94
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
government, the private sector, civil society and central government” (WBG, 2002,
p. 303).
The Community-Driven Principles recommend that social investment should
“build participatory mechanisms for community control and stakeholder involvement” (WBG, 2002, p. 323). The way stakeholders should be involved in social
investment is illustrated in the suggestion that “private support organisations may be
NGOs or private firms… their role is to help reach communities, form or strengthen
CBOs [Community Based Organisations], and support CBOs in the process of CDD
[Community-Driven Development]” (WBG, 2002, p. 313). The document acknowledges that different stakeholders, such as private firms and NGOs, have a role to
play in social investment, but stresses that communities come first as “CDD requires
community control of investment and management decisions” (WBG, 2002, p. 309).
According to the Community-Driven Principles, companies’ business aspirations
should not drive social programmes, as the following excerpt illustrates: “partnership arrangements in which the key investment decisions … are made primarily by
a support organisation [such as private firms] cannot be described as community
centred” (WBG, 2002, p. 309).
The Community-Driven Principles aim to promote “control of decisions and
resources to community groups” (WBG, 2002, p. 303) by means of “strengthening
and financing community groups, facilitating community access to information”
(WBG, 2002, p. 303), and capacity “to build social capital” (WBG, 2002, p. 303)
which the documents argue has a “positive effect on household welfare” (WBG, 2002,
p. 308). The World Bank Group guideline document establishes its main objective as
giving control of decisions and resources to community groups in order to overcome
poverty. In this sense, its fundamental principles are closely aligned with working
with discourses of social investment focussed on empowering local communities.
The Community-Driven Principles state that “the most appropriate institutional
arrangement [for social investment] in any particular country will depend on the
specific circumstances of that country, or region or location” (WBG, 2002, p. 315).
Respecting and incorporating the local knowledge, culture and contexts are principles that also underlie working with discourses of social investment. According
to the Community-Driven Principles, that companies should respect and welcome
‘difference’ when developing social investment.
Along similar lines, the IFC Performance Standards recognise that companies should approach communities with “easily accessible information, which is
in culturally appropriate local language(s) and format and is understandable to
Affected Communities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 4). The IFC also deploys working with
discourses of social investment when it refers to programmes being accessible to
host communities and delivered in a culturally appropriate way.
Within working with discourses, social investment is constructed as ideally
empowering community voices through a participatory approach. Nonetheless,
according to my participants (see Chapter 6), a participatory approach to social
investment can be problematic because it requires partnerships with organisations
that have different agendas. In other words, the assumption that it might be possible
to engage in a dialogue where all parties speak the same language and hold similar
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
government, the private sector, civil society and central government” (WBG, 2002,
p. 303).
The Community-Driven Principles recommend that social investment should
“build participatory mechanisms for community control and stakeholder involvement” (WBG, 2002, p. 323). The way stakeholders should be involved in social
investment is illustrated in the suggestion that “private support organisations may be
NGOs or private firms… their role is to help reach communities, form or strengthen
CBOs [Community Based Organisations], and support CBOs in the process of CDD
[Community-Driven Development]” (WBG, 2002, p. 313). The document acknowledges that different stakeholders, such as private firms and NGOs, have a role to
play in social investment, but stresses that communities come first as “CDD requires
community control of investment and management decisions” (WBG, 2002, p. 309).
According to the Community-Driven Principles, companies’ business aspirations
should not drive social programmes, as the following excerpt illustrates: “partnership arrangements in which the key investment decisions … are made primarily by
a support organisation [such as private firms] cannot be described as community
centred” (WBG, 2002, p. 309).
The Community-Driven Principles aim to promote “control of decisions and
resources to community groups” (WBG, 2002, p. 303) by means of “strengthening
and financing community groups, facilitating community access to information”
(WBG, 2002, p. 303), and capacity “to build social capital” (WBG, 2002, p. 303)
which the documents argue has a “positive effect on household welfare” (WBG, 2002,
p. 308). The World Bank Group guideline document establishes its main objective as
giving control of decisions and resources to community groups in order to overcome
poverty. In this sense, its fundamental principles are closely aligned with working
with discourses of social investment focussed on empowering local communities.
The Community-Driven Principles state that “the most appropriate institutional
arrangement [for social investment] in any particular country will depend on the
specific circumstances of that country, or region or location” (WBG, 2002, p. 315).
Respecting and incorporating the local knowledge, culture and contexts are principles that also underlie working with discourses of social investment. According
to the Community-Driven Principles, that companies should respect and welcome
‘difference’ when developing social investment.
Along similar lines, the IFC Performance Standards recognise that companies should approach communities with “easily accessible information, which is
in culturally appropriate local language(s) and format and is understandable to
Affected Communities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 4). The IFC also deploys working with
discourses of social investment when it refers to programmes being accessible to
host communities and delivered in a culturally appropriate way.
Within working with discourses, social investment is constructed as ideally
empowering community voices through a participatory approach. Nonetheless,
according to my participants (see Chapter 6), a participatory approach to social
investment can be problematic because it requires partnerships with organisations
that have different agendas. In other words, the assumption that it might be possible
to engage in a dialogue where all parties speak the same language and hold similar