6.3 Working for Discourses
83
Outside the [O&G] industry, I developed [social investment] actions… that were very
rewarding. … [names the institution] was an institution that derived from a private initiative
and was totally voluntary. These experiences were very rewarding because we could, in fact,
think and develop proposals that would impact people’s life significantly. (P2, translated)
P2 went on to define rewarding social investment as social investment where
s/he could participate in the project’s planning and development stages. However,
according to P2, mandatory (legally required) social investment does not allow much
space for a participatory approach in designing the social programmes.
An alternative view of social investment constructed it in terms of partnership
between the company, government, communities and other stakeholders.
2 All of the
interview participants in my study constructed such an approach as the ideal approach
to social investment. I discuss this below in terms of working with discourses.
6.4 Working with Discourses
When participants talked about social investment based on working with discourses,
they referred to their ideal understanding of social investment. Participants drew on
working with discourses of social investment when they talked about social projects
to assist local communities within their own developmental efforts. Working with
social investment was community-centred. The participants drew on working with
discourses in reference to social investment where multiple actors, including local
communities, O&G companies, NGOs, civic society organisations and the government, took part in the decision-making, design and implementation phases. Ideally,
power was equally distributed and all actors exercised agency within the social
investment programme (Fig. 6.4). Participants talked about social investment within
working with discourses as non-linear and complex, as depicted in Fig. 6.4.
As Fig. 6.4 illustrates, in the participants’ account, social investment constructed
in relation to working with discourses was framed by the company’s code of ethics,
the host country’s legislation, international principles of sustainable development,
and human rights (see Fig. 6.4). All actors had a role to play in guaranteeing the
sustainability of social investment programme.
As Fig. 6.4 indicates, within working with discourses, O&G companies, communities, and governments have low levels of dependency upon the social investment
outcomes and resources. This is because this form of social investment is not (1) tied
to a social or legal license to operate; and it does not (2) represent a substitute for
government provision. My participants gave examples of social investment based on
working with discourses, such as initiatives that enhanced communities’ capacity to
develop within their areas of expertise (for example in crop farming methods).
2 The meaning of ‘stakeholder’ in relation to O&G operations will vary according to the type of theoretical perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility a company adopts. However, a general understanding of stakeholder is “a group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement
of the organisation’s objective” (Freeman, 2010, p. 46).
83
Outside the [O&G] industry, I developed [social investment] actions… that were very
rewarding. … [names the institution] was an institution that derived from a private initiative
and was totally voluntary. These experiences were very rewarding because we could, in fact,
think and develop proposals that would impact people’s life significantly. (P2, translated)
P2 went on to define rewarding social investment as social investment where
s/he could participate in the project’s planning and development stages. However,
according to P2, mandatory (legally required) social investment does not allow much
space for a participatory approach in designing the social programmes.
An alternative view of social investment constructed it in terms of partnership
between the company, government, communities and other stakeholders.
2 All of the
interview participants in my study constructed such an approach as the ideal approach
to social investment. I discuss this below in terms of working with discourses.
6.4 Working with Discourses
When participants talked about social investment based on working with discourses,
they referred to their ideal understanding of social investment. Participants drew on
working with discourses of social investment when they talked about social projects
to assist local communities within their own developmental efforts. Working with
social investment was community-centred. The participants drew on working with
discourses in reference to social investment where multiple actors, including local
communities, O&G companies, NGOs, civic society organisations and the government, took part in the decision-making, design and implementation phases. Ideally,
power was equally distributed and all actors exercised agency within the social
investment programme (Fig. 6.4). Participants talked about social investment within
working with discourses as non-linear and complex, as depicted in Fig. 6.4.
As Fig. 6.4 illustrates, in the participants’ account, social investment constructed
in relation to working with discourses was framed by the company’s code of ethics,
the host country’s legislation, international principles of sustainable development,
and human rights (see Fig. 6.4). All actors had a role to play in guaranteeing the
sustainability of social investment programme.
As Fig. 6.4 indicates, within working with discourses, O&G companies, communities, and governments have low levels of dependency upon the social investment
outcomes and resources. This is because this form of social investment is not (1) tied
to a social or legal license to operate; and it does not (2) represent a substitute for
government provision. My participants gave examples of social investment based on
working with discourses, such as initiatives that enhanced communities’ capacity to
develop within their areas of expertise (for example in crop farming methods).
2 The meaning of ‘stakeholder’ in relation to O&G operations will vary according to the type of theoretical perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility a company adopts. However, a general understanding of stakeholder is “a group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement
of the organisation’s objective” (Freeman, 2010, p. 46).