104
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
Fig. 7.1 The complexity of social investment discourses adopted by O&G experts and guideline
documents
In this sense, guideline documents and company managers do not annul participants’ agency to act within/against specific guideline and company constraints, and
to construct themselves as experts accountable for their work in social investment
(Davies, 1991)
The IFC guideline document, for instance, focusses mostly on engagement
between companies and communities in terms of compensation and risk mitigation. This means that the guideline document may be referring to social investment
as a substitute for community engagement. In turn, participants who drew on the
Performance Standards for their social investment practices could be using social
investment as a substitute for community engagement. Actions of compensation and
risk mitigation are important in the O&G sector because they represent endeavours
to safeguard host communities. However, other components are also important if
companies are to establish long-lasting, participatory relationships with communities. Social investment should be one mechanism that assists and complements
community engagement, rather than a substitute for community engagement.
My analysis of the four discourses of social investment in the guideline documents has indicated that both fail to acknowledge the tensions and other obstacles
that companies might encounter when adopting a participatory approach to social
investment. This is likely to lead to dilemmas for experts who draw upon the guidelines when implementing social investment. Faced with dilemmas in a supposedly
problem-free practice, experts may end up questioning their own practices, rather
than recognising the complexity of their positioning or the contradictory discourses
in the documents that guide their practices. Ideally, at the very least, guideline documents should acknowledge some of the key challenges inherent in designing social
7 Discourses of Social Investment …
Fig. 7.1 The complexity of social investment discourses adopted by O&G experts and guideline
documents
In this sense, guideline documents and company managers do not annul participants’ agency to act within/against specific guideline and company constraints, and
to construct themselves as experts accountable for their work in social investment
(Davies, 1991)
The IFC guideline document, for instance, focusses mostly on engagement
between companies and communities in terms of compensation and risk mitigation. This means that the guideline document may be referring to social investment
as a substitute for community engagement. In turn, participants who drew on the
Performance Standards for their social investment practices could be using social
investment as a substitute for community engagement. Actions of compensation and
risk mitigation are important in the O&G sector because they represent endeavours
to safeguard host communities. However, other components are also important if
companies are to establish long-lasting, participatory relationships with communities. Social investment should be one mechanism that assists and complements
community engagement, rather than a substitute for community engagement.
My analysis of the four discourses of social investment in the guideline documents has indicated that both fail to acknowledge the tensions and other obstacles
that companies might encounter when adopting a participatory approach to social
investment. This is likely to lead to dilemmas for experts who draw upon the guidelines when implementing social investment. Faced with dilemmas in a supposedly
problem-free practice, experts may end up questioning their own practices, rather
than recognising the complexity of their positioning or the contradictory discourses
in the documents that guide their practices. Ideally, at the very least, guideline documents should acknowledge some of the key challenges inherent in designing social