100
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
The paradox between a focus on collaboration versus compensation in relation to the community–company relationship indicates conflicting political understandings of how companies should relate to their host societies. Companies may
construct social investment through discourses of collaboration and participation
and/or through discourses of compensation and company-focussed interests. Social
investment developed under risk mitigation and/or compensatory claims is mainly
focussed on how to compensate or mitigate company impact and harm. O&G
compensation can only be meaningful if communities shape and/or inform the
process by which compensation approaches are determined or deemed acceptable.
Communities are the ones impacted, and so they are the only ones who can say if a
specific impact can be compensated or not.
Additionally, the IFC document establishes that private companies should tailor
their relationship with communities in terms of communities’ vulnerability. It states,
“where individuals or groups are identified as disadvantaged or vulnerable, the client
will propose and implement differentiated measures so that diverse impacts do not
fall disproportionately on them and they are not disadvantaged in sharing development benefits and opportunities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 9). The IFC implies that the
activities funded by the IFC inherently generate development benefits and opportunities for host communities. Such a notion is contentious and serves the interests of
funding institutions and O&G companies. Host communities may have alternative
understandings of a company’s operational activities, for example, as not enhancing
development and promoting opportunities.
The IFC above also implies that companies should implement differentiated
actions in order to reduce the vulnerability of already vulnerable peoples when in
contact with high-risk and impactful activities. The understanding that O&G companies develop differentiated and affirmative actions to increase opportunities for the
most disadvantaged is contradictory. A contradiction emerges when O&G social
investment is framed as a way to reduce the vulnerability of underprivileged communities and at the same time that the O&G company’s activities have heightened social
vulnerability.
In the following extracts, the IFC gives additional examples of operational activities that create local vulnerability and provides recommendations to minimise these
impacts: “… The client will avoid or minimize the potential for community exposure
to water-borne, water based, and vector borne diseases, and communicable diseases
that could result from project activity”, and, “The client will avoid or minimize transmission of communicable diseases that may be associated with the influx of temporary or permanent project labour” (Torrance, 2012, p. 29). These segments recommend companies adopt measures that reduce or compensate for the impacts generated by corporate operations. Through such extracts, the IFC document recognises
the need for corporate intervention to compensate for impactful activities. However,
such acknowledgement accepts the idea that land and well-being can be bought with
money and/or compensatory social programmes. Money-focussed understandings
of social compensation, although treated as universal, derive from a neoliberal set
of principles of corporate self-interest and profit maximisation (WBG, 2004, p. vii).
These values may differ from a community’s expectations that companies should
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
The paradox between a focus on collaboration versus compensation in relation to the community–company relationship indicates conflicting political understandings of how companies should relate to their host societies. Companies may
construct social investment through discourses of collaboration and participation
and/or through discourses of compensation and company-focussed interests. Social
investment developed under risk mitigation and/or compensatory claims is mainly
focussed on how to compensate or mitigate company impact and harm. O&G
compensation can only be meaningful if communities shape and/or inform the
process by which compensation approaches are determined or deemed acceptable.
Communities are the ones impacted, and so they are the only ones who can say if a
specific impact can be compensated or not.
Additionally, the IFC document establishes that private companies should tailor
their relationship with communities in terms of communities’ vulnerability. It states,
“where individuals or groups are identified as disadvantaged or vulnerable, the client
will propose and implement differentiated measures so that diverse impacts do not
fall disproportionately on them and they are not disadvantaged in sharing development benefits and opportunities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 9). The IFC implies that the
activities funded by the IFC inherently generate development benefits and opportunities for host communities. Such a notion is contentious and serves the interests of
funding institutions and O&G companies. Host communities may have alternative
understandings of a company’s operational activities, for example, as not enhancing
development and promoting opportunities.
The IFC above also implies that companies should implement differentiated
actions in order to reduce the vulnerability of already vulnerable peoples when in
contact with high-risk and impactful activities. The understanding that O&G companies develop differentiated and affirmative actions to increase opportunities for the
most disadvantaged is contradictory. A contradiction emerges when O&G social
investment is framed as a way to reduce the vulnerability of underprivileged communities and at the same time that the O&G company’s activities have heightened social
vulnerability.
In the following extracts, the IFC gives additional examples of operational activities that create local vulnerability and provides recommendations to minimise these
impacts: “… The client will avoid or minimize the potential for community exposure
to water-borne, water based, and vector borne diseases, and communicable diseases
that could result from project activity”, and, “The client will avoid or minimize transmission of communicable diseases that may be associated with the influx of temporary or permanent project labour” (Torrance, 2012, p. 29). These segments recommend companies adopt measures that reduce or compensate for the impacts generated by corporate operations. Through such extracts, the IFC document recognises
the need for corporate intervention to compensate for impactful activities. However,
such acknowledgement accepts the idea that land and well-being can be bought with
money and/or compensatory social programmes. Money-focussed understandings
of social compensation, although treated as universal, derive from a neoliberal set
of principles of corporate self-interest and profit maximisation (WBG, 2004, p. vii).
These values may differ from a community’s expectations that companies should