124
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
only be worried about profit, but also about [the company’s] performance within the
host society” (P16). However, P16 described the challenge of engaging with senior
executives about community matters because, according to P16, “[some] companies’
directors … do not even read the company’s social balance report” (social investment
expert, translated). Similarly, P8 found it extremely “difficult to have the company’s
board of directors, shareholders and CEOs engaged in social investment practices”
(P8, social investment expert, translated).
According to P16 and P8, top executives such as CEOs, shareholders and boards of
directors, who should be the ones to approve and develop the company’s principles,
often did not recognise the relevance of O&G social investment. P8 supposed that this
lack of engagement was due to the fact that some O&G companies considered social
investment one of “the company’s themes” instead of a mechanism that reflected the
company’s “values and principles” (P8, social investment expert, translated).
The participants above recommended that social investment experts seek support
from the government and host communities to develop social investment, as well as
from their own peers within the company. However, arguably, experts’ use of working
around discourses of social investment to convince their O&G peers to support O&G
social investment may reduce the likelihood of O&G social investment being truly
participatory, or meaningful for, and driven by, communities.
8.5 Summary
The current chapter has explored participants’ recommendations with respect to four
key practices of social investment: considering the purpose of social investment,
engaging with the community, engaging with the government and engaging with the
company. The key points discussed in this chapter are summarised in Table 8.1.
The experts’ perspectives on how to enact ‘ideal’ social investment were complex
and contradictory. At face value, participants’ recommendations drew on working
with discourses of social investment. However, in describing recommended social
investment practices, participants also drew on other conflicting discourses, such
as working around, working on and working for discourses of social investment.
My research highlights how social investment experts in O&G companies negotiate
challenging discursive terrain when talking about social investment.
My analysis of experts’ recommendations highlights how experts’ discursive
practices are shaped by different institutional expectations for social investment
(including communities, governments and O&G companies’ expectations). These
dissonant expectations influence experts’ adoption of particular discourses, perhaps,
despite their own, different ideals. Participants’ recurrent adoption of both working
with and working around discourses may suggest that social investment is ‘shifting’
practice and that the principles embedded in working with discourses may be difficult
to enact in a corporate context.
In my research, while participants drew on working with discourses to construct
their recommendations for social investment, they also proposed that O&G social
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
only be worried about profit, but also about [the company’s] performance within the
host society” (P16). However, P16 described the challenge of engaging with senior
executives about community matters because, according to P16, “[some] companies’
directors … do not even read the company’s social balance report” (social investment
expert, translated). Similarly, P8 found it extremely “difficult to have the company’s
board of directors, shareholders and CEOs engaged in social investment practices”
(P8, social investment expert, translated).
According to P16 and P8, top executives such as CEOs, shareholders and boards of
directors, who should be the ones to approve and develop the company’s principles,
often did not recognise the relevance of O&G social investment. P8 supposed that this
lack of engagement was due to the fact that some O&G companies considered social
investment one of “the company’s themes” instead of a mechanism that reflected the
company’s “values and principles” (P8, social investment expert, translated).
The participants above recommended that social investment experts seek support
from the government and host communities to develop social investment, as well as
from their own peers within the company. However, arguably, experts’ use of working
around discourses of social investment to convince their O&G peers to support O&G
social investment may reduce the likelihood of O&G social investment being truly
participatory, or meaningful for, and driven by, communities.
8.5 Summary
The current chapter has explored participants’ recommendations with respect to four
key practices of social investment: considering the purpose of social investment,
engaging with the community, engaging with the government and engaging with the
company. The key points discussed in this chapter are summarised in Table 8.1.
The experts’ perspectives on how to enact ‘ideal’ social investment were complex
and contradictory. At face value, participants’ recommendations drew on working
with discourses of social investment. However, in describing recommended social
investment practices, participants also drew on other conflicting discourses, such
as working around, working on and working for discourses of social investment.
My research highlights how social investment experts in O&G companies negotiate
challenging discursive terrain when talking about social investment.
My analysis of experts’ recommendations highlights how experts’ discursive
practices are shaped by different institutional expectations for social investment
(including communities, governments and O&G companies’ expectations). These
dissonant expectations influence experts’ adoption of particular discourses, perhaps,
despite their own, different ideals. Participants’ recurrent adoption of both working
with and working around discourses may suggest that social investment is ‘shifting’
practice and that the principles embedded in working with discourses may be difficult
to enact in a corporate context.
In my research, while participants drew on working with discourses to construct
their recommendations for social investment, they also proposed that O&G social