Framing Sustainability A case study of Sveaskog´s Annual Report

ISSN 1400-3821 B1158

Mailing address Address Telephone Geovetarcentrum Geovetarcentrum Geovetarcentrum 031-786 19 56 Göteborg University S 405 30 Göteborg Guldhedsgatan 5A S-405 30 Göteborg SWEDEN

Abstract This study aims to shed light on how the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs) in 2015 changed the way sustainability is framed within the Swedish state-owned

forestry company Sveaskog. In this study, we analyze two annual reports by Sveaskog from

2010 and 2020 to understand how the SDGs have changed Sveaskog’s framing of

sustainability. The Triple Bottom Line theory is used as a framework for the study, which

emphasizes economic, environmental and social values of sustainability. We use a framing

analysis through a qualitative document analysis perspective to compare the reports.

Thereafter, our results are presented in tables to visualize differences in how Sveaskog frames

sustainability. Our results indicate how Sveaskog’s framing of sustainability has changed over

ten years and the SDGs are a contributing factor to the new framings from 2020, which

emphasizes the importance of economic profits and environmental conservation at the same

time. In 2010, economic sustainability was more visible in the report. Sveaskog claimed that

their business model contributed to an economic and environmental sustainability, while their

business model remained similar over the ten years. The study contributes to the research of

sustainability framing’s significance. It also contributes to creating an understanding of how a

large, state-owned company adopts the SDGs into their internal policies.

Keywords: Sustainability, Sveaskog, Framing, Forestry, Sustainable Development Goals

2

Preface Initially, we planned a Minor Field Study excursion to Moshi, Tanzania. A cooperation with

Associate Professor Dev Jani was initiated, but the field study was not possible due to the

Covid-19 pandemic. We would like to thank Professor Jani for helping us and hope to enable

the field trip in the future.

Instead, we turned to Sweden trying to find an interesting subject with a knowledge gap that

is on the current public agenda. Swedish forestry has especially been in the public debate

during the last few years and caught our attention. We have almost always thought that

Sweden is an international frontrunner in the forestry sector and within sustainable forest

management. When looking deeper into the subject through readings, we began to question

the different perceptions several actors have on the same industry, which shaped this project.

Our supervisor has been Robin Biddulph, Associate Professor in Human Geography at the

University of Gothenburg. The course coordinator and co-supervisor for this project has been

Jonas Lindberg, Senior Lecturer and Associate Professor in Human Geography. Special

thanks to Robin and Jonas for enduring our struggles as well as always being there to help us

in need. Their constructive criticism has made this essay’s composition better than we

expected it to be.

We would also like to thank our classmates for their opinions during seminars and

oppositions, as well as being our friends during these three years at the Bachelor Programme

in Geography.

3

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 5

1.1 Aim 6 1.2 Questions at issue 6 1.3 Limitations 7 1.4 Summary of our research’s scope 7

2. Theory 8 2.1 Theories 8

2.1.1 Framing 8 2.1.2 Sustainability 8 2.1.3 Triple Bottom Line 9

2.2 Previous research 12 2.2.1 Swedish forestry 12 2.2.2 Sustainable Development Goals 13

2.3 Knowledge overview 14 2.3.1 The Swedish Forestry Model 14 2.3.2 Swedish Forestry Act 15 2.3.3 Sveaskog 16 2.3.4 Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals 16

2.4 Theory discussion 18

3. Research Design 20 3.1 Methods 20

3.1.1 Framing in Context of a Qualitative Document Analysis 20 3.1.2 Qualitative Document Analysis 21

3.2 Material 23 3.3 Method discussion 23

4. Results 25 4.1 (I) How is the issue of sustainability framed in Sveaskog’s Annual Report and Sustainability Report 2010? 25 4.2 (II) How was the issue of sustainability framed differently in Sveakog’s Annual Report and Sustainability Report 2020? 30 4.3 (III) To what extent does the adoption of the SDGs seem to explain differences in sustainability framing between the 2010 and 2020 Annual Report and Sustainability Reports? 38

5. Discussion 42

6. Conclusion 47

7. References 48

4

Sweden aims to be a global frontrunner in forestry (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2016, p.

25). In recent decades, nations’ and peoples’ attention has turned to climate change and

biodiversity loss (Keskitalo et al., 2016). Sustainability emphasizes the possibility of being

capable of continuing over time, and the quality of causing very little or no harm to the

environment to make it possible to continue with something for a longer period. The key

concept of sustainability is for services and goods to be produced with techniques that do not

use resources that cannot be replaced or harm the environment. Sustainability could be in

different forms, such as economic, environmental, ecological and social (Cambridge

Dictionary, n.d.a). Global policies and goals have been set and constantly updated, with

sustainability as a top priority. Although, in these policies, being “sustainable” is defined

quite broadly, meaning that some nations, businesses and individuals, could interpret it

differently. With Swedish forestry taking their part, it is interesting to study how the sector

comprehends sustainability into their industry regarding the relationship to the economic,

environmental and social impacts.

Forestry, or silviculture, is the science and practice of planting and taking care of large areas

of trees and managing forests (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.b). Sweden’s largest forest owner is

the state-owned company Sveaskog, and the company influences the Swedish forestry sector

(Sveaskog, 2020). Being a key actor in Swedish forestry, they urge themselves to take

responsibility for their management and environment (Sveaskog, 2020). Every year,

Sveaskog annually reports its operations and sustainability work and incorporates its view on

sustainability in their Annual Report and Sustainability Report. Since 2015, by being

state-owned, Sveaskog has been undertaking the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Sveaskog, 2021). The global community has since

2015 set an ambitious development agenda through the SDGs (United Nations, 2020, p.4).

Swedish forestry is often discussed in terms of “the Swedish Forestry Model” (SFM), based

on the 1993 Forestry Act (Lindahl et al., 2015). It is used by Sveaskog and is considered a

leading example of how to sustainably utilize and conserve forests simultaneously, as well as

using forests to combat a changing climate (European Environmental Agency, 2010).

Although there is to some extent praise of Swedish forestry strategies, there is criticism of the

model. Lindahl et al. (2015) suggested that the forestry industry prioritize the economic

5

dimension of sustainability. Policy formulations are in a range of alternative outputs, which

gives a shortage of capability to interpret current sustainability challenges. Lindahl et al.

concluded that there is a need for broad public debate on the role of the forests as well as the

operationalization of sustainable development. The different dimensions of the industry’s

operation enable a discourse on the problematic framing of sustainability (Lindahl et al.,

2015). Despite global cooperation in creating the goals and working towards sustainable

development, several SDGs have sustainability and knowledge gaps. Within the field of

sustainability, there is a gap in knowledge between what is addressed as sustainable solutions

and what practices are carried out in day-to-day life within the field of sustainable forestry

(Zimm, Sperling & Busch, 2018).

We intend to create an understanding of how sustainability is interpreted in Sveaskog’s two

Annual Reports from 2010 and 2020, to contribute to closing the knowledge gap regarding

how sustainability is framed in their Annual Reports. 2010 and 2020 are chosen because they

both span five years apart from the establishment of the SDGs. Since Sveaskog emphasizes

the economic and environmental perspective on sustainability, the empirical research focuses

on evaluating and comparing those categorized perspectives in the reports. The idea that this

adoption was a potentially significant event for Sveaskog’s framing of sustainability is

interesting to study. It is important to know whether the SDGs have enabled improvements in

sustainability practice (Zimm et al., 2018), as Lindahl et al. (2015) suggested were needed in

Swedish forestry, or whether it seems to be a cover for business-as-usual with long-term

deficiencies unaddressed. Why we have chosen to investigate Sveaskog, in particular, is

because they are a state-owned company directly operating beneath the Government’s

agenda. We wish to understand how the SDGs are influencing Sveaskog’s sustainability

framing. To achieve this, a framing analysis is conducted on the 2010 and 2020 Annual

Reports from a qualitative document analysis perspective.

This study aims to analyze how the adoption of the SDGs in Sweden influenced the way that

Sveaskog frames sustainability.

6

To assess the influence of the SDGs on Sveaskog’s sustainability framing, we compare key

documents issued by the company before and after the adoption of the SDGs. Our research

questions will therefore be:

(I) How is the issue of sustainability framed in Sveaskog’s Annual Report and Sustainability

Report 2010?

(II) How was the issue of sustainability framed differently in Sveakog’s Annual Report and

Sustainability Report 2020?

(III) To what extent does the adoption of the SDGs seem to explain differences in

sustainability framing between the 2010 and 2020 Annual Report and Sustainability Reports?

Our limitations lie within Sveaskog’s two Annual Reports from 2010 and 2020. The two

reports were chosen because they span five years apart from the implementation of the SDGs

in both directions. The reports do not include specific policies per definition, instead, a more

general overview exists in them. The study mainly focuses on the economic and

environmental part of sustainability, with less focus on the social aspect. This will be further

explained in chapter 3. Additional limitations are that we primarily investigate how Sveaskog

frames sustainability, even if terms such as “responsibility” could similarly frame

sustainability. Detailed limitations related to the study’s methods are presented at the

conclusion of chapter 4.

To achieve our aim, answer our questions at issue and be able to discuss our results, we use

theories of framing, sustainability and the triple bottom line, together with previous research

connected to the subject. The method consists of a framing analysis (through a document

analysis perspective). This helps us conduct and deepen the scientific context and knowledge

for the study. The documents reviewed are Sveaskog’s Annual Reports from 2010 and 2020

and are brought forth towards the SDGs from 2015. By comparing the interpretations of the

7

term sustainability in the reports and looking at the change before and after the adoption of

the SDGs, we use the method of frame analysis to get a result related to our theory whether it

is applicable and relatable to our field or not and to discuss the results in chapter 5.

8

In this chapter we explain the fundamental theories and concepts we aim to use in our study

to create a better understanding of our results. We account for previous research on similar

areas. It is also important to bear in mind that our research addresses a minor knowledge gap,

rather than new and revolutionizing research. The theoretical framework points to which

analytical tools are being used and connected to the study and previous research, which in

turn shows how previous, similar studies have been conducted. The chapter is organized in

sections of theory, previous research and knowledge overview.

A theory is a supposition or a collection of ideas explaining a phenomenon. It is often an

abstract and generalized set of ideas of how phenomena are related (Couper, 2015, p. 228).

Below follows the theories we used in our analysis through our method.

Within several academic disciplines, framing is a common concept. Framing explains

peoples’ perceptions and interpretations of particular topics or events, with social norms,

values or assumptions applied by them in all situations. With the public applying a particular

framing of a specific topic, this explains the importance of the topic and who is responsible

for it, as well as what measures should be taken to address it. By using framing

characteristics, reframing is often needed to give alternative views on topics and events

(Mino & Kudo, 2020, p. 8). Framing is depicted as the process where people develop

particular conceptualizations of a topic, event or issue. The theory is based on a constructivist

perspective in the sense that issues can be perceived in various ways and interpreted to have

implications for several values or considerations (Chong & Druckman, 2007).

As a policy concept, sustainability originates back to the Brundtland Report of 1987

(Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010). Mino and Kudo emphasize the existence of multiple framings

by different people, as well, and sustainability as a concept is framed in various ways. In the

science of sustainability, framing is a concept examining the process to determine what is

worth preserving and sustaining. Sustainability is based on a normative dimension, a framing

built on social values and individual beliefs (Mino & Kudo, 2020, p. 9).

9

It is important to understand what sustainability is. Since we are going to analyze how the

SDGs have influenced how Sveaskog frames sustainability, it is relevant to investigate what

research portrays sustainability to be. In an article named “What is Sustainability?” by

Kuhlman and Farrington (2010), they present a critical view of how the term sustainability is

used in policy debates and impact assessment, which are the methods being used in research

trying to appraise policies and practices. Sustainability concerns future generations and often

irreplaceable resources. However, Kuhlman and Farrington mean that even though we are

using resources at the expense of future generations, capital and knowledge is generated that

could raise future well-being. The hardship lies within balancing to what extent well-being

compensates resources, or vice versa (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010). Sustainability is a topic

that enhances both policy appraisal and scientific research, therefore, Kuhlman and

Farrington state that sustainability and its definition must work within both fields.

Sustainability can be divided into three dimensions; social, economic and environmental.

Social and economic corresponds more to well-being, as Kuhlman and Farrington propose to

call it, raising capital and knowledge for future generations (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010).

Their study enables us a foundation on how sustainability could be interpreted when it comes

to economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

The word “sustainability” is a well-known term that contains an abundance of meanings

(Marshall & Toffel, 2004). To ensure the meaning of sustainability we have to embrace the

most meaningful framings of the concept within the reports analysed. Marshall and Toffel

(2004) study the usage of the word sustainability and the many meanings of the concept.

Already in the mid-1990s, there were over 100 definitions of sustainability (Marshall &

Toffel, 2004) and we still experience yet a great ocean of definitions to interpret as of today

in 2021. It is by any means no plain sailing when trying to establish a concrete definition of

sustainability nor its framings when examining companies policies. Therefore, we will rely

on their findings and discussion to form our understanding of how to understand and interact

with Sveaskog’s annual reports of 2010 and 2020.

Marshall and Toffel discuss four different frameworks within the concept of sustainability.

We will now briefly describe these frameworks, and explain the framework Sveaskog utilizes

in their communication through their annual reports. The first framework, the Triple Bottom

10

Line (TBL), emphasizes the importance of balancing economic, environmental and social

goals. Then the remaining three frameworks; the Natural Step, the Ecological Footprint, and

Greadal and Klee’s method Sustainable Emissions and Resource Usage, rather focus on the

importance of measuring and reducing damage to contributors necessary for the well-being of

humans, such as ecosystem services (Marshall & Toffel, 2004).

The TBL framework has similarities to how Kuhlman and Farrington (2010) divide

sustainability into three categories of economic, environmental and social dimensions. When

Marshall and Toffel explain the TBL framing of sustainability they highlight that

organizations or companies when pursuing sustainability will make decisions that are not

entirely based on economic returns by making room for prioritizing environmental protection

and social equity. The TBL framework emphasizes that the three dimensions can be

combined resulting in eco-efficiency such as; fair trade, which refers to economic activities

considering social consequences, and environmental justice; to envy social equity to sustain

environmental protection. These objectives are important to society and should therefore be

conducted into daily decisions by organizations or corporations.

According to Marshall and Toffel, no guarantee mentioned practices will lead to

sustainability, even if they are implemented by all companies. They criticise the TBL concept

in the sense that companies should have other bottom lines, such as an ethical bottom line for

example. The TBL might just be very similar to the original bottom line (economic profits)

with vague commitments to environmental and social issues.

The TBL framework, coined as a term in 1994 by John Elkington, is a framework examining

the economic, environmental and social parts of a company. Many businesses have used the

TBL framework to evaluate their sustainability performance and therefore created a business

value greater than before. Instead of just focusing on the financial reporting, social and

environmental performance is taken into account (Elkington, 1998, p. 2, 70), which Sveaskog

do in their Annual Reports. Elkington argues that in sustainable capitalism, competing

corporate entities try to maintain their position by addressing the social and environmental,

along with a desire to maximise economic profits (Elkington, 1998, p. 70). An economic

“bottom line” tends to be the margin where the business operates towards profit or loss

(Elkington, 1998, p. 72). The environmental “bottom line” is seen by Elkington’s imagination

of companies as an exciting challenge to attend to. Natural capital, the world's stock of

11

natural resources, includes not just trees, but everything found in forests. Elkington also

divides natural capital into two sections. The first; “critical natural capital”, embraces natural

capital that is essential to the maintenance of life and ecosystem integrity. The second;

“renewable/replaceable/ substitutable natural capital”, relates to a natural capital that could be

renewed, repaired, replaced or substituted (Elkington, 1998, p. 79). Lastly, the social “bottom

line” pertains to equitable and beneficial practices of the company where they run their

businesses in that particular society and its labourers (Elkington, 1998, p. 85). It is important

to bear in mind that these bottom lines vary over time and space, since for example boom -

recession, carrying capacity and human rights inflicts the economy, environment and society

(Elkington, 1998, p. 80). The TBL is used as a theoretical framework for this study where

these “bottom lines” are seen by companies as a holding hook, striving towards profitability

economically, environmentally and socially. This refers to increasing profits, biodiversity and

quality of life, respectively exemplified.

Elkington rethought the TBL in 2018. Originally, the TBL were there to encourage

businesses to track and manage their economical, social and environmental capital, added or

reduced, as well as to think through capitalism and its future effects. In his article, 25 Years

Ago I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It, he claims

that success or failure on sustainability goals cannot be measured only in profit and loss, but

also the wellbeing of our planet and all people inhabiting it. Elkington continues that

businesses, finances and markets have a problem in that CEOs, CFOs and other corporate

members do everything in their might to ensure economic profit. Whereas targets for people

and the planet do not at all get the same attention and action (Elkington, 2018). He finishes

his article that he wishes for our present time will be the moment we start working towards a

“triple helix for value creation”, that will be the foundation of future capitalism, spurring

regeneration of the economy, environment and society (Elkington, 2018). Elkington’s theory

will be the theoretical foundation when we analyze Sveaskog’s Annual Reports.

Our research addresses the geographical connection to sustainability. Fu’s (2020) research on

geographical connection to sustainability is kept in mind throughout the assertion, to

contribute to sustainability through geography. His article “Promoting Geography for

Sustainability” presents issues on how the relationship between humans and the environment

lack adequate methods when solving transdisciplinary questions in sustainability science.

Sustainability should consider economic and social development and environmental

12

protection. The planetary boundaries of economic and social development are concepts of

sustainability that the TBL consists of (Fu, 2020), wrand this is what we want to examine

through a spatial and temporal geographic perspective in how Sveaskog frames sustainability.

Norman and MacDonald (2004) argue about the controversy in the suggested promises of the

TBL rhetoric. To summarize, TBL supporters believe environmental and social performance

are possible to measure in relatively objective ways and therefore companies should use those

results to improve results in environmental and social performance (Norman & MacDonald,

2004). Norman and MacDonald claim that the concept of the TBL still holds the same

principles of a “good old-fashioned single bottom line plus vague commitments to social and

environmental concerns”. Therefore, it is excessively easy for just about any company to

adopt the TBL concept as their framework. It is portrayed in a matter that companies commit

themselves to the basis of the TBL and therefore can represent a more visible and verifiable

commitment to sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Many companies are

actually doing so, in a positive manner, but at the same time, the TBL concept allows

companies to make very little commitment too, even though it is portrayed otherwise.

With framing and sustainability explained in chapter 2.1, we now present previous research

done on our specific area of study. To achieve the aim of our study, we review the existing

literature on Swedish forestry and the SDGs in this chapter. The most prevalent and relevant

research connected to our aim has been the ones included in the subchapters below. These

sources are useful for deepening our understanding and interpretations regarding

sustainability framing and policy, climate change adaptation, Swedish forestry policy issues,

and SDGs, as well as being able to discuss the previous research related to our results

(chapter 4) in the discussion (chapter 5).

Lindahl et als’. (2011, 2015, 2017) findings state that the Swedish forestry sector

consequently prioritizes economic dimensions of sustainability. They argue that the reason

for such prioritizing could be explained by the range of alternative outputs within policy

formulations. The authors, therefore, connect this phenomenon with a shortage of capability

to interpret current sustainability challenges and suggest a public debate regarding the role of

13

forests in our society and sustainable development operationalization. With the Swedish

bioeconomy in expansion, Lindahl et al. explain how forest production has increased together

with environmental objectives which need urgent addressing. At the same time, the Swedish

forestry sector argues that forests are the solutions to several sustainability challenges

(Lindahl et al., 2017). Lindahl et al. talk about different pathways towards sustainability. One

of them, “More of Everything”, describes it as an underlying belief that consists of an

optimistic view that it is possible to create more of existing resources (Lindahl et al. 2015).

Forests are argued as a solution to multiple sustainability challenges. It is an opportunity to

exploit an emerging bioeconomy to exploit synergies from economic, social and

environmental spectra, whereas traditionally, the economic dimension of sustainability is

prioritized (Lindahl et al., 2017). Lindahl et al. (2015) emphasize therefore that the “The

Swedish Forestry Model” prioritizes economic dimensions of sustainability over

environmental sustainability. Speaking of economic prioritizing, except for timber

production, Eggers et al. (2017) highlight that biodiversity and recreation are forest functions

gaining importance. Their study explores how different forest management practices can

succeed in balancing different forest values. Forest demands have diversified and made

management and planning of it more complexified, and to address this issue, more diversified

silviculture (forestry) needs to gain interest, states Eggers et al. However, different options to

solve this remain unclear whether it affects or not the economic, ecological and social aspects

of sustainable forestry. By assessing the consequences of different options on how to manage

forests sustainably through evaluation of economic, ecologic and social forest value, their

results presented that current management practices in Sweden prioritize the economic aspect

through wood production (Eggers et al., 2017).

Previous research on the SDGs relevant to our study comes primarily from two sources. The

first one is Eisenmenger et al. (2020) in a literature review on the SDGs from a

socio-ecological perspective generally applicable to all sectors affiliated with the SDGs.

Through a literature review on the SDGs, they linked empirical findings with analyses of

SDG targets and indicators and found that the SDGs prioritize economic growth over

sustainable resource use. Additionally, Eisenmenger et al. analyzed the potential of SDG

transformation, with a focus on addressed actors and institutions. The results show that the

SDGs rely on the institutions that are responsible for the unsustainable use of resources. They

14

also suggest that some goals reinforce a trend towards unsustainability. Apart from

determining a limited potential of SDG transformation from their analysis, the authors

conclude by emphasizing the strategic relevance of the SDGs for research, visions and

practices in the endeavour towards sustainability. What explains this apparent paradox is the

fact that Eisenmenger et al. emphasize the importance of a collective framework on a global

pursuit towards sustainability, even if it seems to prioritize economic growth (Eisenmenger et

al., 2020).

Continuing on previous research on the SDGs, Zimm et al. (2018) identifies sustainability

and knowledge gaps in socio-economic pathways compared to the SDGs, by criticizing

analytical and quantitative models that support empiricism to the SDGs. With a holistic

interpretation of the SDGs, they seek to find an assessment of potential embedded synergies

and trade-offs between the three pillars of sustainability objectives; economic, social and

environmental. By analysing the SDGs and their targets, taking their set running period (of

mostly by 2030, but also 2050), the ambitious development agenda has made analytical,

quantitative and pathway modelling lacking the capability to grasp all the SDGs and their

sub-targets. Ambitious and optimistic pathways in research do not meet all SDGs

(sustainability gaps) and therefore fail in providing information on some of the SDGs, which

create knowledge gaps. Zimm et al. (2018) argue that the insufficient SDG pathways could be

assessed more comprehensively with more clarity and specificity, and that current analytical

and quantitative modelling capabilities are not yet able to capture the SDGs and their target

areas. In addition, the SDGs can serve as a foundation for research and modelling, but the

goals need to be operationalized in order to lessen complexity, as well as account for future

sustainability issues that transcend the year 2030, the year the Agenda was set to.

To understand more about Sveaskog and Swedish forestry in general, we introduce law

regulations, climate and sustainability policy plans and background.

As of 2019, the gross domestic product (GDP) from forestry-related products in Sweden is

3%, or 10% of the country’s export value. On a global scale, Sweden is a large producer and

15

exporter of pulp, paper and timber, and is the third-largest export country in the world

(Keskitalo, Kunnas, Pettersson & Stjernström, 2019, p. 62).

In the latest report from the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA)

from 2015, produced closely together with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

(SLU), Umeå University (UmU), Swedish Forest Industries Federation, Federation of

Swedish Family Forest Owners (LRF), Swedish Forestry Agency (SFA) and Forestry

Research Institute of Sweden, they describe the Swedish way of forestry. The Swedish

forestry act introduced a new forest policy that came into effect in 1993 with emphasis on

greater liberalization in the business sector and paying more attention to conservation issues

within forestry. The practices of the Swedish forestry sector is known as the Swedish Forestry

Model, which enhances historical policymaking up until today’s date, Sweden’s natural

conditions, research on forestry, experience and knowledge from forest owners and the

tradition for creating new solutions (KSLA, 2015).

The idea of forestry is based on regeneration after harvesting. Young and middle-aged forests

grow at a rapid pace, hence absorbing and binding more carbon dioxide. Modern technology

and monitoring examine what could be harvested and what should be conserved. With this

model, the forested areas increase in growth annually compared to what is being felled.

Providing renewable biomass contributes to the substitution of fossil fuel dependency and can

be used to produce energy and other products (European Environmental Agency (EEA),

2010). The forests and management of them play a crucial part in the work with climate

change mitigation. A sustainable way of forestry contributes to high productivity and low

natural disturbance of the forests, where biomass is seen as an important substitute to fossil

fuel products (KSLA, 2015).

The Swedish Forestry Act (1993 Forestry Act) is a law stating that forests are a renewable

source that has to be managed sustainably to yield a good revenue, with consideration to

nature, cultural heritage and reindeer husbandry among other interests (SFA, 2020a). Initially,

the first forestry act came in 1903, when forests in Sweden had decreased substantially. The

act was passed as a means to secure the forests for utilization for future generations. This law

of Swedish forest policy was decided by the Parliament in 1993 with two equal set goals of

how to manage forests, environmentally and productively. It works as an agreement between

16

the society and several actors involved in the forestry sector. The primary purpose of the act

is that there is an obligation to replant forests after the trees have been felled (SFA, 2020b, p.

5). Before the announcement of the SDGs, the implementation of the 1993 Forestry Act has

since the Parliament in 1993 been known for having two equally important jurisdictional

sections described as “goals”. The Environmental goal and Production goal is described in

the Government's proposition 1992/93:226, as cited respectively:

“The natural production capacity of the forest land must be preserved. Biodiversity

and social values must be protected.” (Prop: 1992/93:226).

“The forest and forest land must be used efficiently and responsibly so that it provides

action with regard to the use of what the forest produces.” (Prop: 1992/93:226).

Sveaskog is a Swedish state-owned limited company and the largest owner of forests in the

country. Owning approximately 14% of the country’s forested areas, the company employs

over 800 people and operates in 170 out of 290 municipalities, mostly the northern and

central regions. Timber, pulp, biofuel, seedling and forest management are products and

services produced by Sveaskog. Customers are primarily from the overall Swedish forest

industry, as well as international importers. The company believes in its efforts to phase out

fossil fuels and replace them with biofuels, at the same time maintaining their forestry as a

key player in climate change mitigation. According to themselves, Sveaskog has strong

strategies indirectly linked to several SDGs, such as goals 7, 13 and 15. Their activities and

value creation contribute to the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. By combining

profitable forestry with the preservation of high conservation values, Sveaskog aims to

increase the financial and natural, as well as the human and social, capital (Sveaskog, 2020).

17

In 2015, the UN member states adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which

was created to provide a blueprint for peace and prosperity for the citizens of our planet today

and into the future. The 2030 Agenda contains 17 goals in various sectors for different targets

and areas that strive for a global action plan by all UN member states. The goals are set to

recognize that the fight to end poverty along with other deprivations will be connected to

strategies within strategies to improve global education, health, reduction of inequality and

boost economic growth whilst tackling the climate change crisis and working towards the

preservation of our forests and oceans (World Bank Group, 2021). In this study, SDGs are

relevant as policy frameworks to help us answer the research questions at issue. Each SDG

has sub-targets which are specifications of areas within the target fields that are relatable to

our research. Zimm et al. (2018) provide a study (see chapter 2.3.2) where they reveal

knowledge and sustainability gaps connected to each of the sub-targets within the SDGs. In

table 1 below, some sub-targets listed are important for Sveaskog. Sveaskog announced that

they prioritize SDG 7, 12, 13 and 15 as relevant to their agenda, and therefore we have listed

the sub-targets from Zimm et al.’s (2018) results to give an indicator to the different fields of

sustainability our study is connected to.

7 - Ensure access to affordable, reliable,

sustainable and modern energy for all

7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy

in the global energy mix

7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy

efficiency

9 - Build resilient infrastructure, promote

inclusive and sustainable

industrialization and foster innovation

9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to

make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency

and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound

technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking

action under their respective capabilities

12 - Ensure sustainable consumption and

production patterns

12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational

companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate

sustainability information into their reporting cycle

18

12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable,

following national policies and priorities

13 - Take urgent action to combat climate

change and its impacts

13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to

climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies,

strategies and planning

13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and

institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation,

impact reduction and early warning

15 - Protect, restore and promote

sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,

sustainably manage forests, combat

desertification, and halt and reverse land

degradation and halt biodiversity loss

15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable

management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore

degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and

reforestation globally

Table 1: Table over the four SDGs Sveaskog mentions in their report from 2020 and description of the sub-target

goals relevant to our study (United Nations, 2020, Sveaskog, p. 15, 2021).

Our review of previous research has given the study a deeper context. What we have learned

from reviewing previous research on Swedish forestry, sustainability and the SDGs is that

forestry is a challenging sector that includes a critical discourse, that sustainability is a

complex term to frame and that the SDGs seem to prioritize economic sustainability at the

same time as having sustainability and knowledge gaps due to lack of research.

Good validity is conformity between theoretical definitions and operational indicators and the

way we measure (method). This is crucial for the expectations of the study’s conclusion

(Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 57). To increase credibility, we suggest it is good keeping in mind

that the majority of our sources originate from peer-reviewed journals and articles. Since the

framing and interpretations of the term sustainability can be wide, the reliability of this study

is based on using peer-reviewed research and official documents. We have been sourcing

peer-reviewed academic literature, using relevant and high quantity cited articles. Throughout

the whole process of choosing literature and material, we have been consistent with our

choices regarding what research to include.

19

In this chapter, we describe how our research was conducted. The research design presents

how our method of choice, framing analysis through a qualitative document analysis

perspective, was used and why this method was appropriate for the aim. Then, the Sveaskog

Annual Reports used as the material of the study are discussed, and how the framing has been

used in practice. Lastly, a method discussion is presented to discuss the used documents

concerning the framing analysis.

The method used is framing analysis from a qualitative document analysis perspective. In the

analysis, we looked for various interpretations of sustainability, with our attention directed

towards economic and environmental sustainability. The analysis portrays the amount of

attention and focus on sustainability given in the reports, to view how the framing of

sustainability changed between the reports in 2010 and 2020. This method helps us work

towards the aim of the study, to understand how the adaptation of the SDGs in 2015 might

have changed Sveaskog’s framing of sustainability. Chapter 3.1.2 provides an overview of the

analytical framework.

Frame analysis provides a theoretical, methodological, and critical tool for investigating

procedures of influence and meaning-making among governmental and social elites, the

public and news media (Allan, 2017). A frame is described as a shared organizing principle

that operates in a manner to symbolically shape democratic disclosure and influence opinions

of the public by promoting and creating specific vocabularies (Allan, 2017). Frames are often

relatively stable, but new frames can be created or existing ones modified or replaced (Hertog

& McLeod, 2001). According to Hertog and McLeod (2001), “...frames are produced and

shaped by the political economy and society”. Frames interact with organizations and

institutions, and individuals, groups and organizations are forced to adopt beliefs and

behaviours for the framings to be effective (Hertog & McLeod, 2001). The use of a framing

analysis allows us to analyze how sustainability has been framed in 2010 and 2020, thereafter

comparing to see differences and to what extent the adoption of the SDGs have made an

impact in how Sveaskog frames sustainability.

20

To do the framing analysis, we performed a qualitative document analysis. This is defined as

a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic, in our case the two Annual Reports

(Esaiasson, et al., 2017, p. 211-213). Qualitative text analysis requires thorough reading

through the text to identify the important content for the study. When using this method, we

are interested in finding the meaning or message that the author wishes to emphasize in the

documents (Esaiasson, Gilljam, Oscarsson, Towns & Wängerud, 2017, p. 211). In our case,

we want to distinguish the meaning and framing of the term sustainability in Sveaskog’s

Annual Reports to answer questions (I) and (II) regarding how the issue of sustainability is

framed. When doing qualitative text analysis, it is important to highlight whether the ideas or

concepts described in a text are true, but it is not necessarily important. Instead, the meanings

or ideas themselves are interesting to study because all meanings have effects. Text analytics

try to avoid “why” questions and rather focus their attention on questions about “what, who,

how and which” applied to the sorts of ideas that are relevant in a given context and how

these ideas change over time and place (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 212).

Therefore, meanings or ideas are appealing to our study in the matter of explaining how and

what has changed between the 2010 and 2020 reports. Additionally, our framing and

document analysis include a comparative analysis. This helps us understand patterns of

alteration. To comprehend the structure of how Sveaskog interprets sustainability, the essence

of qualitative analysis is important, since it is useful when certain framing of sustainability in

the documents are to be studied (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 233). When found, the literature

should be critically analyzed and help us to explain our findings, which are presented in

chapter 4. By not only summarizing our sources, analyzing, synthesizing and critically

evaluating are important to gain and give a deeper understanding of knowledge on the subject

(Webster & Watson, 2002).

We have also used quotes to illustrate the legitimacy of the findings from the analysis of the

annual reports. It is normal to find quotations from interviews or similar data sources in

qualitative studies. Quotations can contribute to highlight content, and quotations must be

presented reliably. When using quotations it is important to use them transparently and

purposefully, and when fueled by literature, quotations from data within qualitative research

are useful to illustrate findings or processes (Eldh, Årestedt & Berterö, 2020).

21

Essential for qualitative document analysis is skimming or superficial examination, thorough

examination, and interpretation, according to Bowen (2009). Our analytical framework is

performed by superficial examination together with a thorough examination of the term

sustainability everywhere in the reports. The process of document analysis is combined by

two elements; content analysis and thematic analysis. The content analysis summarizes and

categorizes the framing of sustainability and then the thematic analysis analyzes those results.

Thematic analysis is a method to identify, analyze and report patterns or themes in our data

material (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We analyse the framing of the term sustainability from the

whole report, where a significant amount of data is collected from the sustainability report

chapter from both reports.

The economic, environmental and a third category of economic and environmental and/or

social subcategories of sustainability is in the result tables 2, 3 and 4. A third category was

useful because the framing was mixed between two or three of the framing categories. The

tables contain data in terms of framing of sustainability based on how the subcategories are

portrayed in the Annual Reports. Sustainability was categorized into different codes of

frames, depending on which context they were written in. The frames were named based on

how they were portrayed in the documents. These were named terms of sustainability framing

in the left column of tables 2, 3 and 4. For example, Sveaskogs’ Annual Report mentions the

term business concept several times, and sustainability-related meanings concerning business

concept, such as their “productive goals”, et cetera, is placed under that respective term of

sustainability framing in the tables. All the terms of sustainability and given names in the

tables are based on how Sveaskog has framed the terms in their reports. One table was

created for each research question, to represent the content analysis. Then, thematic analysis

was used to create a pattern of recognition within the data of the document, which has

emerging themes being possible to categorize for the analysis. This process involves a more

focused re-reading and review of current data (Bowen, 2009).

The material for this study contains two annual reports from Sveaskog from 2010 (113 pages)

and 2020 (116 pages). The 2010 report was produced by Sveaskog Stab Information in

collaboration with Ahnlund Ateljé and Intellecta Corporate (media and communication

22

bureaus). Sveaskog Communications and Finance has produced the 2020 report in

collaboration with Chimney Vigor Group (a communications content company). Both reports

include comment sections from CEO:s, chairmen, board members. Sveaskog publishes their

annual reports which contain the company’s financial statistics, achievements and difficulties

experienced during the past year, goals to follow into the future, and assessing their current

and future sustainability goals. Both reports contain two sections of the Annual Report and

Sustainability report, which are organized slightly differently in the two reports.

In this subchapter, we discuss and criticize our choices of methods. First of all, we did not

look more closely into Sveaskog’s policies, since policies are mirrored thoroughly inside the

annual reports. Also, we did not dive specifically into Sveaskog’s policies to see what could

be questioned or changed in their practices and management of their forests. Instead, we

wanted to investigate how they frame sustainability in their reports, find possible key factors

contributing to it and eventually discuss the issue of it.

A topic worthy to discuss is the reliance on Sveaskog’s own (Annual) reports. The two

reports are the basis of our results and since we are conducting our document analysis, the

study lacks external perspectives and other research on Sveaskog specifically. Instead,

external perspectives are more focused on Swedish forestry in general and the SDGs. On one

hand, the reports are a formal, official record that the company stands behind. On the other

hand, they fail to capture the unofficial opinions of actors, which may include valuable

critiques and differing perspectives. A more in-depth perspective on the study would have

required to have come with interviews with key players representing Sveaskog.

23

Results are organized by the study’s three research questions. Question (I) and (II) is

answered with a framing analysis through the perspective of qualitative document analysis of

the two Sveaskog Annual Reports. Question (III) will be answered with support from the

framing analysis listed in the results in question (I) and (II).

When analysing the 2010 report, we will present empirical findings regarding economic,

environmental and/or both including social sustainability in the report. Since we will

investigate how sustainability is framed in the report, we will look closely at how frequently

economic and environmental sustainability are mentioned. We also look at how they are

described, in other words; framed. We have tried to categorize the sustainability framings as

precisely as possible concerning the context they were mentioned within the reports and in

correlation with the TBL structure.

Results from our content analysis on the 2010 Sveaskog Annual Report, with page references

to it (Sveaskog, 2011).

Horizontal: Subcategories of sustainability. Vertical: Terms of sustainability framing

- Increase the return on forest capital by sustainably developing the benefits and stimulate demand in all forest use areas (p. 3) - Sveaskog’s business concept is to increase the profitability of forest capital through sustainable development within all uses of the forest (p. 5)

- A natural and integrated part of Sveaskog’s operation and corporate governance. Support

24

the overall vision to be foremost in developing forest value (p. 37)

- Long-term caretaking of the forest (p.1) - Management of forests for long-term sustainable forestry with high growth and resilience towards damages (p. 27)

- Long term sustainable forestry in correlation with the FSC1 standard, combined with economic profitability, nature conservation and social responsibility (p. 5)

- Consequences from climate change requires investments that take advantage of business opportunities for forest raw materials in a long-term sustainable perspective, as well as to adapt Sveaskog’s operations to minimize forest damage risks (p. 38)

- The board’s deliberations have a foundation in increasing the forest value through investments in new technology, trade and management methods (p. 2) - From an economic perspective, forest capital is to be seen as a stock of products to be traded in the short or long term (p. 73)

Sveaskog states that their products are natural and climate-neutral given that the forest is managed with a perspective on long-term sustainability (p. 40)

- Overall goals on economy and environment in Sveaskog’s operation is based on the owner's financial goals for Sveaskog (p. 5)

- Sveaskog should be a role model and contribute to economic, environmental and social sustainable development, today and in the future (p. 31, 32)

- Balance Sveaskog’s operation so economic, environmental and social

1 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an independent, international member-organisation that works towards an environmental-friendly, social responsibility and economically viable cultivation of forests through their certification system. Certified companies follow their rules and standards for forestry and traceability. If this is followed, the products are marked with the FSC brand (FSC, n.d.).

25

goals are met (p. 37)

By managing forests with the same sustainable methods as of today (2010), but by doing more, they aim to increase growth in the forests (p. 43)

- Ambition to provide a comprehensive account of sustainable work, where both positive and negative developments are stated. Sustainability work is based on the policies and guidelines on which the business is run. Certification and memberships with FSC and The Global Impact, which is of great importance for sustainability work (p. 32)

- Conducted from economic, environmental and social responsibility with support from policies, guidelines and goals (p. 5) - Since 2005 Sveaskog has described its sustainability work to meet economic, environmental and social goals (p. 32)

- Has created breakthroughs for sustainable forestry, based on their strong economic foundation in the market (p. 3) - Runs sustainable forestry, takes care of and develop forest holdings, contribute to financial profitability and long-term reliable sales of forestry products (p. 38)

- Sustainable use of the forestry through high-quality forest management and care, develop new knowledge and use modern technology (p. 4) - Formally protected areas like nature reserves are important to sustainable forestry (p. 40) - As part of climate strategy, increased forest growth within the framework of sustainable forestry (p. 44) - Long-term cooperation with WWF with a joint vision regarding sustainable forestry in Sweden and on a global scale (p. 53)

- Operates sustainable forestry aligned with the market-driven FSC certification. Internal and external follow-ups point to high quality, effectivity and profitability in their forestry, whose goals are reached together with a nature conservation work that preserves biodiversity (p. 3) - Requires respect towards forest ecology and set goals (p. 37) - Land allocations are important for sustainable forestry, has value in a market where environmental awareness increases (p. 38)

Table 2: (Sveaskog, 2011).

In the content analysis, we used three categories of framing; economic, environmental and a

combination of those and/or with a focus on social sustainability. In the thematic analysis, we

will look more deeply into the three categories to distinguish if some are more emphasized

than others to answer how Sveaskog frames sustainability. We analyze the subcategories of

sustainability in relation to each other, by examining patterns that emerged from Sveaskog’s

terms of sustainability framing.

26

The term of sustainability framing concerning the business concept is presented as economic

sustainability since the idea is grounded on increasing returns from forest capital by

sustainably developing benefits and stimulating demands from forest usage, as cited below by

the Sveaskog CEO Gunnar Olofsson (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 3). Sveaskog frames their business

concept as follows (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 5).

“Our business concept is clear - to increase the return on forest capital by developing

sustainable benefits and stimulate demand in all areas of forest use” (Sveaskog, 2011

p. 3).

Regarding issues (problems) of sustainability, these are framed only in the economic

sustainability subcategory, because the “value” of the forest is referred to as an economic

profit (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 37).

Long-term sustainable forests is mentioned in both the environmental and mixed category.

Sustainable forestry in the long-term is framed within economic, environmental and social

sustainability, as Sveaskog refers to their FSC-certification with those sub-categories

(Sveaskog, 2011, p. 5), as Sveaskog quote:

“Sveaskog shall conduct long-term sustainable forestry in accordance with the

conservation ambitions and social responsibility” (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 5).

There is also an environmental framing before the FSC certification, where the focus lies on

sustainable management to result in high yields (economical framing) and resilience towards

damage of the forests. It is unclear if caretaking of the forests for good yield in the future

emphasizes more towards economical or environmental sustainability framing (Sveaskog,

2011, p. 1, 27).

The long-term sustainable perspective is framed as economic sustainability, in the sense that

Sveaskog intends to make investments taking advantage of a business opportunity as a result

of climate change consequences, as well as adapting their practices to minimize risk for forest

damages (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 38).

27

In long-term sustainable profitability, the framing in the report is linked towards economic

sustainability. Sveaskog’s board intends to invest in new technology, trade and management

methods to increase forest value (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 2). “Value” is embedded in different

contexts, but in this framing of sustainability, it is the value of forests by improved

streamlining and practices that is emphasized. Forest capital is seen as a stock of products to

be traded in short or long terms from an economic perspective (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 73).

Long-term sustainability framing is stated as environmental since Sveaskog claims that their

forests are managed with a perspective towards long-term sustainability, which will result in

producing natural forestry products and climate-neutral (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 40).

Sustainable development is framed as financial goals, based on financial and environmental

goals as economic framing of sustainability (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 5), since overall goals on

economy and environment are listed under financial goals. It is also mentioned that in

general, Sveaskog should be a role model and contribute to sustainable management within

all three sub-categories both in the present and in the future (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 31, 32).

Sustainability management consists of the mixed categories of sustainability framing.

Sveaskog’s sustainability management focuses on balancing its operation to meet set goals on

economic, environmental and social goals (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 37).

The sustainability methods are framed rather unclearly. It is simply stated as continuing with

the same sustainable forest management methods as of 2010, and by “doing more” of it in the

future, they aim to increase forest growth (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 43). This will therefore be an

economic framing of sustainability.

The sustainability work is framed as environmental sustainability and the mixed category.

Sveaskog has an ambition to provide a comprehensive account of sustainability work,

including positive and negative developments. They frame their work of sustainability with

reliance on internal and external policies and guidelines. FSC and Global Impact account for

great importance in their sustainability work (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 32). The report describes its

sustainability work with economic, environmental and social responsibility, supported by

28

policies, guidelines and goals and emphasizes the continuation of the description of its

sustainability work since 2005 (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 5, 32).

Sustainable forestry is mentioned various times throughout the report and is important to

address for Sveaskog. As the CEO Gunnar Olofsson states below…

“Sveaskog operates sustainable forestry in accordance with the market-driven FSC®

biological diversity” (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 3).

… the FSC certification is central, as it is market-driven. Sveaskog fulfils its goals of quality,

efficiency and profits at the same time as taking deference towards nature conservation.

Sveaskog also claims they have created breakthroughs within sustainable forestry because of

their strong economic foundation in the market (Sveaskog, 2011 p. 3). Both economic and

environmental framing of sustainability seems to be important to the company. By this, we

interpret their sustainable use of the forests through high-quality forest management and care,

develop new knowledge and use modern technology (Sveaskog, 2011 p. 4), to be actions

taken to favour economic yields from the forests even if listed as environmental framing in

our table. It is listed as environmental framing because it does not mention anything about

economic framing, but the meaning behind it leads toward economic sustainability.

To investigate how the issue of sustainability was framed differently in Sveaskog’s Annual

Report from 2020 compared to 2010, the framing analysis in the perspective of a qualitative

document analysis becomes comparative. First, we conducted another content analysis to set

a new framework for framed sustainability in the 2020 report, before comparing in the

thematic analysis how sustainability was framed differently. The thematic analysis highlights

the differences in Sveaskog’s sustainability framing in the 2020 Annual Report. In the 2020

report, nine different framings were identified, seven of which had also been found in the

29

2010 report. Sustainable value creation and sustainable society are two new terms of

sustainability framing which have been added to the content analysis. (see table 3).

The table shows the result from the content analysis on Sveaskog’s 2020 Annual Report, with

page references to it (Sveaskog, 2021). It is structured in the same way as table 2. Worth

noticing is that the terms of sustainability framing; long-term sustainable forests, sustainable

development, sustainable management and sustainable methods are not included since the

2020 report does not mention those terms specifically. Also, two new terms of sustainability

framing were added; Sustainable value creation and Sustainable society.

Horizontal: Subcategories of sustainability. Vertical: Terms of sustainability framing

Business concept - Sveaskog addressed the owner’s issues from 2020 by setting goals and strategies for sustainable business, as well as clearer reporting of processes around the work on the 2030 Agenda (p. 103)

- Circular bioeconomy - use renewable resources, contribute to sustainable and climate-smart solutions and a circular, bio-based welfare economy (p. 13) - It is important to Sveaskog’s sustainability as a company to have productive, vital and resilient forests (p. 17) - Uses forests with economic, ecological and social interests. Certified with Swedish FSC and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) standard, and require certification on all imported timber. Therefore Sveaskog’s customers can be guaranteed a sustainable product (p. 21) - Be able to make it easier for business partners to achieve their sustainability goals. Also for Sveaskog to be sustainable which is important for customers and customers’ customers (p. 30) - Sveaskog integrates an approach to sustainability

30

in their whole organization. Overall goals for a sustainable business are broken down into strategies and business objectives regularly followed up. This is supported by several policies and guidelines (p. 49)

- It is a faced task to concretely describe in terms what sustainable forestry means for Sveaskog and which measures will lead them to that (p. 50)

- Challenges the role as leader of sustainable forestry in a long-term perspective (p. 50)

- Safeguards sustainable delivery capacity to the market by investing in growth (p. 50)

- To promote long-term sustainable value-growth in state-owned companies where sustainable business is integrated into corporate governance, and act as role models in sustainable business (p.47)

- Sveaskog reports annually in their sustainability report on the generated value being added, in a multidimensional sustainability perspective in monetary terms (p. 101)

- In the sense that a lack of biodiversity equals the threat from climate change realized in 2020, the state-owned Sveaskog was called to act as a role model and contribute to sustainable value creation, as well as to work for Agenda 2030 and other Swedish environmental and climate goals (p. 50)

-Sveaskog works actively to achieve the SDG where they can contribute in the most relevant way. SDG 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15 are goals Sveaskog can make contributions to (p. 15)

Sustainability work - Sveaskog aims to provide a comprehensive account of sustainable work, identifying positive and negative developments. Certification and

31

memberships with FSC and The Global Impact, which is of great importance for sustainability work (p. 101)

Sustainable forestry - As the largest forest owner in Sweden, being state-owned, Sveaskog must set an example in sustainable forestry. Sveaskog was in 2020 given a “greenwashing2

prize” due to being presented as a business that is sustainable while contributing to major damage to land and biodiversity (p. 5) - Biofuel is a natural part of sustainable forestry (p. 21) - It is in nature that sustainable forestry makes a positive contribution to combat global warming through carbon binding (p. 50)

- Contribute to the 2030 Agenda and national and environmental goals. Contribute to a new strategic direction where biodiversity is central with increased harvest growth, and in the long-term increase timber harvest (p. 9)

Sustainable society - Sveaskog wants to set an example and lead the way to a sustainable society (p. 3) - Responsible purchasing and selection of serious suppliers is important for Sveaskog to a sustainable value chain (p. 26)

Table 3: (Sveaskog, 2021).

When summarizing and comparing the differences between the two reports in the thematic

analysis, the issue of sustainability is framed in the 2020 report with main differences lying in

terms of sustainability framing.Four other terms from the 2010 content analysis are not

mentioned in the 2020 report. The latest report does not mention sustainability directly in

terms of long-term sustainable forests, sustainable development, sustainable management

and sustainable methods anymore.

2 Greenwashing means trying to make people believe that a company does more actions to protect the environment than it actually does (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.b).

32

Business concept is in the 2010 report framed rather directly towards making profits from the

forests which will be achieved through sustainable forestry. The notable change in the

framing from the 2010 and 2020 reports is how the framing in the 2020 report emphasizes the

importance of contributing to climate-smart solutions and a circular, bio-based welfare

economy (Sveaskog, 2021 p. 13). However, when comparing the business concept from the

two reports, the concept of framing their business has changed from being dependent on

sustainable forestry to increase profitability, to how the company is now going to contribute

to a circular economy centred around the terms “bio” and “climate-smart”. In 2020 Sveaskog

also describes how they aim to help business partners to achieve their sustainable goals.

When Sveaskog addresses its impact on the value chain, the quote below gives an impression

that the company’s core business concept is forests of vitality, productivity and resilience, to

safeguard the company's sustainability.

“It is fundamental to Sveaskog’s sustainability as a company that we have vital,

productive and resilient forests” (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 17).

The issues (questions) of sustainability are framed differently in the reports. The 2010 report

mentions the issues of sustainability as something obvious and an integrated part of

Sveaskog’s operation and governance (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 37), whereas the 2020 report

frames issues of sustainability as a faced task to describe in terms of what a sustainable

forestry means (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 50). A difference in the 2020 report is that Sveaskog

frames the issue of sustainability as something that has to be clarified, rather than in 2010 as

something obvious and integrated within the company.

Long-term sustainable perspective was framed more in an economic context of sustainability

in the 2010 report (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 38), whereas in 2020, the term of sustainability

framing regarding long-term sustainable perspective has shifted towards a more mixed

meaning of sustainability. The 2020 report frames sustainability here with aiming to be a

leader of sustainable forestry in an overall long-term perspective (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 50).

Eva Färnstrand, Chairman of the Board in Sveaskog, states:

“In large areas, it is perfectly possible to use the forest rationally and extract timber,

33

values in the landscape” (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 50).

“Sveaskog takes on the challenge of being a leader in the area of sustainable forestry,

capacity to the Swedish forest industry by investing in growth” (Sveaskog, 2021, p.

50).

When analysing these statements, Sveaskog in the 2020 report concluded that their forestry

methods emphasize economic yield while simultaneously prioritizing biodiversity.

Long-term sustainable profitability. In 2020, this term was mentioned as having the capacity

to deliver sustainably to the Swedish forestry industry by investing in growth, since Sveaskog

has a long-term perspective on profitability. Both reports’ framing of long-term sustainability

profitability lies within economic sustainability. Compared to the 2010 report, the differences

in the 2020 report lies within the specificity on how to safeguard future production and added

value creation by for example investing in growth (Sveaskog, 2021 p. 50).

Long-term sustainability was in 2010 framed through a statement that their products were

natural and climate-neutral because of their forests being managed with a long-term

sustainability perspective (Sveaskog 2011, p. 40). In 2020, long-term sustainability is framed

towards long-term sustainable value growth for state-owned companies (as Sveaskog is),

where sustainable business is included in corporate governance. Sveaskog states that they

want to be a role model within this field which is important for their long-term perspective

(Sveaskog, 2021 p. 47). The meaning of the statements are both mentioned concerning

long-term profitability, and the common denominators are still framed through being a

sustainable business but are more emphasized as a priority in 2020.

Sustainable value creation is a new term emerging in the 2020 report. By analysing the terms

sustainability and (sustainable) value creation, we experience a concurrence in the way they

are framed and what they aim to represent. Value creation transmits several of the same

values that sustainability does, and as the term is used in the report, it is connected to

34

Sveaskog’s work towards contributing to the 2030 Agenda and Swedish environmental and

climate goals (Sveaskog, 2021 p. 50). Chairman of the Board Eva Färnstrad comments:

“It calls on all state-owned companies not only to act as role models and contribute to

environmental and climate goals to be met” (Sveaskog, 2021 p. 50).

On page 15 (Sveaskog, 2021), the headline is “Long-term focus” followed by a subheading

named “Agenda 2030”. There it states that Sveaskog’s activities and value creation are

contributing to 17 SDGs in Agenda 2030. The Agenda 2030 is adapted into Sveaskog’s

policies on all platforms, where they state that the SDG 13 - combat climate change, 15 -

ecosystems and biodiversity, 5 - achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women

and girls, 7 - sustainable energy for all, and 8 - decent work and economic growth, are goals

the company mean they can make a clear contribution towards. Goal 9 - sustainable industry,

innovation and infrastructure, goal 11 - sustainable cities and communities, and goal 12

responsible consumption and production, are also mentioned as goals Sveaskog contributes

towards. The Agenda 2030 seems to be related to sections where the term “value creation” is

mentioned, often in coherence with sustainable society but also sustainable production

(Sveaskog, 2021 p. 15). Value creation was mentioned a few times in the 2010 report

(Sveaskog, 2011 p. 2, 5, & 38), but not in direct connection with the term sustainable, rather

connected to increased profitability, effective production and high ambitions and quality

within the environment and nature conservation in a long-term perspective. The main theme

behind the term value creation in 2010 is to increase “value creation of the forest”.

The term of sustainability framing regarding sustainability work is in the 2020 report framed

as environmental sustainability, where it emphasizes the identification and account for

sustainable work (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 101). This framing of sustainability is to a large extent

similar to the 2010 report’s framing of sustainability work (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 32). However,

the difference is that the 2020 report does not mention specifically their sustainability work as

being conducted with economic, environmental and social responsibility with support from

policies, guidelines and goals anymore (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 5, 32).

Sveaskog’s framing of sustainable forestry is mentioned in both reports. In a mixed category

of sustainability, Sveaskog frames their operation on sustainable forestry as a contribution to

35

the Agenda 2030 and other national and environmental goals, as well as to increase harvest

growth and long-term timber harvest at the same time as contributing to biodiversity

(Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9). Per Matses, the President and CEO of Sveaskog, states...

“My ambition and Sveaskog’s ambition is for the company to be a leader in the

development of sustainable forestry” (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9).

… which reflects the company's ambitions within the field of sustainable forestry. In 2010,

Sveaskog did not talk about the term sustainable forestry framed as something contributing to

combat climate change in the same way as they did in the 2020 report where they describe

from the environmental category that sustainable forestry is naturally vital for reducing

global warming (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 50). To create further patterns of differences between the

reports, the framing in 2020 shows a clear difference in the framing of sustainable forestry.

Compared to the 2010 report, framing of sustainable forestry was focused more on operating

aligned with a market-driven FSC certification (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 3), respect towards forest

ecology and set goals (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 37) and the importance of land allocations

(Sveaskog, 2011, p. 38). This can be explained obviously by the 2015 implementation and

adoption of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, which the 2020 report focuses their sustainable

forestry term towards instead (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9). Sveaskog admits receiving a prize for

being accused of greenwashing, and as a state-owned company, they are and should be

obliged to be transparent in all of their actions and practices. The prize is framed with an

emphasis on the importance of Sveaskog continuing to work towards sustainability and set an

example in the forestry industry (Sveaskog, 2021 p. 5). Sveaskog also emphasizes biofuels as

a natural part of sustainable forestry (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 21), which they do not in the 2010

report. A final difference is that the 2010 report emphasized the economic category of

sustainability more in terms of the framing of sustainable forestry (Sveaskog, 2011, p. 3, 38)

compared to the 2020 report, which focused more on sustainability collaborated with Agenda

2030 and other national and environmental goals (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9).

Sustainable society is mentioned in the introduction, without further explanation, then there is

a whole chapter in the report (Sveaskog, 2021) named “Sveaskog in a Sustainable Society”

from pages 10 to 19. This chapter focuses on the value of forest land, trends and business

environment, their business model, long-term focus and the 2030 Agenda, the forests’ climate

benefits, their climate impact in the value chain, and stakeholders and materiality assessment.

36

We interpret this by explaining that Sveaskog frames the term sustainable society concerning

how their sustainable strategies blend well into their business model, and in that manner,

Sveaskog mentions that they are responsible for creating a sustainable society. They will

create a sustainable society by continuing with their style of forest management, which they

claim reinforces climate benefits, biodiversity, and social and economic values (Sveaskog,

2021, p. 3). Pages 11-19 in the report is dedicated to explaining how Sveaskog will contribute

to a sustainable society, with headlines such as trends and business environment, their

business model, long-term focus and the 2030 Agenda, the forests climate benefits, how

Sveaskog impacts the value chain, and stakeholders and materiality assessment.

To summarize the result from question (II), the main difference in how Sveaskog frames

sustainability in their report lies with an emphasis on value creation and sustainable societies,

as well as Agenda 2030. Regarding economic sustainability, framing seems to be wrapped

into the concept of socially sustainable society framing which also contains environmental

framing. Compared to the 2010 report and its sustainability framing, the framing of 2020

appears to include all the categories in a “package” format of what is to be referred to as a

sustainable, circular bioeconomy which Sveaskog contributes to on an important scale.

Glancing at the results from the differences in question (II), we can notice changes in the

framing of sustainability within Sveaskog’s 2020 report. Going from the more divided

sustainability framing in 2010 where economy, environment and mixed and/or social

sustainability is kept further from each other, the 2020 report portrays Sveaskog as a

company that will be and already is a great contributor to what is referred to as “circular

bioeconomy”, which relates to the Agenda 2030. Because of this type of framing, it can be

rather difficult to estimate whether a statement is framed about the SDGs, or has an indirect

framing from the SDGs which is not visible in the text. Therefore, we will only include clear

and visible framings of the SDGs, even though some framings are suspected to be connected

to the SDGs. The final research question is based on the results from questions (I) and (II). To

answer to what extent the adoption of the SDGs seems to explain differences between the two

37

Annual Reports, we will continue the method of framing analysis from a document analysis

perspective.

- Sveaskog has adopted the SDGs from Agenda 2030 by creating internal policy goals to become a more sustainable business by reporting how they do and do not contribute towards Agenda 2030 in the way they work.

- The term value creation has a direct connection with the SDGs and Agenda 2030 in the report (Sveaskog, 2021 p. 15).

- Sveaskog frames their operation on sustainable forestry as contributing to Agenda 2030 at the same time as increasing harvest growth and timber production increase, conjunctive to contributing to biodiversity (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9). - Framing of sustainable forestry relates to Agenda 2030 and the SDGs (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9).

- Here, the Agenda 2030 is mentioned in association with the value of forest land, trends and business environment, their business model, long-term focus, the forest's climate benefits, their climate impact in the value chain, and stakeholders and materiality assessment, which are the fundamentals for a sustainable society (Sveaskog 2021 p. 10-19).

Table 4: Summary of how Sveaskog frames sustainability in context to the SDGs from Agenda 2030.

This table presents our result from analysing to what extent changes from the 2010 and 2020

reports have concerning the SDGs. The column in the table will represent the categorization

of changes from 2010 to 2020 that are affected by the SDGs. Notice that some terms of

sustainability framing have been removed since they do not relate directly to the Agenda

2030 SDGs. The table shows how Sveaskog frames the term of sustainability in conjunction

with Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. To explain to what extent the adoption of the SDGs have

made a difference in how Sveaskog frames sustainability, we will analyze it in this subchapter

by discussing the terms of sustainability that are directly connected to the Agenda 2030 SDGs

in Sveaskog’s report. To explain to what extent the adoption of the SDGs have made a

difference in how Sveaskog frames sustainability, the four terms of sustainability framing

were the only terms “surviving” to this final question at issue. These four terms of how

Sveaskog frames sustainability were the only ones directly correlated with Agenda 2030

SDGs. Compared to 2010, business concept and sustainable forestry were the terms that in

2020 was linked to Agenda 2030 SDGs and in the 2020 report, two new terms of

sustainability framing came into place; sustainable value creation and sustainable society,

38

that was also directly linked to Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. More thoroughly below, we will

analyze the extent that the four terms of sustainability framing seem to be explained by the

adoption of the SDGs.

When comparing how the business concept of Sveaskog has changed between the 2010 and

2020 reports, we notice a distinct difference in the matter of change in the framing of the

term. Most noticeable from an SDG point of view is how the business concept is now

somewhat framed as a contributor towards several concepts of contribution to sustainability.

The Agenda 2030 has 17 goals covering different areas of sustainability, and the main

purpose of the agenda is to reduce poverty and halt climate change and the loss of

biodiversity (UN, 2015). Therefore, Sveaskog has a wide coverage of sustainability policy in

their business concept, since the company and their owner’s policy has such a wide field of

goals. By setting goals to work towards climate-smart solutions and a circular bioeconomy,

and applying it directly to how the company should carry out their practices in reality, it

certainly covers the essence of what the agenda also wants to accomplish. Therefore the

SDGs can be labelled as effective in the influence of how business concept framing of

sustainability has changed between 2010 and 2020.

Sustainable value creation - As mentioned in table 4, the new term of sustainability framing

value creation connects directly to the Agenda 2030 SDGs (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 15). We

interpret this term as emerging from the Agenda 2030 (UN, 2015), reasoned by how the word

value as being mentioned nine times concerning main themes and goals formed in the

agenda. As described in question (II), the difference in the meaning of the term sustainable

value creation shifts drastically in the framing over the 10 years. Most importantly, “value

creation” is only mentioned with sustainability in the 2020 report (Sveaskog, 2021 p. 50), and

is concluded to be due to the adoption of the SDGs.

In the framing of sustainable forestry, the difference can to some extent be explained by the

adoption of the SDGs that the 2020 report connects to here. Sveaskog emphasizes the

contribution to the Agenda 2030 conjunctionally with an expansion of their operations and

regard for biodiversity (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9). Compared to the 2010 report, which framed

sustainable forestry more towards that Sveaskog take market-driven responsibility of forest

ecology, set goals and land allocation importance stamped with certifications such as FSC

(Sveaskog, 2011,p. 3, 37 & 38), the differences are clear. The 2020 report tends their framing

39

of sustainable forestry towards the SDGs, which could, in turn, be explained evidently by the

adoption of the goals in 2015. The final difference between sustainable forestry in the 2010

and 2020 reports, as presented in question (II), is that the 2020 reports framing of it (more

focused on sustainability leaned towards Agenda 2030 and other goals) can be explained by

the adoption of the SDGs. Since the 2010 report framed sustainable forestry five years before

the founding and adoption of the SDGs, this could explain why the 2010 report emphasized

the economic category of sustainability, as presented in question (I).

Similar to sustainable value creation, the term sustainable society was introduced in the 2020

report and not directly mentioned in 2010. Even if the 2010 report describes their social

responsibility towards the society throughout their report, it does not directly do it in terms of

a sustainable society framing. This was the main difference in the answer to question (II)

regarding this term and can be explained by the adoption of Agenda 2030 SDGs that is

incorporated in the 2020 report. The extent to which the SDG adoption can explain

differences of sustainable society (social responsibility towards the society in 2010) between

the 2010 and 2020 report lies within that the SDGs (UN, 2015) are closely related to how

Sveaskog frame their efforts towards a sustainable society (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 15).

Sveaskog’s framing of sustainable value creation and sustainable society is a borderline

regarding how the SDGs’ policies frame their sustainability goals.

Summarizing chapter 4.3, the results indicate that Sveaskog’s framing of sustainability (in

terms of business concept, sustainable value creation, sustainable forestry and sustainable

society) has changed significantly. This is due to the implication of the SDGs in 2015.

However, the way Sveaskog presents their forestry as sustainable is still very similar when

comparing the two reports of 2010 and 2020, as sifted in this chapter. It is obvious how the

SDGs have been important for Sveaskog, and we notice various variations in their framings

of sustainability. Thus, their practices are still described and carried out with little change

between 2010 and 2020.

40

Our study aimed to analyze how the adoption of the SDGs have influenced how Sveaskog

frames sustainability. This has been presented in the results with help of our three research

questions. Having presented our results, we now discuss these results in the light of previous

research and theory from chapter 2.

In the previous research, Eisenmenger et al. (2020) conclude that the SDGs prioritize

economic growth over sustainable resource use. By comparing our results to Eisenmenger et

al., patterns start to show up on how sustainability has been framed in terms of economic

interests. Additionally, Eisenmenger et al. (2020) argue that some of the SDGs are

insufficient and rather tend to reinforce unsustainability. With Sveaskog in the 2020 report

having directed their framing of sustainability towards the SDGs, we can argue that the SDGs

seem to allow Sveaskog to continue with their operations with economic prioritization of

sustainability based on our framing analysis and Eisenmenger et al. (2020). If economic

sustainability is needed to create sustainability for the environment is a question to be asked

in further research.

With Eisenmenger et als. conclusions regarding the SDGs in mind, this can, in turn, be linked

further to Lindahl et als. (2015, 2017) arguing on the Swedish forestry industry’s

prioritization of the economic dimension of sustainability. Even if the 2020 report wraps

economic sustainability into an environmental and social dimension (based on the SDGs), our

conclusions on Sveaskog’s framing of sustainability lies within the economical aspect and

could hereby be backed by the extensive research done by Lindahl et al. Sveaskog’s

statements of to increase yields at the same time as contributing to the environment

responsibly (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 9, 50, 101), points towards an ambition to create more of

everything. Our results show that Sveaskog in the 2020 report emphasizes a “bioeconomy”

(Sveaskog, 2021, p. 13), which can be discussed in terms of Lindahl et als. (2017)

explanation of increased forest production to meet an emerging and expanding bioeconomy.

Since Sveaskog is a state-owned profit-seeking company (Sveaskog, 2021, p. 3, 6), the

economic interests remain the same in 2020, considering the new format of framing their

intentions and sustainability practices. In contrast to the more critical way the Swedish

forestry is being presented by Lindahl et al. (2011, 2015, 2017), our results show Sveaskog’s

41

framing of sustainability as contributing to value creation, sustainable forestry and a

sustainable society within their business concept’s relation to Agenda 2030 SDGs.

The general Swedish forestry sector lifts forests as a solution to several sustainability

challenges. The urgent need of addressing environmental objectives, at the same time as

forestry production needs to increase. Forests are seen as an opportunity to exploit economic,

social and environmental synergies, and traditionally, the economic dimension is prioritized

(Lindahl et al., 2017). This pathway, that Sveaskog’s framing of sustainability looks similar

to, is what Lindahl et al. (2015) describe as “More of Everything”. It is an underlying

optimistic belief that it is possible to create more out of everything without (de)prioritizing

anything. This relates to our findings, especially on question (III) and the extent of the SDGs

impact on how Sveaskog frames sustainability. Taking the SDGs economic prioritization in

mind, Lindahl et al. (2011, 2015, 2017) findings before, during and after the implementation

of the SDGs in 2015 have concluded that the Swedish forestry sector prioritizes economic

sustainability, as well. The reason for this prioritization can be explained by the various range

of alternative outputs within policy formulations, which relates to Eisenmenger et al. and

Zimm et al. (2018) results (discussed below).

The three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental and social) are framed as

sustainable value creation by Sveaskog in the 2020 report. Kuhlman and Farrington (2010)

mean that the social and economic dimensions of sustainability correspond to well-being that

raises capital and knowledge for future generations (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010). Our

results show that Sveaskog has turned their framing more towards value creation and

sustainable society in relation to the SDGs. The economic spectra of sustainability are

wrapped into a concept of a socially sustainable society that contains environmental framing.

This compressed framing of sustainability categories is referred to as a sustainable, circular

bioeconomy that Sveaskog contributes towards. Despite a slight difference in how Sveaskog

frames sustainability in contrast to Kuhlman and Farrington’s explanation of sustainability,

this can be explained by Eggers et al. (2017). Eggers et al. argue that forest management

practices can succeed in balancing different forest values.

According to Eggers et al. (2017), forest demands have increased and become more complex,

and to address this, a more diverse kind of forestry is needed (Eggers et al., 2017). The

Swedish forestry sector, however, seems to prioritize economic sustainability above all

42

(Lindahl et al., 2011, 2015, 2017), which responds well to Eggers et als. (2017) conclusions

on the diversification of forest demands continue to prioritize economic forestry management

methods of wood production. When applying Eggers et al. and Lindahl et als. evaluations of

forestry management methods to our results, they comply with the economic prioritization of

sustainable forestry, even if they emphasize environmental and social aspects as well.

We have proved how great an effect the SDGs have had on Sveaskog’s framing of

sustainability, and even reframing their business concept (climate-smart, circular

bioeconomy). Thus, it could be argued about how great the positive impact has been

regarding sustainability in practice and its change since implementing the SDGs in 2015. In

the research chapter, we use Zimm et al. (2018) to announce the weaknesses of the SDGs

regarding the knowledge gaps appointed to the goals regarding their complexity or possibility

to not be realistic to meet within the given time frame. The SDGs are also mentioned in a

manner of having sustainability gaps. In that sense, there is room for questioning the scope of

the national and global praise of the Agenda 2030 SDGs. When we review the research of

Lindahl et al., Eisenmenger et al. and Zimm et al., it makes sense to question the

effectiveness of the SDGs and how Sveaskog is interacting with them when put in relation to

how their internal policies are framed and forestry practises are carried out.

Discussing the study’s credibility, we have used previous research and sources based on

peer-reviewing to a possible extent. Our results are based on our interpretation of how

Sveaskog has framed sustainability in their reports. However, when conducting the content

and thematic analysis, the framings of sustainability in the context they were written in were

applied in the categories respective of their contexts. This can be seen as credible.

Furthermore, our research contributes to filling a knowledge gap in how the framing of

sustainability can change over time. Future research should do more research to fill the

sustainability and knowledge gaps in the SDGs that Zimm et al. (2018) mention. Taking our

study’s reinforcement of the SDGs being too vague, based on Zimm et als. (2018) research,

we find our results contributing to the notion rather than enhancing it. Sveaskog has taken

SDGs into account of their sustainability framing, but since SDGs according to Zimm et al.

are too vague, the adoption does not play any crucial role for more sustainable forestry. Our

and Lindahl et al. (2015, 2017) results point towards a business as usual based on economic

driving forces for Sveaskog and Swedish forestry, respectively. In conclusion, the

implementation of the SDGs into Sveaskog’s operations play a major part in the framing of

43

sustainable forestry, but the question remains how strongly the SDGs contribute to more

sustainable forestry.

Furthermore, Fu’s (2020) theory regarding geographical connection to sustainability is

discussed concerning the research process and result of the study. Fu (2020) argues about the

importance of promoting sustainability geography to increase understanding regarding

processes in environmental and social systems. More research on the forestry industry,

including Sveaskog, could be used to fill the knowledge and research gaps in the current

SDGs that Zimm et al. (2018) mentions. Fu’s theory points to the possibility of geographers’

transdisciplinary role in research that could be applied to research on sustainable forestry. Our

results show that the Triple Bottom Line (economic, environmental and social) are all factors

of sustainability when it comes to forestry.

Elkington (2018) worries that corporate members and leaders will do everything to ensure

maximized profits for their business. The corporate culture might therefore be the main

obstacle to ensure environmental and social sustainability at an equal level to economic

sustainability. Elkington claims that sustainability goals and achievements can not be

measured in economic terms and profit, but should rather be measured in how the well-being

of our planet and the ones inhabiting it. Therefore, we suggest that Sveaskog should introduce

and invest in new measurement systems and collect data to be able to evaluate how their

sustainability goals can be met and further be prioritized equally with their economic goals.

Both annual reports focus on economic profits, while also room is given to promote their

sustainability work, but sustainability is not measured on a large scale, just their carbon

footprint. We agree with Elkington’s “triple helix for value creation” which emphasizes equal

prioritization of the TBL. He means it will be a new form of capitalism. Estimated on the

latest annual report from Sveaskog, the potential is shown towards sustainability, but

economic profits are still valued over environmental and social responsibility.

Since Sveaskog, and Swedish forestry in general, play a leading role in how to manage and

utilize forests, the framing of sustainable forestry might influence other actors in the sector.

Causes are, according to our results and Lindahl et al. (2017), economic momentums. The

effects of this may be an inaccurate model of what truly sustainable forestry is and how it

should be managed. Our research findings then point towards a possible wider significance of

greenwashing and unsustainable forestry.

44

To conclude, this study asked what the adoption of the SDGs have influenced the way that

Sveaskog frames sustainability. Sveaskog has kept its economic sustainability interests before

environmental and social sustainability, which is expected from a profit-based company. Our

analysis shows how the adoption of the SDGs have impacted the company’s framing of

sustainability, and in 2020, the main differences come with the economic sustainability

framing being blended into environmental and social sustainability. The main contribution of

this study was an investigation and examination of how sustainability is framed in the

Swedish forestry sector. It also contributed to pinpoint how state-owned corporations could

be playing a key part in the responsibility to solve the climate and biodiversity crisis in our

world. But who should be responsible for our planet and its inhabitants' wellbeing to

guarantee success? Sveaskog operates on behalf of the Swedish government, voted by the

citizens. Should Sveaskog be held responsible for their operations or is it something that the

government and the citizens have to reflect and decide upon?

Previous research has created an understanding of how the SDGs can be too general or weak

and therefore enables corporations to portray themselves as sustainable concerning the SDGs,

whilst continuing with their same practices. Therefore, Sveaskog’s sustainability framing, in

relation to SDG adoption, might be at risk of not contributing to a more sustainable forestry.

The SDGs adoption makes a difference in how Sveaskog frames sustainability, but with

SDGs being too general and/or vague contributes to the reality and practices with a business

as usual. Our research results contribute to gain an understanding of how sustainability is

framed in a state-owned company that has adopted the SDGs. This, in turn, could lead to an

enhancement in the goals’ definitions of whether forests should be managed and utilized

more sustainably. As an extension of this study, we see the potential in perhaps interviewing

board members and employees in Sveaskog. However, lack of time and a pandemic made this

complicated. Then we can hear live and directly what they think has changed for the

company’s operations due to the adoption of the SDGs, rather than being dependent on

written refined reports. A deeper understanding of what Sveaskog actually meant with their

sustainability framing would be of utmost desire for this study’s further research.

45

Allan, M. (2017). Frame Analysis. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research

Methods p. 584-586. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n210

Bowen, G. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. DOI:

Braun V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3:2, 77-101, DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.a). Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. Gathered from:

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.b). Forestry. Cambridge University Press. Gathered from:

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.c). Greenwashing. Cambridge University Press. Gathered from:

Chong, D. & Druckman, JN. (2007). Framing Theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10. P. 103 - 126.

DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Couper, P. (2015). A Student′s Introduction to Geographical Thought: Theories,

Philosophies, Methodologies. 256 pages. London, SAGE Publications.

Eggers, J., Holmgren, S., Nordström, E-M., Lämås, T., Lind, T. & Öhman, K. (2017).

multi-criteria decision analysis framework. Forest Policy and Economics 103. P. 55 - 69.

Eisenmenger, N., Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N., Noll, D., Schalmann, E., Plank, B., Wandlm

M-T., & Gingrich, S. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth

46

perspective. Sustainability Science, 15 (4), 1101-1110. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x

URL:

Eldh, A. C., Årestedt, L., Berterö, C. (2020). Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections

on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose. International Journal of Qualitative Methods Volume

19: 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920969268

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals With Forks - The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century

Business. New Society Publishers. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada. ISBN: 0-86571-392-8.

Elkington, J. (2018). 25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s Why It’s

Time to Rethink It. Harvard Business Review. URL:

Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., Towns, A.E. & Wängerud, L. (2017).

Metodpraktikan - Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad. 5th edition. 424 pages.

Nordstedts Juridik.

European Environmental Agency. (2010). The Swedish forestry model.

FSC. (n.d.). 1. Vad är FSC?. URL:

Fu, B. (2020). Promoting Geography for Sustainability. DOI:

47

Hertog, J.K., McLeod, D.M. (2001). A Multiperspectival Approach to Framing Analysis: A

Field Guide. P. 141 - 156. Framing Public Life: Perspective on Media and Our Understanding

of the Social World.

Keskitalo, E. C. H., Bergh, J., Felton, A., Björkman, C., Barlin, M., Axelsson, P., Ring, E.,

Agren, A., Roberge, J. M., Klapwijk, M. J. & Boberg, J. (2016). Adaptation to Climate

Change in Swedish Forestry. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f7020028

Keskitalo, E. C. H., Kunnas, J., Pettersson, M. & Stjernström, O. (2019). The

Industrialization of Forestry as a Primary Land Use in Sweden. The Politics of Arctic

Resources: Change and Continuity in the "Old North" of Northern Europe, p. 62. Published

by: Routledge.

Kuhlman, T. & Farrington, J. (2010). What is Sustainability?. Sustainability 2010. P. 3436 -

3448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436

Lindahl, K., Sandström, C. & Sténs, A. (2017). Alternative pathways to sustainability?

Comparing forest governance models. P. 69 - 78. Journal of Forest Policy and Economics 77.

Lindahl, K., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T. & Roberge, J-M.

(2015). The Swedish Forestry Model: More of Everything?. P. 44 - 55. Journal of Forest

Policy and Economics 77.

Lindahl, K. & Westholm, E. (2011). Future forests: Perceptions and strategies of key actors.

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27.

Marshall, D. & Toffel, M. (2004). Framing the Elusive Concept of Sustainability: A

Sustainability Hierarchy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es040394k

Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2016). Internationella skogsfrågor - Underlagsrapport från

arbetsgrupp 4 inom nationellt skogsprogram. P. 25. Regeringen, Stockholm. URL:

48

Mino, T. & Kudo, S. (2020). Framing in Sustainability Science - Theoretical and Practical

Approaches. Springer Nature, Science for Sustainable Societies, Singapore. DOI:

10.1007/978-981-13-9061-6

Mosse, D. (2004). Is Good Policy Unimplementable? Reflections on the Ethnography of Aid

Policy and Practice. Development and Change (35) 4. DOI:

Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243-262. URL:

Prop. 2019/20:188. (2020). Sweden’s implementation of Agenda 2030. The Swedish

Government.

Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA). (2015). Forests and Forestry

in Sweden. Stockholm, Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.

Sveaskog. (2011). Årsredovisning 2010 med hållbarhetsredovisning. Stockholm, Sveaskog

AB. https://www.sveaskog.se/om-sveaskog/finansiell-information/finansiella-rapporter/

Sveaskog. (2019). Annual Report and Sustainability Report 2018. Stockholm, Sveaskog AB.

Sveaskog. (2020). Sveaskog in brief. Stockholm, Sveaskog AB.

Sveaskog. (2021). Annual Report and Sustainability Report 2020. Stockholm, Sveaskog AB.

Swedish Forestry Agency. (2020a). The Forestry Act. URL:

49

Swedish Forestry Agency. (2020b). Swedish Forestry Act. Jönköping, Swedish Forestry

Agency.

United Nations. (2015). The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York, United

Nations.

United Nations. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. Downloaded

from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/

Webster, J. & Watson, Richard T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future:

Writing a Literature Review. Management Informations Systems Research Center, University

of Minnesota. Downloaded from:

World Bank Group. (2021). FOCUS: Sustainable Development Goals. Gathered from:

Zimm, C., Sperling, F., & Busch, S. (2018). Identifying Sustainability and Knowledge Gaps

50