138
9 Closing Reflections
investment guideline documents construct social investment, and whether they use
the four discourses identified in this research.
9.5 Research Contributions
As mentioned in Chapter 1, several countries are in the process of shifting their
main energy streams from fossil crudes to alternative renewable resources (Bergek,
Hekkert, & Jacobsson, 2008; Kern & Smith, 2008; Mathiesen, Lund, & Nørgaard,
2008; Strunz, Gawel, & Lehmann, 2016). This suggests that the lifespan of the O&G
sector is limited. Once O&G companies become less profitable, this may affect
how much funding companies set aside for social investment. However, if social
investment is conceptualised as a tool for impact mitigation or compensation, then
social investment is likely to continue, regardless of the sector’s profitability.
Although the O&G industry might have a limited lifespan, the current research
could inform social investment in the extractive and renewable energy sectors more
broadly. Renewable energy operations and extractive industries impact local environments in myriad ways, and social investment may be deployed as a tool of impact
mitigation and compensation beyond the O&G sector. Consequently, this research
could offer valuable insights for social investment experts and/or academics working
outside O&G, in the extractive and renewable energy sectors.
In my review of the social investment literature, I noted that no published research
has explored the complexity of social investment experts’ positioning in O&G companies, or the different ways in which experts construct social investment. My book
makes a new contribution in this regard. It reveals how O&G personnel are influenced by different, often conflicting agendas, shaped by community group, O&G
industry, and national and local government agendas. At the same time, within
the asymmetric, contradictory and multi-levelled power relations that shape their
work, social investment personnel actively construct social investment in particular
ways, working within/against (Lather, 2006) specific guideline and/or institutional
constraints, and constructing themselves as experts who are accountable for social
investment outcomes.
As noted, some potential participants were suspicious about the research, revealing
the vulnerable positioning (professional isolation) of social investment experts in
O&G companies. My hope is that this research provides social investment experts
with a kind of ‘collective space’ in which the ambiguities and contradictions of their
daily work are acknowledged and critically considered, offering insights that can
inform their work negotiating the relationships between companies and communities.
9 Closing Reflections
investment guideline documents construct social investment, and whether they use
the four discourses identified in this research.
9.5 Research Contributions
As mentioned in Chapter 1, several countries are in the process of shifting their
main energy streams from fossil crudes to alternative renewable resources (Bergek,
Hekkert, & Jacobsson, 2008; Kern & Smith, 2008; Mathiesen, Lund, & Nørgaard,
2008; Strunz, Gawel, & Lehmann, 2016). This suggests that the lifespan of the O&G
sector is limited. Once O&G companies become less profitable, this may affect
how much funding companies set aside for social investment. However, if social
investment is conceptualised as a tool for impact mitigation or compensation, then
social investment is likely to continue, regardless of the sector’s profitability.
Although the O&G industry might have a limited lifespan, the current research
could inform social investment in the extractive and renewable energy sectors more
broadly. Renewable energy operations and extractive industries impact local environments in myriad ways, and social investment may be deployed as a tool of impact
mitigation and compensation beyond the O&G sector. Consequently, this research
could offer valuable insights for social investment experts and/or academics working
outside O&G, in the extractive and renewable energy sectors.
In my review of the social investment literature, I noted that no published research
has explored the complexity of social investment experts’ positioning in O&G companies, or the different ways in which experts construct social investment. My book
makes a new contribution in this regard. It reveals how O&G personnel are influenced by different, often conflicting agendas, shaped by community group, O&G
industry, and national and local government agendas. At the same time, within
the asymmetric, contradictory and multi-levelled power relations that shape their
work, social investment personnel actively construct social investment in particular
ways, working within/against (Lather, 2006) specific guideline and/or institutional
constraints, and constructing themselves as experts who are accountable for social
investment outcomes.
As noted, some potential participants were suspicious about the research, revealing
the vulnerable positioning (professional isolation) of social investment experts in
O&G companies. My hope is that this research provides social investment experts
with a kind of ‘collective space’ in which the ambiguities and contradictions of their
daily work are acknowledged and critically considered, offering insights that can
inform their work negotiating the relationships between companies and communities.