96
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
In this excerpt, the community is portrayed as the recipient of the information and
the project, but is not expected to participate in the project’s design and delivery. The
power balance is lopsided. The company exercises decision-making power over the
project and the community, which is only informed of the project. For instance, the
possibility of a community’s opposition to the investment project is not acknowledged
as a major impediment to the project’s implementation.
According to the Performance Standards, the sole occasion on which communities
may be involved in project design is when the company, government or contracted
organisations, like third-party organisations, identify specific environmental/social
risks or impacts associated with a particular activity. Two cautions follow: the first is
that the company may not be able to map all impacts generated by its O&G activities
without prior consultation with the local community, while the second concerns who
will survey the impacts/risks of certain O&G activity. Many governments and companies may identify particular impacts and not others as a way to meet their own corporate agenda. The IFC Performance Standards do not specify the best actors to identify
social and environmental impacts. In this way, the document does not prevent organisations from imposing their own agenda when identifying social/environmental risks
and impacts.
To counterbalance communities’ lack of participation in companies’ social investment, the IFC Performance Standards advise companies to develop a stakeholder
engagement plan, focussed on the project’s risks and impacts and “tailored to the
characteristics and interests of the affected communities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 13). In
this sense, the IFC apparently proposes a community-centred approach to engagement with communities. However, this advice is focussed on the risks and impacts
of the operations, meaning that such an approach is inherently company/operationcentred. A paradox arises when an inherently company-centred approach is represented discursively as community-centred. Rhetoric does not match practice and
such a paradox is likely to generate a sense of cynicism about corporate intentions,
which might increase communities’ distrust of O&G companies.
Within the same section, the Performance Standards assert that “disclosure of relevant project information helps affected communities and other stakeholders understand the risks, impacts and opportunities of the programmes” (Torrance, 2012,
p. 13). Informing communities about the risks, impacts and opportunities of the
operational programmes is an example of a top-down approach, and does not necessarily allow space for community agency. In other words, ‘participation’ only when
“disclosing information” (Torrance, 2012, p. 13) might not be sufficient to galvanise
communities’ voices to inform the project’s design and implementation. Additionally, communities’ perspectives are not actively invited nor is their active involvement
facilitated.
Accordingly, the IFC’s suggested approach is top-down, demonstrating the prominence of working on discourses, and in tension with its concurrent emphasis on
community participation. If the IFC’s recommendations for community consultation and participation were put into place beyond the disclosure of information, (for
example, when a company begins designing their project and during all phases of the
project’s implementation) then, perhaps, social investment outcomes could be truly
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
In this excerpt, the community is portrayed as the recipient of the information and
the project, but is not expected to participate in the project’s design and delivery. The
power balance is lopsided. The company exercises decision-making power over the
project and the community, which is only informed of the project. For instance, the
possibility of a community’s opposition to the investment project is not acknowledged
as a major impediment to the project’s implementation.
According to the Performance Standards, the sole occasion on which communities
may be involved in project design is when the company, government or contracted
organisations, like third-party organisations, identify specific environmental/social
risks or impacts associated with a particular activity. Two cautions follow: the first is
that the company may not be able to map all impacts generated by its O&G activities
without prior consultation with the local community, while the second concerns who
will survey the impacts/risks of certain O&G activity. Many governments and companies may identify particular impacts and not others as a way to meet their own corporate agenda. The IFC Performance Standards do not specify the best actors to identify
social and environmental impacts. In this way, the document does not prevent organisations from imposing their own agenda when identifying social/environmental risks
and impacts.
To counterbalance communities’ lack of participation in companies’ social investment, the IFC Performance Standards advise companies to develop a stakeholder
engagement plan, focussed on the project’s risks and impacts and “tailored to the
characteristics and interests of the affected communities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 13). In
this sense, the IFC apparently proposes a community-centred approach to engagement with communities. However, this advice is focussed on the risks and impacts
of the operations, meaning that such an approach is inherently company/operationcentred. A paradox arises when an inherently company-centred approach is represented discursively as community-centred. Rhetoric does not match practice and
such a paradox is likely to generate a sense of cynicism about corporate intentions,
which might increase communities’ distrust of O&G companies.
Within the same section, the Performance Standards assert that “disclosure of relevant project information helps affected communities and other stakeholders understand the risks, impacts and opportunities of the programmes” (Torrance, 2012,
p. 13). Informing communities about the risks, impacts and opportunities of the
operational programmes is an example of a top-down approach, and does not necessarily allow space for community agency. In other words, ‘participation’ only when
“disclosing information” (Torrance, 2012, p. 13) might not be sufficient to galvanise
communities’ voices to inform the project’s design and implementation. Additionally, communities’ perspectives are not actively invited nor is their active involvement
facilitated.
Accordingly, the IFC’s suggested approach is top-down, demonstrating the prominence of working on discourses, and in tension with its concurrent emphasis on
community participation. If the IFC’s recommendations for community consultation and participation were put into place beyond the disclosure of information, (for
example, when a company begins designing their project and during all phases of the
project’s implementation) then, perhaps, social investment outcomes could be truly