IDEAS home Printed from
   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


  • Boutilier, Robert G.
  • Black, Leeora


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

    Download full text from publisher

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

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    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)


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

    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    More about this item


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

    JEL classification:

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


    Access and download statistics


    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.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.