IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v52y2017icp379-388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indigenous – corporate private governance and legitimacy: Lessons learned from impact and benefit agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Craik, Neil
  • Gardner, Holly
  • McCarthy, Daniel

Abstract

This paper argues that impact and benefit agreements (IBAs) between Indigenous groups and resource companies are properly understood as a form of private governance. Viewing IBAs through a private governance lens generates important insights for both governance scholars and for scholars interested the structuring of Indigenous-corporate relations in the context of resource development. In order to develop this argument, we present a case study of a specific arrangement between a Canadian First Nation and a multi-national mining company with a particular focus on the governance elements of the contract and the implications for legitimacy that arise from the arrangement. Our central claim is that IBAs, as a form of private governance, require a theory of legitimacy that goes beyond contractual consent, but must account for both procedural and substantive legitimacy demands. We then identify the key lessons that can be taken for indigenous law and governance scholars and private governance scholars from our analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Craik, Neil & Gardner, Holly & McCarthy, Daniel, 2017. "Indigenous – corporate private governance and legitimacy: Lessons learned from impact and benefit agreements," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 379-388.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:52:y:2017:i:c:p:379-388
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420716302902
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.05.002?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. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    2. Alexander Rabinovich & Fred Stephenson, 2004. "Longwave Measurements for the Coast of British Columbia and Improvements to the Tsunami Warning Capability," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 32(3), pages 313-343, July.
    3. Robert Falkner, 2003. "Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the Links," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(2), pages 72-87, May.
    4. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy: An analytical challenge for earth system governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1854-1855, September.
    5. Prno, Jason & Scott Slocombe, D., 2012. "Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 346-357.
    6. Fabrizio Cafaggi, 2011. "New Foundations of Transnational Private Regulation," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 53, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    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. Schepis, Daniel, 2020. "Understanding Indigenous Reconciliation Action Plans from a corporate social responsibility perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. Han Wang & John R. Owen & Guoqing Shi, 2020. "Land for equity? A benefit distribution model for mining‐induced displacement and resettlement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3410-3421, December.
    3. Cascadden, Maggie & Gunton, Thomas & Rutherford, Murray, 2021. "Best practices for Impact Benefit Agreements," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Gunton, Cameron & Markey, Sean, 2021. "The role of community benefit agreements in natural resource governance and community development: Issues and prospects," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    5. Collins, Benjamin C. & Kumral, Mustafa, 2020. "Game theory for analyzing and improving environmental management in the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    6. Leonard J. S. Tsuji & Stephen R. J. Tsuji & Aleksandra M. Zuk & Roger Davey & Eric N. Liberda, 2020. "Harvest Programs in First Nations of Subarctic Canada: The Benefits Go Beyond Addressing Food Security and Environmental Sustainability Issues," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Adebayo, Eric & Werker, Eric, 2021. "How much are benefit-sharing agreements worth to communities affected by mining?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    8. O'Faircheallaigh, Ciaran, 2021. "Explaining outcomes from negotiated agreements in Australia and Canada," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Haikola, Simon & Anshelm, Jonas, 2020. "Evolutionary governance in mining: Boom and bust in peripheral communities in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(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. Duncan Weaver, 2018. "The Aarhus convention and process cosmopolitanism," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 199-213, April.
    2. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    3. Park, Mi Sun & Lee, Hyowon, 2019. "Accountability and reciprocal interests of bilateral forest cooperation under the global forest regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 32-44.
    4. Catacora-Vargas, Georgina & Alvarado, Víctor & Rankovic, Aleksandar & Tambutti, Marcia, 2022. "Governance approaches and practices in Latin America and the Caribbean for transformative change for biodiversity," Documentos de Proyectos 48542, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    5. Nasiritousi, Naghmeh & Hjerpe, Mattias & Buhr, Katarina, 2014. "Pluralising climate change solutions? Views held and voiced by participants at the international climate change negotiations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-184.
    6. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Marin-Burgos, Victoria & Clancy, Joy S. & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Contesting legitimacy of voluntary sustainability certification schemes: Valuation languages and power asymmetries in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 303-313.
    8. Pickering, Jonathan & Jotzo, Frank & Wood, Peter J., 2015. "Splitting the difference: can limited coordination achieve a fair distribution of the global climate financing effort?," Working Papers 249508, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    9. Cathrin Zengerling, 2019. "Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen Accountability in Strategic Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 187-199.
    10. Michelle Scobie, 2018. "Accountability in climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 769-787, April.
    11. Joseph Earsom, 2024. "Fit for purpose? Just Energy Transition Partnerships and accountability in international climate governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 135-141, February.
    12. Schouten, Greetje & Bitzer, Verena, 2015. "The emergence of Southern standards in agricultural value chains: A new trend in sustainability governance?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 175-184.
    13. van Oosten, Cora & Runhaar, Hens & Arts, Bas, 2021. "Capable to govern landscape restoration? Exploring landscape governance capabilities, based on literature and stakeholder perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Klusáček, Petr & Alexandrescu, Filip & Osman, Robert & Malý, Jiří & Kunc, Josef & Dvořák, Petr & Frantál, Bohumil & Havlíček, Marek & Krejčí, Tomáš & Martinát, Stanislav & Skokanová, Hana & Trojan, Ja, 2018. "Good governance as a strategic choice in brownfield regeneration: Regional dynamics from the Czech Republic," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-39.
    15. Adelaide Glover & Heike Schroeder, 2017. "Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 695-708, October.
    16. Röckmann, Christine & van Leeuwen, Judith & Goldsborough, David & Kraan, Marloes & Piet, Gerjan, 2015. "The interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine ecosystem based management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 155-162.
    17. Karlijn Muiderman & Aarti Gupta & Joost Vervoort & Frank Biermann, 2020. "Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    18. Tobias Böhmelt & Gabriele Spilker, 2016. "The interaction of international institutions from a social network perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 67-89, February.
    19. van der Loos, Hendrik Z. Adriaan & Kalfagianni, Agni & Biermann, Frank, 2018. "Global aspirations, regional variation? Explaining the global uptake and growth of forestry certification," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 41-50.
    20. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Schei, Peter Johan, 2014. "How may REDD+ affect the practical, legal and institutional framework for ‘Payment for ecosystem services’ in Costa Rica?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 75-82.

    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:52:y:2017:i:c:p:379-388. 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.