118
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
social investment as a way to circumvent communities’ sentiments of frustrations
and destructive actions against O&G operations
Participants such as P5 talked about the first steps towards managing communities’
expectations:
And I think part of that [recommendations] have to do with expectations and it has to do
with the levels of community engagement and involvement in designing the projects. And
so I think … and again back to the description of kind of this more participatory approach,
increasingly I think we are trying to do more research and analysis than outreach, more like
a needs assessment before we go in and really design projects so that community members
feel that their voices have been heard. (P5, social investment expert)
P5 understood that knowing the communities’ needs indicated to locals that their
perspectives were being taken into consideration. However, when the opposite
happened, the lack of knowledge concerning the community’s aspirations and
cultures generated:
… anger and frustration over a whole range of issues that weren’t just about our company,
… there was even some vandalising of projects’ buildings and I think that was a turning
point to the company to realise that you have to approach the stakeholders and approach the
projects in a much more participatory way. (P5, social investment expert)
In the statement above, P5 talked about how locals’ frustration may have led to
destructive actions. P5 considered a participatory approach towards social investment
as an effective way of dealing with the community’s frustrations and expectations.
However, P5’s rationale for dealing with communities’ frustrations drew on working
around discourses of protecting O&G operations through social investment, in that,
s/he emphasised engagement as a means for ensuring communities’ cooperation.
A government expert, P17, also understood that companies had to understand
and manage communities’ expectations and frustrations. In fact, P17 believed that
companies’ inability to understand and manage communities’ expectations of social
investment could harm communities. P17 asserted that “local communities, mainly
the ones that live near the shore, are the ones mostly affected by O&G activities
because of companies’ lack of management/awareness of communities expectations”
(Government expert-translated). P17’s quote indicates her/his discursive attempt to
attribute responsibility for the community’s expectations and frustrations to O&G
companies’ “lack of management/awareness of communities expectations” (P17).
However, the social investment experts in my research shared a different view of
who was responsible for managing communities’ expectation of O&G social investment, in that, O&G social investment experts emphasised government’s absence in
providing host communities with basic social services was responsible for communities unrealistic expectations of O&G social investment. P3, for instance, believed that
communities’ expectations derived from the inability of the host country government
to perform its role as a social provider:
[The] problems [are] with the communities’ [expectations] because they either make
demands from the government to fix their social issues, [or] they don’t get any response
from the government and then suddenly the O&G company arrives and [communities] use the
opportunity to put pressure on governments through O&G companies. (P3, social investment
expert)
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
social investment as a way to circumvent communities’ sentiments of frustrations
and destructive actions against O&G operations
Participants such as P5 talked about the first steps towards managing communities’
expectations:
And I think part of that [recommendations] have to do with expectations and it has to do
with the levels of community engagement and involvement in designing the projects. And
so I think … and again back to the description of kind of this more participatory approach,
increasingly I think we are trying to do more research and analysis than outreach, more like
a needs assessment before we go in and really design projects so that community members
feel that their voices have been heard. (P5, social investment expert)
P5 understood that knowing the communities’ needs indicated to locals that their
perspectives were being taken into consideration. However, when the opposite
happened, the lack of knowledge concerning the community’s aspirations and
cultures generated:
… anger and frustration over a whole range of issues that weren’t just about our company,
… there was even some vandalising of projects’ buildings and I think that was a turning
point to the company to realise that you have to approach the stakeholders and approach the
projects in a much more participatory way. (P5, social investment expert)
In the statement above, P5 talked about how locals’ frustration may have led to
destructive actions. P5 considered a participatory approach towards social investment
as an effective way of dealing with the community’s frustrations and expectations.
However, P5’s rationale for dealing with communities’ frustrations drew on working
around discourses of protecting O&G operations through social investment, in that,
s/he emphasised engagement as a means for ensuring communities’ cooperation.
A government expert, P17, also understood that companies had to understand
and manage communities’ expectations and frustrations. In fact, P17 believed that
companies’ inability to understand and manage communities’ expectations of social
investment could harm communities. P17 asserted that “local communities, mainly
the ones that live near the shore, are the ones mostly affected by O&G activities
because of companies’ lack of management/awareness of communities expectations”
(Government expert-translated). P17’s quote indicates her/his discursive attempt to
attribute responsibility for the community’s expectations and frustrations to O&G
companies’ “lack of management/awareness of communities expectations” (P17).
However, the social investment experts in my research shared a different view of
who was responsible for managing communities’ expectation of O&G social investment, in that, O&G social investment experts emphasised government’s absence in
providing host communities with basic social services was responsible for communities unrealistic expectations of O&G social investment. P3, for instance, believed that
communities’ expectations derived from the inability of the host country government
to perform its role as a social provider:
[The] problems [are] with the communities’ [expectations] because they either make
demands from the government to fix their social issues, [or] they don’t get any response
from the government and then suddenly the O&G company arrives and [communities] use the
opportunity to put pressure on governments through O&G companies. (P3, social investment
expert)