126
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
tools in avoiding these discourses from interfering in community-centred, participatory approaches towards social investment. In this section, I presented participants’
arguments that social investment experts feel hostage to governmental absence in the
host community area and the communities’ needs in relation to basic social services.
Social investment experts in my study also emphasised the need to engage with
the government. However, in developing social investment, participants held diverse
views regarding the role of the government. Government experts, in particular, recommended government non-involvement in O&G social investment, which could hinder
social investment experts’ efforts to develop partnerships with government to develop
social investment. For some social investment experts, however, the government
position could determine the success or failure of the social investment project.
Participants suggested that government’s absence from social investment design and
delivery may make a social investment project unsustainable.
Finally, participants also spoke about the need to engage with the company to
develop social investment. Participants recommended that social investment experts
seek support from their peers within their companies. Participants drew on both
working around and working with discourses of social investment when discussing
engaging with peers. They expressed conflicting views about how best to persuade
O&G peers to support O&G social investment. In the interview discussion, some
drew on working around discourses, while others adopted working with discourses
to justify why O&G peers should support social investment. The participants’ use
of both working around and working with discourses may suggest that satisfying
the business’ interests was seen as a way to persuade O&G high executives that
O&G social investment is important. It seems that the participants were required
to negotiate different ideas about the meaning and purpose of social investment,
even within their own companies. In particular, there was a clear tension between
participants’ concern meeting the communities’ needs and business’ interests in
profit-making. In summary, this chapter highlights the conflicting nature of discourses
of social investment as emerged in experts’ recommendations for social investment
practices.
In the following chapter, I revisit my research questions and reflect on the study
findings overall. I suggest that experts’ different views and conflicting discourses
of social investment derive from the challenges experts face negotiating their own,
communities’ and governments’ interests, needs and concerns in developing social
investment. I argue that social investment is not a miracle solution for an intricate net
of challenges such as community engagement, operational license, risk mitigation,
social compensation and sustainable community development. Finally, I propose an
alternative approach that social investment experts could use when implementing
social investment.
8 Participants’ Recommendations for O&G Social Investment
tools in avoiding these discourses from interfering in community-centred, participatory approaches towards social investment. In this section, I presented participants’
arguments that social investment experts feel hostage to governmental absence in the
host community area and the communities’ needs in relation to basic social services.
Social investment experts in my study also emphasised the need to engage with
the government. However, in developing social investment, participants held diverse
views regarding the role of the government. Government experts, in particular, recommended government non-involvement in O&G social investment, which could hinder
social investment experts’ efforts to develop partnerships with government to develop
social investment. For some social investment experts, however, the government
position could determine the success or failure of the social investment project.
Participants suggested that government’s absence from social investment design and
delivery may make a social investment project unsustainable.
Finally, participants also spoke about the need to engage with the company to
develop social investment. Participants recommended that social investment experts
seek support from their peers within their companies. Participants drew on both
working around and working with discourses of social investment when discussing
engaging with peers. They expressed conflicting views about how best to persuade
O&G peers to support O&G social investment. In the interview discussion, some
drew on working around discourses, while others adopted working with discourses
to justify why O&G peers should support social investment. The participants’ use
of both working around and working with discourses may suggest that satisfying
the business’ interests was seen as a way to persuade O&G high executives that
O&G social investment is important. It seems that the participants were required
to negotiate different ideas about the meaning and purpose of social investment,
even within their own companies. In particular, there was a clear tension between
participants’ concern meeting the communities’ needs and business’ interests in
profit-making. In summary, this chapter highlights the conflicting nature of discourses
of social investment as emerged in experts’ recommendations for social investment
practices.
In the following chapter, I revisit my research questions and reflect on the study
findings overall. I suggest that experts’ different views and conflicting discourses
of social investment derive from the challenges experts face negotiating their own,
communities’ and governments’ interests, needs and concerns in developing social
investment. I argue that social investment is not a miracle solution for an intricate net
of challenges such as community engagement, operational license, risk mitigation,
social compensation and sustainable community development. Finally, I propose an
alternative approach that social investment experts could use when implementing
social investment.