wood or fibre from external suppliers and mainly owns mills downstream – the weaker its readiness to meet biodiversity goals seems to be. This may be because the company is further away from forest management activities and does not have as much experience with forest biodiversity issues.

About the report

The report Readiness of forest corporations for adaptation to biodiversity protection goals (RECORD) by Metodi Sotirov, Associate Professor at the Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy at the University of Freiburg, Nataša Lovric, Senior Researcher at the University of Eastern Finland and Ragnar Jonsson, Researcher at the Svenska Lantbruksuniversitet was commissioned by the Kone Foundation’s Metsän puolella (“For the Woods”) initiative. The report’s research questions were defined by theresearch team, led by Sotirov, and the team is independently responsible for the report’s conclusions.  
 

The aim of the initiative is to diversify the debate on forests and promote their sustainable use. It provides funding for forest-related research, art, journalism and activism, and promotes dialogue between forest stakeholders, for example at the Great Forest Dialogue Day on 2 April 2025. As part of the initiative, the Kone Foundation can also commission studies from leading forestry researchers on topics of particular relevance to forest use and the future of forests.

Read the report Readiness of forest corporations for adaptation to biodiversity protection goals (RECORD).

More information

Frans-Anton Flander 
Coordinator, Kone Foundation Metsän puolella (“For the Woods”) initiative

frans-anton.flander@koneensaatio.fi 
+358 40 737 9826