9.2 Addressing the Research Questions
133
In relation to engaging with the company, participants recommended that O&G
experts seek support from peers within the company. Participants drew on both
working around and working with discourses of social investment to discuss engaging
with the company. In particular, participants disagreed about how to persuade O&G
peers to support O&G social investment. Some interviewees used working around
discourses to justify social investment as a tool to address operational interests;
while others adopted working with discourses to justify social investment as a tool
to benefit and support communities. Participants’ use of both working around and
working with discourses may indicate that some participants believed that satisfying
the business’ interests were, somehow, necessary for persuading O&G high executives about the importance of O&G social investment, regardless of their own view on
social investment. Clearly, participants were constantly negotiating the meaning and
purpose of social investment. In particular, participants were required to negotiate
their own views of how best to address communities’ needs and companies’ interests
in profit-making.
9.3 The Research Implications
This research has five key implications for people who work in social investment, or
who are interested in social investment policies, politics and practices. The first is the
need to reconceptualise social investment in more modest terms. The second is that
the Community-Driven Development Principles should be reframed in such a way
that communities are positioned as capable of envisaging social investments, rather
than exclusively managing the programmes. The third is that guideline documents
should include and acknowledge the challenges of social investment and possible
ways to address them. The fourth implication is that, if committed to working with
communities, O&G companies should avoid influencing communities’ perceptions
of their own needs when designing and implementing social investment. Finally,
I propose that O&G companies establish an open dialogue with host governments
prior to social investment design and implementation. I explain each implication in
more depth below.
9.3.1 Implication 1: Reconceptualising Social Investment
in More Modest Terms
In experts’ (and guideline documents’) references to social investment, multiple
functions of social investment were discussed in relation to companies’ attempts to
engage with communities. These included the disclosure of operational activities
(as outlined in the IFC Performance Standards and mainly informed by working on
discourses), a social and/or legal license to operate (mainly informed by working
133
In relation to engaging with the company, participants recommended that O&G
experts seek support from peers within the company. Participants drew on both
working around and working with discourses of social investment to discuss engaging
with the company. In particular, participants disagreed about how to persuade O&G
peers to support O&G social investment. Some interviewees used working around
discourses to justify social investment as a tool to address operational interests;
while others adopted working with discourses to justify social investment as a tool
to benefit and support communities. Participants’ use of both working around and
working with discourses may indicate that some participants believed that satisfying
the business’ interests were, somehow, necessary for persuading O&G high executives about the importance of O&G social investment, regardless of their own view on
social investment. Clearly, participants were constantly negotiating the meaning and
purpose of social investment. In particular, participants were required to negotiate
their own views of how best to address communities’ needs and companies’ interests
in profit-making.
9.3 The Research Implications
This research has five key implications for people who work in social investment, or
who are interested in social investment policies, politics and practices. The first is the
need to reconceptualise social investment in more modest terms. The second is that
the Community-Driven Development Principles should be reframed in such a way
that communities are positioned as capable of envisaging social investments, rather
than exclusively managing the programmes. The third is that guideline documents
should include and acknowledge the challenges of social investment and possible
ways to address them. The fourth implication is that, if committed to working with
communities, O&G companies should avoid influencing communities’ perceptions
of their own needs when designing and implementing social investment. Finally,
I propose that O&G companies establish an open dialogue with host governments
prior to social investment design and implementation. I explain each implication in
more depth below.
9.3.1 Implication 1: Reconceptualising Social Investment
in More Modest Terms
In experts’ (and guideline documents’) references to social investment, multiple
functions of social investment were discussed in relation to companies’ attempts to
engage with communities. These included the disclosure of operational activities
(as outlined in the IFC Performance Standards and mainly informed by working on
discourses), a social and/or legal license to operate (mainly informed by working