132
9 Closing Reflections
of these documents revealed that the four discourses of social investment that
emerged in the research interviews also appeared in the guideline documents in
complex and conflicting ways. One example is when the IFC Performance Standards
deployed working on discourses when referring to companies having to disclose
operational information to affected communities. The Performance Standards positioned disclosing information as a participatory action, which reflected the recognition that the community should somehow be involved with the company. However,
the document ultimately did not specifically include the community as a participatory
body in the decision-making and design processes of the project, instead positioning
communities as mere recipients of operational information, as in a top-down and
company-centred approach.
The IFC Performance Standards and the World Bank Group Community-Driven
Development’s complex and conflicting adoption of the four discourses of social
investment showed how participants’ contradictory discussion of social investment
were also reflected in the guideline documents participants drew on to guide their
social investment practices. With this in mind, participants’ talk about social investment can be seen as unremarkable, or, to be expected, given the conflicting adoption
of the four discourses of social investment in the guideline documents.
Participants also adopted the four discourses of social investment in conflicting
and concomitant ways when talking about their recommendations for social investment. This can be read as revealing how experts were working both within and
against dominant discourses of social investment that guided company practice, and
how they had to negotiate a challenging discursive terrain when talking about their
recommendations for social investment. Participants’ conflicting recommendations
highlighted the complexity and messiness of social investment practice.
According to the interviewees, four main practices of O&G social investment
should receive special attention. These practices included: (1) considering the
purpose of social investment, (2) engaging with the community, (3) engaging with
the government and (4) engaging with the company. While discussing each of these
practices, participants made key recommendations.
When participants discussed engaging with the community, they drew on working
with discourses to refer to principles of participation, community empowerment
and ownership as critical to developing sound social investment. However, as noted
in Chapter 8, unequal power relations may shape companies’ understandings of
communities’ needs and ‘local knowledge’, leading to social investment approaches
that reflect working on discourses rather than genuinely participatory approaches of
social investment.
In relation to engaging with the government, participants expressed diverse recommendations for and opinions about the role of government in relation to social investment. Experts’ recommendations ranged from the government not having any role in
social investment to the government’s participation in social investment being indispensable for guaranteeing the sustainability of social investment programmes. For
some social investment experts, the government’s non-involvement in social investment matters could hinder O&G experts’ efforts to develop partnerships that were
necessary to the sustainability/maintenance of the social investment programme.
9 Closing Reflections
of these documents revealed that the four discourses of social investment that
emerged in the research interviews also appeared in the guideline documents in
complex and conflicting ways. One example is when the IFC Performance Standards
deployed working on discourses when referring to companies having to disclose
operational information to affected communities. The Performance Standards positioned disclosing information as a participatory action, which reflected the recognition that the community should somehow be involved with the company. However,
the document ultimately did not specifically include the community as a participatory
body in the decision-making and design processes of the project, instead positioning
communities as mere recipients of operational information, as in a top-down and
company-centred approach.
The IFC Performance Standards and the World Bank Group Community-Driven
Development’s complex and conflicting adoption of the four discourses of social
investment showed how participants’ contradictory discussion of social investment
were also reflected in the guideline documents participants drew on to guide their
social investment practices. With this in mind, participants’ talk about social investment can be seen as unremarkable, or, to be expected, given the conflicting adoption
of the four discourses of social investment in the guideline documents.
Participants also adopted the four discourses of social investment in conflicting
and concomitant ways when talking about their recommendations for social investment. This can be read as revealing how experts were working both within and
against dominant discourses of social investment that guided company practice, and
how they had to negotiate a challenging discursive terrain when talking about their
recommendations for social investment. Participants’ conflicting recommendations
highlighted the complexity and messiness of social investment practice.
According to the interviewees, four main practices of O&G social investment
should receive special attention. These practices included: (1) considering the
purpose of social investment, (2) engaging with the community, (3) engaging with
the government and (4) engaging with the company. While discussing each of these
practices, participants made key recommendations.
When participants discussed engaging with the community, they drew on working
with discourses to refer to principles of participation, community empowerment
and ownership as critical to developing sound social investment. However, as noted
in Chapter 8, unequal power relations may shape companies’ understandings of
communities’ needs and ‘local knowledge’, leading to social investment approaches
that reflect working on discourses rather than genuinely participatory approaches of
social investment.
In relation to engaging with the government, participants expressed diverse recommendations for and opinions about the role of government in relation to social investment. Experts’ recommendations ranged from the government not having any role in
social investment to the government’s participation in social investment being indispensable for guaranteeing the sustainability of social investment programmes. For
some social investment experts, the government’s non-involvement in social investment matters could hinder O&G experts’ efforts to develop partnerships that were
necessary to the sustainability/maintenance of the social investment programme.