Why don't forest supply chains share data? What the studies show

Partly because no one can say who owns the data or what it is worth. A 2021 study of harvester data in wood supply chains, set in one national legal system, found that its legal ownership "cannot be clearly defined" there, that the people involved disagreed about it, and that "there is no accepted and valid formula in existence for calculating the value or price of harvester data". Without an owner or a price, there is little to agree on. A 2025 consumer-goods study adds a second reason sharing may stall: its value showed up in aligning plans, while forecast accuracy did not measurably improve in general.

What the usual answer says

The usual answer lists lack of trust, fragmented systems, incompatible formats, competitive concerns and the cost of infrastructure among many small firms. Each is real. Many searchers mean something narrower: traceability data for deforestation-free supply chains. For that sense, a World Resources Institute project update names "legal data restrictions and commercial sensitivities that impede data sharing", and says "Uncertainties linger around permissions for data sharing". This piece is about the operational sense: data passing between landowners, contractors and mills.

What the 2021 study found

Hartsch, Kemmerer, Labelle, Jaeger and Wagner (Forests) looked at harvester production data, the stem-by-stem records a harvester writes as it cuts. Integrating it through the supply chain, they write, "seems to have strong optimization potential but it is faced with several challenges due to the high number of stakeholders involved".

They combined a legal review with 27 expert interviews. On the law, "legal ownership of harvester production data cannot be clearly defined" in the system they examined, though protection rights against misuse give something close to data sovereignty. Where records can be traced to a person, such as an operator, data protection law restricts use. On the people, "the stakeholders interviewed in the study had different opinions on data ownership". On the economics, harvester data can be traded, but no accepted formula exists to price it. The authors advise key stakeholders to "negotiate and agree on data ownership and use".

The legal finding belongs to one national system and may not transfer. We read the abstract only, because the publisher's site could not be opened.

What the logistics companies asked for

A 2022 study in Forest Science by Palander surveyed logistics companies that run wood harvesting and transport for forest industry clients. They "asked for better quality information from client factories for improving logistics". They also needed "online information for improving the quality control of logistics provided by their subcompanies". Both requests run from the logistics companies, one toward their clients and one toward their own subcontractors. We read this abstract only as well.

The gap shows in cost data too. A 2025 review in the International Journal of Forest Engineering by Derochers, Conrad, Bolding, Smidt and Da Silva, citing a regional price service, reports that transport made up "over 40% of the delivered cost of pulpwood and 26% of sawtimber products" in the third quarter of 2024. Yet it lists "limited information related to log truck transportation costs" among the gaps in knowledge.

What sharing is worth, in another industry

A 2025 study in the International Journal of Operations and Production Management by Saarinen, Huttunen and Rehman comes from consumer goods, not timber. Four manufacturers fed retailers' point of sale data into their forecasts. The authors report that this data "generally does not yield" a measurable improvement in forecast accuracy.

Interviews with two manufacturers, three retail chains and experts from a solution provider, which has an interest in the answer, told a different story. Shared data enabled "improved planning alignment by facilitating automated routine processes, proactive exception management and enhanced synchronization of production volumes and delivery schedules". The authors reframe shared data "as a driver of planning alignment rather than forecast accuracy improvement".

Reading it through a data lens

In our view, the harvester study describes a standoff that contracts can break. Ownership can be set aside by agreeing use rights: who may use which fields, for what, and for how long. Price can be replaced by exchange, such as harvester files in return for mill intake and grade results the contractor can also use. The consumer-goods evidence suggests judging the arrangement by alignment, such as the share of deliveries that arrive in their planned window, compared with the season before.

The strongest objection is that ownership rarely binds in practice. Where one buyer dominates, it can simply write data delivery into the harvesting or stumpage contract, as a condition of the work. That settles the question by market power rather than agreement. It works, but it tends to move data one way only.

When it doesn't apply

Vertically integrated operations, owning land, crews, trucks and mills, already hold every stage's data and face an internal version of the problem. Where the law defines data ownership clearly, the first barrier is smaller. And the 2025 findings come from consumer goods, so the size of the alignment benefit in timber is untested.

Quarri for forest management is built around how a forest operation runs, from the cruise to the settled account.

Quarri is an AI-native data platform for the timber supply chain. It connects buying, production, sales and inventory for forest management, sawmill, wood products and pulp, paper and packaging operators.