98
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
NGO/private firm contracted by central fund/government provides capacity building and
training support to CBOs [Community Based Organisations];
National program oversees mass information campaigns to solicit community demand and
clarify rules. (WBG, 2002, p. 311)
In the above excerpts, the community does not mobilise development; rather, it is a
receiver of development, needing training and clarification, and solicitation to allow
O&G social investment to occur. Although the World Bank Group’s CommunityDriven Principles aim at promoting development by engaging multiple actors, in
the segments provided above, the community is not considered an initiator of development. On the contrary, affected communities—or the poor—are constructed as
passive recipients of development. Such hierarchical constructions reproduce power
imbalances, revealing working on discourses of social investment. The following
section focusses on how working around discourses are deployed in the IFC
Performance Standards and the World Bank Group Community-Driven Principles.
7.4 The Guideline Documents and Working Around
Discourses of Social Investment
Working around discourses are grounded in the assumption that social investment
should be implemented in order to mitigate the social risks and impacts of O&G
projects. Working around discourses are evident in the following excerpt from the
IFC Performance Standards:
The Performance Standards are directed towards clients, providing guidance on how to
identify risks and impacts, and are designed to help avoid, mitigate and manage risks and
impacts as a way of doing business in a sustainable way, including stakeholder engagement
and disclosure obligations of the client in relation to project-level activities. (Torrance, 2012,
p. 1)
The IFC Performance Standards focus mostly on recommendations for company–
community engagement—or ‘stakeholder engagement’,—in cases of high-risk and
impactful projects. The technical term for company–community engagement in the
O&G sector is community engagement (IPIECA, 2008). Community engagement
refers to the relationship established between companies and communities and their
effect on individuals and groups on a day-to-day level (IPIECA, 2008).
The phrase ‘community engagement’ gives the illusion of a community focus,
when implicitly ‘engagement’ is understood as constructed as based on the
company’s terms. The IFC Performance Standards, for instance, recommend that
community engagement be constructed according to compensatory and risk mitigation measures, rather than as a resource to communities’ needs and realities.
Compensatory and risk mitigation measures are often implemented through social
investment.
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
NGO/private firm contracted by central fund/government provides capacity building and
training support to CBOs [Community Based Organisations];
National program oversees mass information campaigns to solicit community demand and
clarify rules. (WBG, 2002, p. 311)
In the above excerpts, the community does not mobilise development; rather, it is a
receiver of development, needing training and clarification, and solicitation to allow
O&G social investment to occur. Although the World Bank Group’s CommunityDriven Principles aim at promoting development by engaging multiple actors, in
the segments provided above, the community is not considered an initiator of development. On the contrary, affected communities—or the poor—are constructed as
passive recipients of development. Such hierarchical constructions reproduce power
imbalances, revealing working on discourses of social investment. The following
section focusses on how working around discourses are deployed in the IFC
Performance Standards and the World Bank Group Community-Driven Principles.
7.4 The Guideline Documents and Working Around
Discourses of Social Investment
Working around discourses are grounded in the assumption that social investment
should be implemented in order to mitigate the social risks and impacts of O&G
projects. Working around discourses are evident in the following excerpt from the
IFC Performance Standards:
The Performance Standards are directed towards clients, providing guidance on how to
identify risks and impacts, and are designed to help avoid, mitigate and manage risks and
impacts as a way of doing business in a sustainable way, including stakeholder engagement
and disclosure obligations of the client in relation to project-level activities. (Torrance, 2012,
p. 1)
The IFC Performance Standards focus mostly on recommendations for company–
community engagement—or ‘stakeholder engagement’,—in cases of high-risk and
impactful projects. The technical term for company–community engagement in the
O&G sector is community engagement (IPIECA, 2008). Community engagement
refers to the relationship established between companies and communities and their
effect on individuals and groups on a day-to-day level (IPIECA, 2008).
The phrase ‘community engagement’ gives the illusion of a community focus,
when implicitly ‘engagement’ is understood as constructed as based on the
company’s terms. The IFC Performance Standards, for instance, recommend that
community engagement be constructed according to compensatory and risk mitigation measures, rather than as a resource to communities’ needs and realities.
Compensatory and risk mitigation measures are often implemented through social
investment.