IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i13p5432-d380756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disentangling Benefit-Sharing Complexities of Oil Extraction on the North Slope of Alaska

Author

Listed:
  • Maria S. Tysiachniouk

    (Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 550 N. Park Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA
    Centre for Independent Social Research, Ligovsky 87, Office 301, 197022 St. Petersburg, Russia
    National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Laboratory for Studies in Economic Sociology, 101000 Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

This paper analyses benefit-sharing arrangements between oil companies, native corporations, the North Slope Borough, and Indigenous Peoples in Alaska. It aims to disentangle the complexities of benefit-sharing to understand existing procedural and distributive equity. We identified benefit-sharing regimes involving modes, principles, and mechanisms of benefit-sharing. This includes modes that reflect institutionalized interactions, such as paternalism, company centered social responsibility (CCSR), partnership, and shareholders. Principles can be based on compensation, investment and charity. Mechanisms can involve negotiated benefits and structured benefits, mandated by legislation, contracts, or regulation. Furthermore, mechanisms can involve semi-formal and trickle-down benefits. Trickle-down benefits come automatically to the community along with development. The distribution of money by the North Slope Borough represents the paternalistic mode, yet involves investment and mandated principles with top–down decision making. They are relatively high in distributional equity and low in participatory equity. Native corporations predominantly practice the shareholders’ mode, investment principle, and mandated mechanisms. The oil companies’ benefit-sharing represents a mixed type combining CCSR and partnership modess, several principles (investment, compensatory, charity) and multiple types of mechanisms, such as mandated, negotiated, semi-formal and trickle-down. These arrangements vary in terms of distributive equity, and participatory equity is limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria S. Tysiachniouk, 2020. "Disentangling Benefit-Sharing Complexities of Oil Extraction on the North Slope of Alaska," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-31, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5432-:d:380756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5432/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5432/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2013. "Social licence and mining: A critical perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 29-35.
    2. 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.
    3. Tibor R. Machan, 2009. "Stakeholder vs. shareholder theory of the ethics of corporate management," International Journal of Economics and Business Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 12-20.
    4. Bice, Sara & Brueckner, Martin & Pforr, Christof, 2017. "Putting social license to operate on the map: A social, actuarial and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-55.
    5. Paul Segal, 2012. "Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend as a Model for Reducing Global Poverty," Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee, in: Karl Widerquist & Michael W. Howard (ed.), Exporting the Alaska Model, chapter 0, pages 109-122, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Thomas Gunton, 2003. "Natural Resources and Regional Development: An Assessment of Dependency and Comparative Advantage Paradigms," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 79(1), pages 67-94, January.
    7. Emma Wilson & Kirill Istomin, 2019. "Beads and Trinkets? Stakeholder Perspectives on Benefit-sharing and Corporate Responsibility in a Russian Oil Province," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(8), pages 1285-1313, September.
    8. Schlossberger, Eugene, 1994. "A New Model of Business: Dual-Investor Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 459-474, October.
    9. Karin Buhmann, 2016. "Public Regulators and CSR: The ‘Social Licence to Operate’ in Recent United Nations Instruments on Business and Human Rights and the Juridification of CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(4), pages 699-714, July.
    10. Laura A. Henry & Soili Nysten-Haarala & Svetlana Tulaeva & Maria Tysiachniouk, 2016. "Corporate Social Responsibility and the Oil Industry in the Russian Arctic: Global Norms and Neo-Paternalism," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 68(8), pages 1340-1368, September.
    11. Elisa Morgera, 2015. "Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law," Laws, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-29, December.
    12. Söderholm, Patrik & Svahn, Nanna, 2015. "Mining, regional development and benefit-sharing in developed countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 78-91.
    13. Ignacio Ferrero & W. Michael Hoffman & Robert E. McNulty, 2012. "Must Milton Friedman Embrace Stakeholder Theory?," Faculty Working Papers 10/12, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra.
    14. Maria Tysiachniouk & Andrey N. Petrov & Vera Kuklina & Natalia Krasnoshtanova, 2018. "Between Soviet Legacy and Corporate Social Responsibility: Emerging Benefit Sharing Frameworks in the Irkutsk Oil Region, Russia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Moffat, Kieren & Zhang, Airong, 2014. "The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 61-70.
    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. Maria S. Tysiachniouk & Laura A. Henry & Svetlana A. Tulaeva & Leah S. Horowitz, 2020. "Who Benefits? How Interest-Convergence Shapes Benefit-Sharing and Indigenous Rights to Sustainable Livelihoods in Russia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-22, October.

    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. Svetlana A. Tulaeva & Maria S. Tysiachniouk & Laura A. Henry & Leah S. Horowitz, 2019. "Globalizing Extraction and Indigenous Rights in the Russian Arctic: The Enduring Role of the State in Natural Resource Governance," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Andrey N. Petrov & Maria S. Tysiachniouk, 2019. "Benefit Sharing in the Arctic: A Systematic View," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    4. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Santiago, Ana Lúcia & Demajorovic, Jacques & Rossetto, Dennys Eduardo & Luke, Hanabeth, 2021. "Understanding the fundamentals of the Social Licence to Operate: Its evolution, current state of development and future avenues for research," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Brueckner, Martin & Eabrasu, Marian, 2018. "Pinning down the social license to operate (SLO): The problem of normative complexity," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 217-226.
    7. Amoako, Kwame Oduro & Lord, Beverley R. & Dixon, Keith, 2021. "Narrative accounting for mining in Ghana: An old defence against a new threat?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    8. Woźniak, Justyna & Jurczyk, Weronika, 2022. "SLO in CSR perspective - A comparative case study from Poland (2018–2020)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Adamson, David & Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2020. "Is social licence a response to government and market failures? Evidence from the literature," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    10. Anne-Maree Dowd & Michelle Rodriguez & Talia Jeanneret, 2015. "Social Science Insights for the BioCCS Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-19, May.
    11. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    12. Wright, Susan & Bice, Sara, 2017. "Beyond social capital: A strategic action fields approach to social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 284-295.
    13. Richert, Claire & Rogers, Abbie & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Measuring the extent of a Social License to Operate: The influence of marine biodiversity offsets in the oil and gas sector in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 121-129.
    14. António Mateus & Luís Martins, 2021. "Building a mineral-based value chain in Europe: the balance between social acceptance and secure supply," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(2), pages 239-261, July.
    15. Stuart, Alice & Bond, Alan & Franco, Aldina M.A. & Baker, Julia & Gerrard, Chris & Danino, Vittoria & Jones, Kylie, 2023. "Conceptualising social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    16. Daniel M. Shapiro & Carlos Vecino & Jing Li, 2018. "Exploring China’s state-led FDI model: Evidence from the extractive sectors in Latin America," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-37, March.
    17. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Louis, Winnifred & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "Meaningful dialogue outcomes contribute to laying a foundation for social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 347-355.
    18. Pamela Lesser, 2021. "The road to societal trust: implementation of Towards Sustainable Mining in Finland and Spain," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(2), pages 175-186, July.
    19. Geert Demuijnck & Björn Fasterling, 2016. "The Social License to Operate," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(4), pages 675-685, July.
    20. Leeuwerik, R.N.C. & Rozemeijer, M.J.C. & van Leeuwen, J., 2021. "Conceptualizing the interaction of context, process and status in the Social License to operate: The case of marine diamond mining in Namibia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5432-:d:380756. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.