IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v38y2013i4p696-703.html
   My bibliography  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

Author

Listed:
  • Boutilier, Robert G.
  • Black, Leeora

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Boutilier, Robert G. & Black, Leeora, 2013. "Legitimizing industry and multi-sectoral regulation of cumulative impacts: A comparison of mining and energy development in Athabasca, Canada and the Hunter Valley, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 696-703.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:4:p:696-703
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.02.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420713000123
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.02.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Julia Roloff, 2008. "Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 233-250, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Donald Schepers, 2010. "Challenges to Legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 279-290, March.
    6. Harry Spaling & Janelle Zwier & William Ross & Roger Creasey, 2000. "Managing Regional Cumulative Effects Of Oil Sands Development In Alberta, Canada," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(04), pages 501-528.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esterhuyse, Surina & Avenant, Marinda & Redelinghuys, Nola & Kijko, Andrzej & Glazewski, Jan & Plit, Lisa & Kemp, Marthie & Smit, Ansie & Vos, A. Tascha, 2018. "Monitoring of unconventional oil and gas extraction and its policy implications: A case study from South Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 109-120.
    2. Franks, Daniel M. & Brereton, David & Moran, Chris J., 2013. "The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 640-647.
    3. Salina P. Siddique & Nick Sciulli, 2018. "Sustainable development of small companies: Investors' perspectives," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1258-1271, December.
    4. Zhu, Jun & Zhang, Linling, 2022. "Evolutionary game analysis of the implementation of fiscal policy in resource-based cities," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anica Zeyen & Markus Beckmann & Stella Wolters, 2016. "Actor and Institutional Dynamics in the Development of Multi-stakeholder Initiatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 341-360, May.
    2. Cyrlene Claasen & Julia Roloff, 2012. "The Link Between Responsibility and Legitimacy: The Case of De Beers in Namibia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 379-398, May.
    3. Rohan Miller & Grant Michelson, 2013. "Fixing the Game? Legitimacy, Morality Policy and Research in Gambling," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 601-614, September.
    4. Sandra Moog & André Spicer & Steffen Böhm, 2015. "The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 469-493, May.
    5. Valentina Mele & Donald Schepers, 2013. "E Pluribus Unum? Legitimacy Issues and Multi-stakeholder Codes of Conduct," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 561-576, December.
    6. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Stephen T. Onifade & Bright A. Gyamfi & Ilham Haouas & Simplice A. Asongu, 2023. "Extending the Frontiers of Financial Development for Sustainability of the MENA States: The Roles of Resource Abundance and Institutional Quality," Working Papers 23/055, European Xtramile Centre of African Studies (EXCAS).
    8. Susannah Fisher & Swenja Surminski, 2012. "The roles of public and private actors in the governance of adaptation: the case of agricultural insurance in India," GRI Working Papers 89, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    9. Khadjavi, Menusch & Lange, Andreas & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "The Social Value of Transparency and Accountability: Experimental Evidence from Asymmetric Public Good Games," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100512, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    11. Julia Rotter & Peppi-Emilia Airike & Cecilia Mark-Herbert, 2014. "Exploring Political Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(4), pages 581-599, December.
    12. Ogbe, Michael & Lujala, Päivi, 2021. "Spatial crowdsourcing in natural resource revenue management," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    13. Heloïse Berkowitz & Marcelo Bucheli & Hervé Dumez, 2017. "Collectively Designing CSR Through Meta-Organizations: A Case Study of the Oil and Gas Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(4), pages 753-769, July.
    14. Montes, Gabriel Caldas & da Cunha Lima, Luiza Leitão, 2018. "Effects of fiscal transparency on inflation and inflation expectations: Empirical evidence from developed and developing countries," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 26-37.
    15. Hans Pitlik & Björn Frank & Mathias Firchow, 2010. "The demand for transparency: An empirical note," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 177-195, June.
    16. Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen & Harro Asselt, 2009. "Introduction: exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 195-211, August.
    17. Pistorius, Till & Reinecke, Sabine, 2013. "The interim REDD+ Partnership: Boost for biodiversity safeguards?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 80-86.
    18. Khadjavi, Menusch & Lange, Andreas & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "The Social Value of Transparency and Accountabilityː Experimental Evidence from Asymmetric Public Goods Games," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 12, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    19. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Fjeldstad, Odd-Helge & Mmari, Donald & Sjursen, Ingrid Hoem & Tungodden, Bertil, 2021. "Understanding the resource curse: A large-scale experiment on corruption in Tanzania," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 129-157.
    20. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    M14; Legitimacy; Stakeholder relations; Multi-sectoral governance; Oil sands; Coal mining; Cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.