24
2 The Study Context
Others countries that have had well established local content policies are Angola
(Wiig, 2001; CRES, 2008; Teka, 2011), Nigeria (Adedeji et al., 2016; Oyejide
& Adewuyi, 2011), Brazil (Mendonça & de Oliveira, 2013), Kazakhstan (Wilson
& Kuszewski, 2011; Esteves, Coyne, & Moreno, 2013), Venezuela (IBP, 2009),
Indonesia (Hackenbruch & Pluess, 2011; Esteves et al., 2013), Trinidad and Tobago
(Sigam & Garcia, 2012) and Yemen (Esteves et al., 2013). All these countries, with
exception of Yemen, have clearly defined legislations for local procurement, hiring
of local workers and penalties for non-compliance (Ngoasong, 2014).
2.4 Summary
Although international banks and the extractive industries claim that O&G activities
benefit the host society, these ‘benefits’ are debatable. Albeit the positive impacts
that O&G activities and revenues may generate, the substantial negative impacts of
O&G activities cannot be denied and have been extensively reported (Cash, 2012;
Chen, 2008; Costa & Lopes, 2008; Devold, 2013; Egyir, 2012; Finer, Jenkins, Pimm,
Keane, & Ross, 2008; Goodland, 2006; Hilson, 2012; IPIECA, 2004; Okafor, 2007;
Pegg, 2006; Prno & Scott Slocombe, 2012; Raufflet, Cruz, & Bres, 2014; Rone, 2003;
Westlund & Thurber, 2010). The social impacts of O&G Upstream and Midstream
activities are multiple, with this chapter outlining some of the major direct and indirect
social impacts of O&G activities.
According to the literature, social investments in the O&G sector are mainly a
response to such impacts in the form of compensation or impact mitigation projects
(Gilberthorpe & Banks, 2012). However, the literature on O&G social investment
demonstrates that the way social investment is practised may harm communities.
The following chapter explores the literature that reports on social investment
programmes in the O&G sector and the outcomes of such programmes for host
communities. This literature suggests that specific factors shape whether O&G social
investment programmes fail or succeed in benefiting host societies, as the next chapter
demonstrates.
References
Ablo, A. D. (2015). Local content and participation in Ghana’s oil and gas industry: Can enterprise
development make a difference? The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(2), 320–327.
Ackah-Baidoo, A. (2012). Enclave development and ‘offshore corporate social responsibility’:
Implications for oil-rich sub-Saharan Africa. Resources Policy, 37(2), 152–159.
Adedeji, A. N., Sidique, S. F., Rahman, A. A., & Law, S. H. (2016). The role of local content policy
in local value creation in Nigeria’s oil industry: A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.
Resources Policy, 49, 61–73.
Allan, R. N. (2009). Virtual research environments: From portals to science gateways. New Delphi:
Elsevier.
2 The Study Context
Others countries that have had well established local content policies are Angola
(Wiig, 2001; CRES, 2008; Teka, 2011), Nigeria (Adedeji et al., 2016; Oyejide
& Adewuyi, 2011), Brazil (Mendonça & de Oliveira, 2013), Kazakhstan (Wilson
& Kuszewski, 2011; Esteves, Coyne, & Moreno, 2013), Venezuela (IBP, 2009),
Indonesia (Hackenbruch & Pluess, 2011; Esteves et al., 2013), Trinidad and Tobago
(Sigam & Garcia, 2012) and Yemen (Esteves et al., 2013). All these countries, with
exception of Yemen, have clearly defined legislations for local procurement, hiring
of local workers and penalties for non-compliance (Ngoasong, 2014).
2.4 Summary
Although international banks and the extractive industries claim that O&G activities
benefit the host society, these ‘benefits’ are debatable. Albeit the positive impacts
that O&G activities and revenues may generate, the substantial negative impacts of
O&G activities cannot be denied and have been extensively reported (Cash, 2012;
Chen, 2008; Costa & Lopes, 2008; Devold, 2013; Egyir, 2012; Finer, Jenkins, Pimm,
Keane, & Ross, 2008; Goodland, 2006; Hilson, 2012; IPIECA, 2004; Okafor, 2007;
Pegg, 2006; Prno & Scott Slocombe, 2012; Raufflet, Cruz, & Bres, 2014; Rone, 2003;
Westlund & Thurber, 2010). The social impacts of O&G Upstream and Midstream
activities are multiple, with this chapter outlining some of the major direct and indirect
social impacts of O&G activities.
According to the literature, social investments in the O&G sector are mainly a
response to such impacts in the form of compensation or impact mitigation projects
(Gilberthorpe & Banks, 2012). However, the literature on O&G social investment
demonstrates that the way social investment is practised may harm communities.
The following chapter explores the literature that reports on social investment
programmes in the O&G sector and the outcomes of such programmes for host
communities. This literature suggests that specific factors shape whether O&G social
investment programmes fail or succeed in benefiting host societies, as the next chapter
demonstrates.
References
Ablo, A. D. (2015). Local content and participation in Ghana’s oil and gas industry: Can enterprise
development make a difference? The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(2), 320–327.
Ackah-Baidoo, A. (2012). Enclave development and ‘offshore corporate social responsibility’:
Implications for oil-rich sub-Saharan Africa. Resources Policy, 37(2), 152–159.
Adedeji, A. N., Sidique, S. F., Rahman, A. A., & Law, S. H. (2016). The role of local content policy
in local value creation in Nigeria’s oil industry: A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.
Resources Policy, 49, 61–73.
Allan, R. N. (2009). Virtual research environments: From portals to science gateways. New Delphi:
Elsevier.