82
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
Working for discourses positioned social investment as providing the host community with ‘social goods’ in response to legal requirements. During an interview, P7
illustrated how his/her company had responded to both the government and local
community’s demands:
So we have to provide 8.5 million to the local government for social investment
programmes… That was a condition of getting that particular permit… In addition to that,
we do our own social investment, so up to the end of this year we will have spent 5 million, so
we have to give 8.5 million to the local municipality and we also spent 5 million ourselves.
(P7, social investment expert)
P7’s accounts of social investment as a means to obtain a particular permit were exclusive to the legislation of that specific host country. However, not all countries legislate
for O&G social investment as part of providing operational permits, as noted by one
government expert in my research: “But I think in general in [names country], at the
government, the national government approach is not to force or compel companies to
undertake social investment or particular, you know, development that is outside their
corporate interest …” (P14). S/he explained that the reasons for his/hers country’s
abstention from having social investment as an operational requirement: “Because
we think [O&G companies] will do it [social investment] anyway … you know, it’s
not only is it right, but it’s smart to get buy in and support from the communities”
(P14).
P14 indicated that the country s/he represented had no interest in compelling O&G
companies to develop social investment. This could be due to this particular country
implicitly expecting O&G companies to do it voluntarily, since it was “the smart and
right thing to do” (P14). P14’s quote indicated in their country the government saw
social investment as an additional, strategic mechanism that O&G companies used
if they were smart enough to obtain community buy in.
Working for discourses also revealed compulsory approaches to social investment.
However, participants talked about a paradox between social investments designated
‘voluntary’, yet still arbitrated by state-owned companies, based on the government’s
social agenda. To illustrate this paradox, the next quote refers to a social investment
expert response when s/he was asked about the level of government interference in
social investment:
What we have is not a legal compliance it is a voluntary compliance … this company, which
is a big group of companies, they belong to the government, but to a lesser degree, so the
government doesn’t so far influence a lot the decisions. But like I said, we are going to have
the [names major sports event] in [names country]. So that is ok, if the government makes
my task … to allocate some funds for these people [local athletes], [this] would make the
country benefit from these people, from the image and everything. (P1)
Although P1 acknowledged that some social investment is ‘voluntary’ rather than a
matter of compliance, s/he still had to respond to the government’s request. Other
social investment experts also talked about compulsory versus voluntary social investment. For P2, social investment that was mandatory was not as rewarding as voluntary
social investment, as s/he put it:
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
Working for discourses positioned social investment as providing the host community with ‘social goods’ in response to legal requirements. During an interview, P7
illustrated how his/her company had responded to both the government and local
community’s demands:
So we have to provide 8.5 million to the local government for social investment
programmes… That was a condition of getting that particular permit… In addition to that,
we do our own social investment, so up to the end of this year we will have spent 5 million, so
we have to give 8.5 million to the local municipality and we also spent 5 million ourselves.
(P7, social investment expert)
P7’s accounts of social investment as a means to obtain a particular permit were exclusive to the legislation of that specific host country. However, not all countries legislate
for O&G social investment as part of providing operational permits, as noted by one
government expert in my research: “But I think in general in [names country], at the
government, the national government approach is not to force or compel companies to
undertake social investment or particular, you know, development that is outside their
corporate interest …” (P14). S/he explained that the reasons for his/hers country’s
abstention from having social investment as an operational requirement: “Because
we think [O&G companies] will do it [social investment] anyway … you know, it’s
not only is it right, but it’s smart to get buy in and support from the communities”
(P14).
P14 indicated that the country s/he represented had no interest in compelling O&G
companies to develop social investment. This could be due to this particular country
implicitly expecting O&G companies to do it voluntarily, since it was “the smart and
right thing to do” (P14). P14’s quote indicated in their country the government saw
social investment as an additional, strategic mechanism that O&G companies used
if they were smart enough to obtain community buy in.
Working for discourses also revealed compulsory approaches to social investment.
However, participants talked about a paradox between social investments designated
‘voluntary’, yet still arbitrated by state-owned companies, based on the government’s
social agenda. To illustrate this paradox, the next quote refers to a social investment
expert response when s/he was asked about the level of government interference in
social investment:
What we have is not a legal compliance it is a voluntary compliance … this company, which
is a big group of companies, they belong to the government, but to a lesser degree, so the
government doesn’t so far influence a lot the decisions. But like I said, we are going to have
the [names major sports event] in [names country]. So that is ok, if the government makes
my task … to allocate some funds for these people [local athletes], [this] would make the
country benefit from these people, from the image and everything. (P1)
Although P1 acknowledged that some social investment is ‘voluntary’ rather than a
matter of compliance, s/he still had to respond to the government’s request. Other
social investment experts also talked about compulsory versus voluntary social investment. For P2, social investment that was mandatory was not as rewarding as voluntary
social investment, as s/he put it: