Quality of the workshops

The raw data was recorded during the workshops predominantly by pen and paper and later transferred to data processing software (mainly Excel) for further analysis, during which the data were translated from Finnish to English. All workshop details, procedures and initial results were recorded into workshop reports that were compiled immediately after each workshop. The reports were sent to the workshop participants, who were asked to verify the content and suggest corrections. Such member checks are common in qual-itative research and can enhance the trustworthiness of the research (Rudestam and New-ton, 2001).

The workshops applied the principle of data triangulation by using different comparable working groups as data sources. Data triangulation is a strategy that can be employed to increase the trustworthiness, rigour and quality of qualitative research (Janesick, 2000;

Golafshani, 2003).

It was assumed that Workshop 1 would generate insights into the perspectives Finnish bioenergy business operators have on the relevant sustainability aspects of bioenergy sys-tems. Because the workshop participants included business operators and researchers, it is questionable as to whether the data represented the perspective of the business opera-tors. Inevitably, some uncertainty about the perspective from which the participants ap-proached sustainability existed. The contribution of researchers to the data could, how-ever, be considered unproblematic for the following reasons. The theme of Workshop 1 was different bioenergy business operators’ perspectives on sustainability aspects, and these perspective were supported with the use of the general life cycle depiction of bio-energy as a tool for data collection. Thus, all participants’ minds should have been fo-cused on the bioenergy business. Furthermore, although the participants could be labelled as researchers and business operators, they could represent a wide range of job descrip-tions and work experience and, as individuals, have various personalities and interests.

The discussion did not concentrate on the job descriptions of the participants; rather, it was solidly aimed at encouraging an open-minded approach to sustainability. The role of the coordinating researchers could have been even more significant in terms of guiding the participants’ thought processes than the participants’ job descriptions.

Sustainability challenges or opportunities can be considered at different levels: global, local and individual. To connect the solutions that bioenergy systems, and especially bi-oenergy businesses, provide to these challenges or to determine opportunities for bioen-ergy systems and business, it was essential to, again, include actual bioenbioen-ergy business operators’ perspectives in the research data. And again, the inclusion was achieved through a workshop. A challenge in Workshop 2 was that the participants were required

to absorb a large amount of information about the three theoretical cases in a short work-ing time to enable them to express context-specific sustainability questions. Conse-quently, the questions remained at a relatively general level, although the formulation of sustainability challenges and opportunities into question form, instead of making sustain-ability statements, produced a relatively extensive data set. Because the sustainsustain-ability questions were retrieved within a few hours’ work, the list of questions is not comprehen-sive. However, it is challenging to pinpoint any themes that are missing from the data set.

The large number and versatility of data that were successfully collected during Work-shop 2 in part validate the multidimensional approach to data collection employed in Workshop 2. The same discussion about including researchers in the work of Workshop 1 applies to Workshop 2.

The data that were collected and the discussions that were held during Workshop 3 played a supporting role in the design of the maturity model of corporate responsibility for sus-tainability, while previous literature was the main contributor. The most significant con-tribution Workshop 3 made to this thesis was the conversation between bioenergy busi-ness operators and bioenergy researchers about the concept of the maturity dichotomy from the perspectives of efficiency and value creation measures and reactive and proac-tive activities.

An alternative data collection method could have been employed. For example, surveys or interviews could have been conducted with bioenergy business operators. However, in the workshop discussions, the key concepts, such as sustainability, could be considered from a broad perspective under the guidance of the coordinating researchers and through stimulating group discussions that highlighted differences in people’s views on the main issues; as such, the workshops generated a broad range of data.

It cannot be assumed that the workshops that were organised between 2013 and 2014 would produce the same data set as workshops organised at a later date. The bioenergy business exists within a rapidly changing operating environment, and the role of sustain-ability in business changes over time. For example, Lintukangas et al. (2016) found that environmental efforts become a lower business priority in economically difficult times.

Furthermore, the sustainability science is under constant development. Different ability aspects are topical at different times. The current public interest in certain sustain-ability aspects may well affect the themes of any workshop discussions.

Since the workshops consisted of a sample of people as the source of data, the personal differences, for example, mood and attitude, can affect individuals’ delivery. However, as the data was produced as a group or pair effort, it was unlikely that the personal cir-cumstances of individual participants significantly impacted the data set. Furthermore, no wrong answers are possible in workshop discussions related to sustainability. On the con-trary, when sustainability is considered from a relative perspective, the subjective inter-ests of workshop participants are of importance. However, as discussed in the discussion on the theoretical foundation of this thesis, sustainability is a concept that has multiple

3.3 Data analysis methods 71 definitions, and, thus, the sustainability orientation and understanding of the participants could span a wide range.

The workshop-specific group dynamics (Bell and Morse, 2013) could affect the likeli-hood of two workshops that were conducted in a similar fashion but with a different set of participants producing consistent data sets. The extent to which the group members contributed to the discussion and the production of data could depend, for example, on the number of extroverted or introverted personalities who formed part of the group. In the workshops, all group members were encouraged to express their thoughts both in written form and through conversation. The personalities of the coordinating researchers could also affect the way in which the groups were steered. Assertive steering prompts the participants to concentrate on the topic and produce more relevant results. However, the coordinating researchers could influence the topics under discussion and introduce new topics of their own interest. Thus, the differences in the produced data sets occur at the level of working groups, not only at the level of workshops.

The research in this thesis was conducted primarily from the perspective of the Finnish bioenergy experts who attended the workshops. The data were produced by large and internationally operating Finnish bioenergy enterprises and by Finnish bioenergy re-searchers. Bioenergy operators based in other countries could provide further country-specific perspectives on the sustainability of bioenergy systems. However, many of the collected sustainability aspects, questions, methods and tools were at a general level and, as such, were not exclusive to the cases but were, instead, applicable to various bioenergy systems.

3.3

The analysis that was conducted as part of this thesis involved describing, interpreting and, most importantly, classifying (categorising) textual qualitative data. The terms ‘clas-sify’ and ‘categorise’ are used interchangeably throughout this thesis.

Publication II, Publication III and Publication IV contained theory-building analysis that is based on the principles of grounded theory research. That is, in the course of the re-search, a preliminary organising system of data transforms into the result, which is a ty-pology, classification model or theoretical framework (Tesch, 1990; Charmaz, 2000). A feature that was common to Publication II, Publication III and Publication IV was the use of literature-based maturity models as organising systems; that is, to both organise the data and to present the results. Therefore, it is appropriate to first generally discuss the applications of maturity models. Publication I used a four-dimensional sustainability framework to review the conditions for sustainability in the context of a case study and this approach is of intrinsic interest.

After a general introduction to the maturity models, the data analysis methods section proceeds to introduce the methods employed in each publication in more detail. The qual-ity of the analysis is discussed in the context of each publication.