7.6 Summary
105
investment, and thereby prepare experts for engaging with the possible challenges
that may arise when designing and implementing social investment.
The second consideration has to do with the guidelines’ discursive claims
to a community-centred approach, despite drawing on working on and working
around discourses of social investment. The claim of community-centred actions
in company-centred policies risks generates corporate cynicism and heightens
communities’ distrust of O&G social investment.
The third consideration has to do with the paradox between social investment
developed through collaboration versus compensation, revealing conflicting political understandings of how companies relate to their host societies. Companies may
construct their social investment through discourses of collaboration and collective interests, and/or through discourses of compensation and self-oriented interests.
Working with discourses of social investment could construct alternative ways of
approaching social investment for impact compensation, which may contribute to
more respectful and humble forms of social investment (Cash, 2012; Frynas, 2005,
2009; Hilson, 2012) (I return to this point in Chapter 9).
The fourth consideration concerns the taken-for-granted understanding that
funding institutions know what is best for communities. Specifically, the Community-Driven Development Principles draw on working on discourses when they refer
to funding institutions, such as private companies, international banks, governments
and NGOs as the planners of development programmes. Although referred to as
a central actor, community is discursively constructed as the passive recipient of
development initiatives.
The fifth and final consideration relates to the guideline documents’ discursive
claims that communities and companies have to liaise with each other in order to
create job opportunities. Research suggests that such claims risk provoking a shift
of responsibility for creating jobs from the government to O&G companies and
communities. Literature suggests that O&G social investment may harm communities if presented as an alternative to government provision, for example, of basic social
welfare. Future research is needed that explores how the guideline documents may
actually be influencing responsibility in resource-rich nations and how this impacts
host communities.
The following chapter explores some of the main recommendations for O&G
social investment that emerged in my study. Government representatives’ narratives
are also included to illustrate the different positions on and expectations for O&G
social investment.
References
Blowfield, M., & Frynas, G. (2005). Editorial setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate
social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage.
105
investment, and thereby prepare experts for engaging with the possible challenges
that may arise when designing and implementing social investment.
The second consideration has to do with the guidelines’ discursive claims
to a community-centred approach, despite drawing on working on and working
around discourses of social investment. The claim of community-centred actions
in company-centred policies risks generates corporate cynicism and heightens
communities’ distrust of O&G social investment.
The third consideration has to do with the paradox between social investment
developed through collaboration versus compensation, revealing conflicting political understandings of how companies relate to their host societies. Companies may
construct their social investment through discourses of collaboration and collective interests, and/or through discourses of compensation and self-oriented interests.
Working with discourses of social investment could construct alternative ways of
approaching social investment for impact compensation, which may contribute to
more respectful and humble forms of social investment (Cash, 2012; Frynas, 2005,
2009; Hilson, 2012) (I return to this point in Chapter 9).
The fourth consideration concerns the taken-for-granted understanding that
funding institutions know what is best for communities. Specifically, the Community-Driven Development Principles draw on working on discourses when they refer
to funding institutions, such as private companies, international banks, governments
and NGOs as the planners of development programmes. Although referred to as
a central actor, community is discursively constructed as the passive recipient of
development initiatives.
The fifth and final consideration relates to the guideline documents’ discursive
claims that communities and companies have to liaise with each other in order to
create job opportunities. Research suggests that such claims risk provoking a shift
of responsibility for creating jobs from the government to O&G companies and
communities. Literature suggests that O&G social investment may harm communities if presented as an alternative to government provision, for example, of basic social
welfare. Future research is needed that explores how the guideline documents may
actually be influencing responsibility in resource-rich nations and how this impacts
host communities.
The following chapter explores some of the main recommendations for O&G
social investment that emerged in my study. Government representatives’ narratives
are also included to illustrate the different positions on and expectations for O&G
social investment.
References
Blowfield, M., & Frynas, G. (2005). Editorial setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate
social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage.