IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Legitimizing industry and multi-sectoral regulation of cumulative impacts: A comparison of mining and energy development in Athabasca, Canada and the Hunter Valley, Australia

Listed author(s):
  • Boutilier, Robert G.
  • Black, Leeora
Registered author(s):

    The Alberta oil sands industry and the New South Wales coal industry both faced controversies related to their cumulative impacts. In an attempt to generate hypotheses, we compared their attempts to maintain legitimacy, in its various aspects, for both their industries and the regulatory regimes that evolved as the controversies persisted. Both the existing literature and the two cases suggest that greater use of multi-sectoral stakeholder forums for the governance of cumulative impacts can bolster the legitimacy of both the industry and its regulatory regime, including those aspects handled through self-regulation. The cases suggested the additional hypotheses that (a) the importance of the decisions allocated to the multi-stakeholder regulatory forum affects legitimacy perceptions generally, and (b) the multi-stakeholder approach to regulation does little to bolster legitimacy when stakeholders include activists who are more interested in transnational issues than local cumulative impacts.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Resources Policy.

    Volume (Year): 38 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 696-703

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:4:p:696-703
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.02.006
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Phil Mcmanus, 2008. "Mines, Wines and Thoroughbreds: Towards Regional Sustainability in the Upper Hunter, Australia," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(9), pages 1275-1290.
    2. Kolstad, Ivar & Wiig, Arne, 2009. "Is Transparency the Key to Reducing Corruption in Resource-Rich Countries?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 521-532, March.
    3. Donald Schepers, 2010. "Challenges to Legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 279-290, March.
    4. Karan Sonpar & Federica Pazzaglia & Jurgita Kornijenko, 2010. "The Paradox and Constraints of Legitimacy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Julia Roloff, 2008. "Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 233-250, September.
    6. Helena Tolkki & Arto Haveri & Jenni Airaksinen & Emilia Valkonen, 2011. "Governance in Regional Development—Between Regulation and Self-regulation," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 313-333, December.
    7. Karin Bäckstrand, 2008. "Accountability of Networked Climate Governance: The Rise of Transnational Climate Partnerships," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(3), pages 74-102, August.
    8. Hays, C. E. & Hays, S. P. & DeVille, J. O. & Mulhall, P. F., 2000. "Capacity for effectiveness: the relationship between coalition structure and community impact," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 373-379, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:4:p:696-703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.