7.4 The Guideline Documents and Working Around Discourses of Social Investment
99
The IFC segment above suggests that, if based on the Performance Standards
guidelines, social investment could be working as a substitute for community engagement. Community engagement and social investment are, however, distinctively
different (IPIECA, 2008; Moshkina, Trickett, & Trafton, 2014). Community engagement focusses on the relationship between the company and host communities on a
daily basis, whereas social investment refers to the transfer of resources and/or expertise from O&G companies to host communities (IPIECA, 2008). In this research,
most of the participants have chosen the IFC Performance Standards to guide their
social investment practices. The adoption of this particular guideline to support O&G
social investment practices may indicate that participants could be using social
investment as a substitute for community engagement as well. This suggests that
(in line with the IFC documents) participants may be establishing their relationships with host communities via social investment programmes, instead of genuine
community engagement mechanisms. Furthermore, issues concerning O&G operations, which include disclosure of information, compensation action, risk mitigation
actions and blocks licensing, plus perceived community ‘development’ needs are
addressed through social investment, and not by genuine participatory mechanisms
of community engagement.
Compensation and risk mitigation actions are extremely relevant and necessary
in the O&G sector. However, other components of community engagement, such
as to “empathise, to listen, learn and share” knowledge and/or information with
communities (IPIECA, 2008), are also key to positive engagement between O&G
companies and communities. Yet, these components are not mentioned in the IFC
Performance Standards. Notably, there is a risk that social investment, when used
as a substitute for (participatory) community engagement, could backfire against the
O&G company. This is because social investment may lead to communities feeling
frustrated due to social investment programmes failing to address communities’
actual needs and desires (see Chapter 8).
The IFC Performance Standards and the World Bank Group Community-Driven
Principles draw on different understandings of how companies should relate to host
communities. The Community-Driven Principles defines company–community relationships in relation to actions of collaboration, while the Performance Standards
frame it through actions of compensation. The Community-Driven Principles advocate for partnerships in “CDD [Community-Driven Development] … [which] treats
poor people and their institutions as assets and partners in the development process”
(WBG, 2002, p. 303). In contrast, the IFC Performance Standards do not focus
on partnerships. Rather, the company–community relationship is conceptualised
in terms of mitigation and/or compensatory claims, for example, “IFC requires its
clients to apply to the Performance Standards to manage environmental and social
risks and the impacts so that development opportunities are enhanced” (Torrance,
2012, p. 2). Actions of risk mitigation and/or compensation imply that the company
should indeed relate to host communities, but not necessarily through collaboration,
as inferred in the Community-Driven Principles.
99
The IFC segment above suggests that, if based on the Performance Standards
guidelines, social investment could be working as a substitute for community engagement. Community engagement and social investment are, however, distinctively
different (IPIECA, 2008; Moshkina, Trickett, & Trafton, 2014). Community engagement focusses on the relationship between the company and host communities on a
daily basis, whereas social investment refers to the transfer of resources and/or expertise from O&G companies to host communities (IPIECA, 2008). In this research,
most of the participants have chosen the IFC Performance Standards to guide their
social investment practices. The adoption of this particular guideline to support O&G
social investment practices may indicate that participants could be using social
investment as a substitute for community engagement as well. This suggests that
(in line with the IFC documents) participants may be establishing their relationships with host communities via social investment programmes, instead of genuine
community engagement mechanisms. Furthermore, issues concerning O&G operations, which include disclosure of information, compensation action, risk mitigation
actions and blocks licensing, plus perceived community ‘development’ needs are
addressed through social investment, and not by genuine participatory mechanisms
of community engagement.
Compensation and risk mitigation actions are extremely relevant and necessary
in the O&G sector. However, other components of community engagement, such
as to “empathise, to listen, learn and share” knowledge and/or information with
communities (IPIECA, 2008), are also key to positive engagement between O&G
companies and communities. Yet, these components are not mentioned in the IFC
Performance Standards. Notably, there is a risk that social investment, when used
as a substitute for (participatory) community engagement, could backfire against the
O&G company. This is because social investment may lead to communities feeling
frustrated due to social investment programmes failing to address communities’
actual needs and desires (see Chapter 8).
The IFC Performance Standards and the World Bank Group Community-Driven
Principles draw on different understandings of how companies should relate to host
communities. The Community-Driven Principles defines company–community relationships in relation to actions of collaboration, while the Performance Standards
frame it through actions of compensation. The Community-Driven Principles advocate for partnerships in “CDD [Community-Driven Development] … [which] treats
poor people and their institutions as assets and partners in the development process”
(WBG, 2002, p. 303). In contrast, the IFC Performance Standards do not focus
on partnerships. Rather, the company–community relationship is conceptualised
in terms of mitigation and/or compensatory claims, for example, “IFC requires its
clients to apply to the Performance Standards to manage environmental and social
risks and the impacts so that development opportunities are enhanced” (Torrance,
2012, p. 2). Actions of risk mitigation and/or compensation imply that the company
should indeed relate to host communities, but not necessarily through collaboration,
as inferred in the Community-Driven Principles.