9.2 Addressing the Research Questions
131
The experts adopted four main discourses when they talked about social investment. In this book, I referred to these discourses as working with, working on, working
around and working for discourses. Working with discourses represented a participatory and community-centred approach to social investment, with several actors,
including local communities being involved in the design and implementation of the
social investment project. Working on discourses emerged when participants referred
to social investment as involving a top-down approach towards the host community,
or where the local community had very limited involvement in designing and implementing social investment programmes. Working around discourses were embedded
in the understanding that social investment should be developed in order to ultimately fulfil the company’s operational interests. While communities could benefit
from social investment, the main purpose of working around social investment was
to meet O&G operational demands. Finally, working for discourses conceptualised
social investment as assisting the host government to deliver social goods and meet
its development agenda.
The four discourses emerged in all participants’ accounts of O&G social investment, revealing tensions and contradictions in their conceptualisation of social investment. Most participants agreed that O&G social investment was likely to be most
effective in assisting host communities if developed in partnerships with communities
(or framed in relation to working with discourses). However, as evident in the participants’ narratives, working with communities was not a simple process. Working with
discourses of social investment referred to partnerships with a range of institutional
actors, including host communities, host governments and O&G companies. In many
cases, these actors have different agendas. Therefore, assumptions that it might be
possible to engage in a dialogue where all parties speak the ‘same language’, and
hold similar expectations, are likely to create tensions.
Additionally, participants considered a social investment that contributed to
communities’ dependency as something inherently negative. As noted in Chapter 6,
relationships of dependency often (re)produce hierarchical relations of power
between companies and communities. However, as previously acknowledged, dependency could also be constructed, by O&G companies, with negative moralistic overtones to justify avoiding fully committing to a corporate–community relationship
according to community expectations.
As Ferguson claims “the real questions are not about whether people are or should
be dependent, but rather which forms of dependency are to be promoted and which
discouraged” (Ferguson, 2013, p. 234). In this sense, dependency can be beneficial
if communities are relying upon O&G resources, negotiated through a communitycentred, participatory and meaningful process, in a way that promotes new forms of
belonging and well-being. On the other hand, dependency can be harmful if communities are relying upon O&G resources delivered through hierarchical, patronagebased relationships, which have historically been associated with corruption and
negative impacts on communities (Ferguson 2013, 2015).
The guideline documents that the participants most frequently referred to as
guiding their social investment practice were the IFC Performance Standards and
the World Bank Group Community-Driven Development Principles. My analysis
131
The experts adopted four main discourses when they talked about social investment. In this book, I referred to these discourses as working with, working on, working
around and working for discourses. Working with discourses represented a participatory and community-centred approach to social investment, with several actors,
including local communities being involved in the design and implementation of the
social investment project. Working on discourses emerged when participants referred
to social investment as involving a top-down approach towards the host community,
or where the local community had very limited involvement in designing and implementing social investment programmes. Working around discourses were embedded
in the understanding that social investment should be developed in order to ultimately fulfil the company’s operational interests. While communities could benefit
from social investment, the main purpose of working around social investment was
to meet O&G operational demands. Finally, working for discourses conceptualised
social investment as assisting the host government to deliver social goods and meet
its development agenda.
The four discourses emerged in all participants’ accounts of O&G social investment, revealing tensions and contradictions in their conceptualisation of social investment. Most participants agreed that O&G social investment was likely to be most
effective in assisting host communities if developed in partnerships with communities
(or framed in relation to working with discourses). However, as evident in the participants’ narratives, working with communities was not a simple process. Working with
discourses of social investment referred to partnerships with a range of institutional
actors, including host communities, host governments and O&G companies. In many
cases, these actors have different agendas. Therefore, assumptions that it might be
possible to engage in a dialogue where all parties speak the ‘same language’, and
hold similar expectations, are likely to create tensions.
Additionally, participants considered a social investment that contributed to
communities’ dependency as something inherently negative. As noted in Chapter 6,
relationships of dependency often (re)produce hierarchical relations of power
between companies and communities. However, as previously acknowledged, dependency could also be constructed, by O&G companies, with negative moralistic overtones to justify avoiding fully committing to a corporate–community relationship
according to community expectations.
As Ferguson claims “the real questions are not about whether people are or should
be dependent, but rather which forms of dependency are to be promoted and which
discouraged” (Ferguson, 2013, p. 234). In this sense, dependency can be beneficial
if communities are relying upon O&G resources, negotiated through a communitycentred, participatory and meaningful process, in a way that promotes new forms of
belonging and well-being. On the other hand, dependency can be harmful if communities are relying upon O&G resources delivered through hierarchical, patronagebased relationships, which have historically been associated with corruption and
negative impacts on communities (Ferguson 2013, 2015).
The guideline documents that the participants most frequently referred to as
guiding their social investment practice were the IFC Performance Standards and
the World Bank Group Community-Driven Development Principles. My analysis