8.1 Considering the Purpose of Social Investment
113
The above segment reveals a paradox. P3 emphasises the need to prioritise the O&G
industry’s demands, while at the same time, developing social investment focussed
on community needs. Such a paradox illustrates the complex ways some participants
negotiated both working around to working with discourses of social investment,
based on companies’, and their own, priorities.
However, not all participants posed this paradox when talking about capacity
building social investment. For instance, P6 talked about their company’s focus on
capacity building programmes as solely meeting business demands:
The oil found in my country is offshore, and offshore exploration needs very good technical
knowledge. So in our case, engineers were brought from elsewhere to come and work, and
my company decided to implement a scholarship scheme to build the capacity of the local
human resources. The company has also established [a] Technical Training Centre where
individuals and companies can go for O&G Technical Training. (P6, social investment expert)
P6’s company exclusively focussed on meeting the company’s demands for a
specialised workforce. In the excerpt above, P6 drew mainly on working on
discourses, revealing a top-down, hierarchical approach to social investment. P6’s
excerpt demonstrates that, for some participants, capacity building is a mechanism
solely used to provide O&G companies with a workforce. Although P6’s quote does
not explicitly reveal a tension between serving the interests of the company versus
the communities, P6’s comments, “implement a scholarship scheme to build the
capacity of the local human resources”, can be read as endeavouring to imply that
solely company-centred approach also benefits communities.
Arguably, companies that maintain a company-centred focus while claiming that
they seek to empower communities risk promoting a profound cynicism about the
ideals and activities of social investment (Fleming, Roberts, & Garsten, 2013). To
Fleming et al. (2013) social investment often reflects a paradox: the more a company
proclaims its social investment principles and benefits, the more likely cynics interpret this as an indication of a company’s ambition for profit accumulation. According
to Fleming et al. (2013) social investment is often more about adding value to the
firm than to the community. Nevertheless, in my research, the experts repeatedly
recommended that social investment be community-centred, and provide space and
opportunities for communities’ sense of ownership of an investment project.
Such conflicting views of social investment were again observed in participants’
talks of how to engage with communities. The following section presents a contradiction between participants’ understandings of the purpose of social investment and
the methodologies of how social investment should be developed.
8.2 Engaging with the Community
This section focusses on participants’ recommendations for engaging with the
community. When developing social investment, participants recommended that
O&G companies engage with the community via principles of participation, community empowerment and ownership. These principles can be seen as reflecting working
113
The above segment reveals a paradox. P3 emphasises the need to prioritise the O&G
industry’s demands, while at the same time, developing social investment focussed
on community needs. Such a paradox illustrates the complex ways some participants
negotiated both working around to working with discourses of social investment,
based on companies’, and their own, priorities.
However, not all participants posed this paradox when talking about capacity
building social investment. For instance, P6 talked about their company’s focus on
capacity building programmes as solely meeting business demands:
The oil found in my country is offshore, and offshore exploration needs very good technical
knowledge. So in our case, engineers were brought from elsewhere to come and work, and
my company decided to implement a scholarship scheme to build the capacity of the local
human resources. The company has also established [a] Technical Training Centre where
individuals and companies can go for O&G Technical Training. (P6, social investment expert)
P6’s company exclusively focussed on meeting the company’s demands for a
specialised workforce. In the excerpt above, P6 drew mainly on working on
discourses, revealing a top-down, hierarchical approach to social investment. P6’s
excerpt demonstrates that, for some participants, capacity building is a mechanism
solely used to provide O&G companies with a workforce. Although P6’s quote does
not explicitly reveal a tension between serving the interests of the company versus
the communities, P6’s comments, “implement a scholarship scheme to build the
capacity of the local human resources”, can be read as endeavouring to imply that
solely company-centred approach also benefits communities.
Arguably, companies that maintain a company-centred focus while claiming that
they seek to empower communities risk promoting a profound cynicism about the
ideals and activities of social investment (Fleming, Roberts, & Garsten, 2013). To
Fleming et al. (2013) social investment often reflects a paradox: the more a company
proclaims its social investment principles and benefits, the more likely cynics interpret this as an indication of a company’s ambition for profit accumulation. According
to Fleming et al. (2013) social investment is often more about adding value to the
firm than to the community. Nevertheless, in my research, the experts repeatedly
recommended that social investment be community-centred, and provide space and
opportunities for communities’ sense of ownership of an investment project.
Such conflicting views of social investment were again observed in participants’
talks of how to engage with communities. The following section presents a contradiction between participants’ understandings of the purpose of social investment and
the methodologies of how social investment should be developed.
8.2 Engaging with the Community
This section focusses on participants’ recommendations for engaging with the
community. When developing social investment, participants recommended that
O&G companies engage with the community via principles of participation, community empowerment and ownership. These principles can be seen as reflecting working