6.5 Summary
87
6.5 Summary
In this chapter, I have presented an analysis of the interviews with O&G social investment and government experts. I identified four dominant discourses which emerged
in the interviews, describing these as working on, working around, working for and
working with discourses. Most participants’ accounts drew on all four discourses,
revealing tensions and contradictions in the way they and their companies constructed
and enacted social investment. Participants both took up, and resisted, working
on discourses and suggested alternative ways of conceptualising social investment.
Alternative conceptualisations were revealed through working around, working for,
and working with discourses.
According to my participants, O&G social investment is likely to be most effective
in assisting host communities if framed in relation to working with discourses. This
is because social investment that entailed a participatory approach involving collaboration between the government, community, company, and other stakeholders could
better address the interests of the local community, empower all groups involved and
restore the social balance of power (Frynas, 2009).
However, as evident in the participants’ narratives, working with communities
was not simple work; it required the development of decision-making processes and
strong partnership that went beyond the company and host community relationship.
Such partnership was based on trusting relationships, and engagement between the
company, local communities, local civic groups, NGOs and local government.
Although this study was small in size and scope, it usefully highlights the contradictory nature of O&G social investment, and the complex position of social investment personnel, particularly when their personal views are at odds with institutional policies and practices. The following chapter explores whether and in what
ways the four discourses of social investment appeared in the main guideline documents adopted by social investment experts. Specifically, I investigate how the
four discourses of social investment appeared in the guideline documents statements about their descriptions of social investment, and their stated principles and
recommendations for social investment practices and process.
References
Ackah-Baidoo, A. (2012). Enclave development and ‘offshore corporate social responsibility’:
Implications for oil-rich sub-Saharan Africa. Resources Policy, 37(2), 152–159.
Baskin, J., & Gordon, K. (2005). Corporate responsibility practices of emerging market companies
(OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2005/03). OECD. Retrieved from http://dx.
doi.org/10.1787/713775068163.
Cash, A. C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and petroleum development in sub-Saharan
Africa: The case of Chad. Resources Policy, 37(2), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.
2011.08.001.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management
Review, 2(3), 70–76.
87
6.5 Summary
In this chapter, I have presented an analysis of the interviews with O&G social investment and government experts. I identified four dominant discourses which emerged
in the interviews, describing these as working on, working around, working for and
working with discourses. Most participants’ accounts drew on all four discourses,
revealing tensions and contradictions in the way they and their companies constructed
and enacted social investment. Participants both took up, and resisted, working
on discourses and suggested alternative ways of conceptualising social investment.
Alternative conceptualisations were revealed through working around, working for,
and working with discourses.
According to my participants, O&G social investment is likely to be most effective
in assisting host communities if framed in relation to working with discourses. This
is because social investment that entailed a participatory approach involving collaboration between the government, community, company, and other stakeholders could
better address the interests of the local community, empower all groups involved and
restore the social balance of power (Frynas, 2009).
However, as evident in the participants’ narratives, working with communities
was not simple work; it required the development of decision-making processes and
strong partnership that went beyond the company and host community relationship.
Such partnership was based on trusting relationships, and engagement between the
company, local communities, local civic groups, NGOs and local government.
Although this study was small in size and scope, it usefully highlights the contradictory nature of O&G social investment, and the complex position of social investment personnel, particularly when their personal views are at odds with institutional policies and practices. The following chapter explores whether and in what
ways the four discourses of social investment appeared in the main guideline documents adopted by social investment experts. Specifically, I investigate how the
four discourses of social investment appeared in the guideline documents statements about their descriptions of social investment, and their stated principles and
recommendations for social investment practices and process.
References
Ackah-Baidoo, A. (2012). Enclave development and ‘offshore corporate social responsibility’:
Implications for oil-rich sub-Saharan Africa. Resources Policy, 37(2), 152–159.
Baskin, J., & Gordon, K. (2005). Corporate responsibility practices of emerging market companies
(OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2005/03). OECD. Retrieved from http://dx.
doi.org/10.1787/713775068163.
Cash, A. C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and petroleum development in sub-Saharan
Africa: The case of Chad. Resources Policy, 37(2), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.
2011.08.001.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management
Review, 2(3), 70–76.