No abstract

Forest ownership is changing in Europe. Reasons include recent institutional changes in Eastern Europe, changing lifestyles of non-agricultural owners and afforestation. At present, 7 there is little comparative analysis across Europe, and the implications that these changes 8 have for forest management and for the fulfilment and redefinition of policy objectives have 9 not been addressed systematically. This paper has been developed in the framework of a 10 European research network on forest ownership change, based on conceptual work, 11 literature reviews and empirical evidence from 28 European countries. It aims to provide an 12 overview of the state of knowledge, to discuss relevant issues and provide conceptual and 13 practical foundations for future research, forest management approaches, and policy making. 14 In particular, it discusses possible approaches for classifying forest ownership types and 15 understandings of "new" forest ownership. One important insight is that the division into 16 public and private forests is not as clear as often assumed and that an additional category of 17 semi-public (or semi-private) forms of forest ownership would be desirable. Another 18 recommendation is that the concepts of "new forest owners" vs. "new forest owner types" 19 should be differentiated more consciously. We observe that, in research and policy practice, 20 the mutual relations between forest ownership structure and policies are often neglected, for 21 instance, how policies may directly and indirectly influence ownership development, and 22 what different ownership categories mean for the fulfilment of policy goals. Finally, we 23 propose that better support should be provided for the development of new, adapted forest 24 management approaches for emerging forest owner types. Forest ownership deserves 25 greater attention in studies dealing with forest policy or forest management.

a b s t r a c tCorporate social responsibility (CSR) literature holds that CSR can help firms gain a competitive advantage by enabling them to differentiate themselves from their competition and reduce costs. In the strategy literature, differentiation and cost reduction are recognized as two major competitive strategies that firms pursue to outcompete rival firms. Yet, how CSR is linked to a firm's choice of competitive strategy is not explicitly explored in the extant literature. The present paper fills this gap. Using data collected from 478 small firms representing multiple industries in the US, this paper finds that a firm's focus on competing through differentiation strategy is associated with its level of community engagement but not with its level of environmental engagement. Competing through a strategy of costleadership is associated with neither community nor environmental engagement. The paper concludes that, except for seeking differentiation through community engagement, the approach of small firms to CSR remains largely characterized by adhoc decisions with few ties to their competitive strategies. The paper advances the understanding of CSR in small firms and provides novel insights into how CSR is linked with competitive strategies.

No abstract