The relative power of environmental assessment as a governance tool: organization and the case of the Nord Stream gas pipeline

References

• AgatonS. 2010. Östersjöledningen, En studie i åsikter och människors trygghetsupplevelse belyst av media [The Baltic see pipeline. A study of attitudes and experiences of safety in the news media coverage]. Södertörns högskola: Institutionen för Livsvetenskaper.
   Google Scholar
• AhrneG, ed. 1998. Stater som organisationer. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus.
   Google Scholar
• AhrneG, BrunssonN, editors. 2004. Regelexplosionen [The rule explosion]. Stockholm: Ekonomiska forskningsinstitutet vid Handelshögskolan.
   Google Scholar
• AhrneG, BrunssonN, Tamm HallströmK. 2007. Organizing organizations. Organization. 14(5):619–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AhrneG, BrunssonN. 2011. Organization outside organizations: the significance of partial organization. Organization. 18(1):83–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AlbrechtE. 2008. Transboundary consultations in strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 26(4):289–298.
   Google Scholar
• AndréP, EnserinkB, ConnorandD, CroalP. 2006. Public participation international best practice principles. Special Publication Series, No. 4Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• BartlettRV, KurianPA. 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy-making. Policy Polit.27(4):415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BastmeijerK, KoivurovaT. 2008. Theory and practice of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Leiden/Boston: Brill/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• BouzarovskiS, KoniecznyM. 2010. Landscapes of paradox: public discourses and policies in poland's relationship with the nord stream pipeline. Geopolitics. 15:1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrunssonN, JacobssonB. 2000. A world of standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• CashmoreM, BondA, SadlerB. 2012. Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 27(2):91–93.
   Google Scholar
• DjelicM-L. 2011. From the rule of law to the law of rules. the dynamics of transnational governance and their local impact. Int Stud Manage Organiz. 41(1):35–61.
   Google Scholar
• DjelicM-L, Sahlin-AnderssonK. 2006. Transnational governance: institutional dynamics of regulation. In: DjelicML, Sahlin-AnderssonK, editors. Transnational governance: institutional dynamics of regulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyer HansenA. 2007. Governance Networks and Participation. In: SørensenE, TorfingJ, editors. Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan; p. 247–261.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2006. European Parliament and Council. Decision No. 1364/2006/EC of 6 September.
   Google Scholar
• ECE/MP. 2009. Exchange of good practices. Large-scale transboundary projects. Application of the Convention to complex activities. Economic Commision for Europe. Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, ECE/MP.EIA/WG.1/2009/4 2 March 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. 1991.
   Google Scholar
• FischerT. 2003. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23:155–170.
   Google Scholar
• HaleT, HeldD. 2011. Handbook of transnational governance. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• HögseliusP, KaijserA, ÅbergÅ. 2013. Natural gas in cold war Europe: The making of a critical transnational infrastructure. In: HögseliusP, HommelsA, KaijserA, van der VleutenE, editors. Europe goes critical: the emergence and governance of critical European infrastructures. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• IAIA. [cited 2013 June]. Available from: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/CC2%20Guideline%20Standard%20for%20IA%20Professionals_web.pdf2010.
   Google Scholar
• IAIA. International Association for Impact Assessment webpage, [cited 2012 March]. Available from: http://www.iaia.org/aboutiaia.aspx,2012.
   Google Scholar
• KoivurovaT. 2008. Transboundary environmental assessment in the Arctic. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 26(4):265–275.
   Google Scholar
• KoivurovaT, PölönenI. 2010. Transboundary environmental impact assessment in the case of the Baltic sea gas pipeline. Int J Mar Coast Law. 25:151–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeknesE. 2001. The roles of EIA in the decision-making process. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 21:309–334.
   Google Scholar
• MeyerJ, RowanB. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Socio. 83:340–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MorganRK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(1):5–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord Stream. 2009a. Environmental Impact Assessment. Documentation for consultation under the Espoo convention. Nord Stream Espoo Report.
   Google Scholar
• Nord Stream. 2009b. Environmental Impact Assessment. Documentation for consultation under the Espoo convention. Nord Stream Espoo report: non-technical summary.
   Google Scholar
• Nord Stream. 2012. Nord Stream Consortium webpage. [cited Feb. 2012]. Available from: http://www.nord-stream.com/pipeline/.
   Google Scholar
• Nord Stream presentation Nordic Council: http://www.norden.org/sv/nordiska-raadet/organisation-och-struktur/utskott/miljoe-och-naturresursutskottet/kalender/moete-i-miljoe-och-naturresursutskottet-30201331-mars-2011-i-stockholm/secure-gas-supply-for-europe-2013-nord-stream-project-presentation last accessed 6 March 2014.
   Google Scholar
• PartidarioMR, SheateWR. 2013. Knowledge brokerage – potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environ Impact. Assess Rev. 39:26–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PopeJ, BondA, Morrison-SaundersA, RetiefF. 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 41:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PowerM. 1997. The audit society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• SairinenR. 2003. The politics of regulatory reform: ‘new’ environmental policy instruments in Finland. Environ Polit. 12(1):73–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solum Whist B. 2008. Nord stream: not just a pipeline. FNI Report 15. Lysaker, Norway: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• SundströmG, SonerydL, FurustenS, editors. 2010. Organizing democracy. The construction of agency in practice. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Government. 2008. Kompletteringar krävs för att regeringen ska pröva ansökningarna om gasledning i Östersjön, PM [cited 2008 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10226/a/97912.
   Google Scholar
• WestonJ. 2010. EIA theories – all Chinese whispers and no critical theory. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 12(4):357–374.
   Google Scholar