86
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
each programme. P3 suggested one answer to the challenges P4 identified in taking
up a working with approach to social investment, namely, that conflicts could have
been lessened if decision-making processes were already established that allowed
multiple stakeholders to work together to benefit the whole community.
In my participants’ accounts, the level of O&G social investment success seemed
to depend on its capacity to respect the particularities of specific host communities. Other researchers also emphasise the impact of listening to local communities,
and also local civic organisations and/or NGOs about the best ways to design and
develop social programmes locally (Baskin & Gordon, 2005; Hess, Rogovsky, &
Dunfee, 2002; IPIECA, 2004, 2008; ISO, 2010). How businesses should contribute
to society depends on a nation’s culture, historical background, and business practices (Srisuphaolarn, 2013). Effective (participatory) O&G social investment in one
country is likely to be different from O&G social investment in another country
(Srisuphaolarn, 2013). The following segment of an interview illustrates this well:
I still think there is a danger that, you know one size tends to fit all a little too much on the
social investment side because countries are so different. I think there are a lot of similarities
but you can’t just say, you know, we are working in Africa, this approach works the same
in Congo as it does in Nigeria and so, there is a greater need I think to have more specific
tailored guidelines that are even country or almost project type specific … It can be very
frustrating, you know, … and a lot of experts will come and I try not to fall into this trap,
you know, just, I know other people could call me on it, you know, come into a place to say,
I am, you know, ‘this is how we did it in Nigeria and it worked there so let’s use the same
thing here’, you know, in [country where participant is based]. And [I] think that is the real
recipe for disaster [laughs]. (P10, social investment expert)
P10 highlighted the potential for social investment programmes to fail when companies that tried to apply the same ‘participatory’ model to different contexts. P10’s
comment that such programmes are a “real recipe for disaster” implied that generalising social investment methodologies to different contexts are likely to be ineffective.
Social investment based in attempts to reproduce the same model exemplifies ‘institutional isomorphism’, or to companies replicating what they perceive as the successful
programmes of other companies in order to be competitive (Frynas, 2009). This type
of social investment is likely to fail to address the needs of the host community
because the community, who best knows about their needs, is not consulted. Social
investment will necessarily vary from place to place (Srisuphaolarn, 2013).
Social investment constructed through working with discourses reflects the understanding that social investment should empower communities through a genuinely
participatory approach. Such an approach requires partnership between civic organisations, government, local stakeholders and the company. In addition to that, working
with discourses reveal a concern with adapting to the local culture and dynamics of
each community.
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
each programme. P3 suggested one answer to the challenges P4 identified in taking
up a working with approach to social investment, namely, that conflicts could have
been lessened if decision-making processes were already established that allowed
multiple stakeholders to work together to benefit the whole community.
In my participants’ accounts, the level of O&G social investment success seemed
to depend on its capacity to respect the particularities of specific host communities. Other researchers also emphasise the impact of listening to local communities,
and also local civic organisations and/or NGOs about the best ways to design and
develop social programmes locally (Baskin & Gordon, 2005; Hess, Rogovsky, &
Dunfee, 2002; IPIECA, 2004, 2008; ISO, 2010). How businesses should contribute
to society depends on a nation’s culture, historical background, and business practices (Srisuphaolarn, 2013). Effective (participatory) O&G social investment in one
country is likely to be different from O&G social investment in another country
(Srisuphaolarn, 2013). The following segment of an interview illustrates this well:
I still think there is a danger that, you know one size tends to fit all a little too much on the
social investment side because countries are so different. I think there are a lot of similarities
but you can’t just say, you know, we are working in Africa, this approach works the same
in Congo as it does in Nigeria and so, there is a greater need I think to have more specific
tailored guidelines that are even country or almost project type specific … It can be very
frustrating, you know, … and a lot of experts will come and I try not to fall into this trap,
you know, just, I know other people could call me on it, you know, come into a place to say,
I am, you know, ‘this is how we did it in Nigeria and it worked there so let’s use the same
thing here’, you know, in [country where participant is based]. And [I] think that is the real
recipe for disaster [laughs]. (P10, social investment expert)
P10 highlighted the potential for social investment programmes to fail when companies that tried to apply the same ‘participatory’ model to different contexts. P10’s
comment that such programmes are a “real recipe for disaster” implied that generalising social investment methodologies to different contexts are likely to be ineffective.
Social investment based in attempts to reproduce the same model exemplifies ‘institutional isomorphism’, or to companies replicating what they perceive as the successful
programmes of other companies in order to be competitive (Frynas, 2009). This type
of social investment is likely to fail to address the needs of the host community
because the community, who best knows about their needs, is not consulted. Social
investment will necessarily vary from place to place (Srisuphaolarn, 2013).
Social investment constructed through working with discourses reflects the understanding that social investment should empower communities through a genuinely
participatory approach. Such an approach requires partnership between civic organisations, government, local stakeholders and the company. In addition to that, working
with discourses reveal a concern with adapting to the local culture and dynamics of
each community.