36
3 Literature Review: Social Investment …
where to spend the money on their gift card, among a range of available charitable
projects. This meant that the gift-card recipient had a choice over which project to
move forward, which increased recipients’ self-determination, sense of autonomy,
competence and relatedness (Mulder & Joireman, 2016, p. 236).
This section has explored five different scenarios that may lead O&G social investment to fail and harm communities, with a few exceptions reported on the literature.
Programmes that replicate the same social investment concept and design in different
contexts, that share the oil revenue with a few individuals, that are used as an alternative to the government and that are solely based on philanthropy are likely to harm
host communities. However, the literature on O&G social investment also identifies
the conditions under which O&G social investment may benefit society. I explore
these in the following section.
3.2 Why Do O&G Social Investments Succeed?
According to some research, O&G companies can play a big role in benefiting their
host communities (Idemudia & Ite, 2006; Ite, 2004, 2005). This section explores the
conditions under which this is possible. These are: (1) where O&G social investments
are community-oriented, and (2) where O&G social investments address issues of
local governance.
3.2.1 Community-Centred O&G Social Investment
O&G social investments may be successful if they are community-oriented. ‘Bottomup’ social investment design is the main predictor of a successful social investment (Frynas, 2009a; Gilberthorpe & Banks, 2012; Ite, 2004). Having communities develop their own development plan based on their experiences, talents and
knowledge empowers communities and significantly reduces their dependency on
companies for economic development (Ite, 2004).
For example, Shell in Nigeria has adopted a bottom-up social investment design
through a long history of social investment programmes, dating back to 1960. For
around 20 years, Shell developed a top-down approach towards social investment in
the Niger Delta. However, the people from the Niger Delta—20 million people within
the nine states of the federation—continued to live in poverty. Further, the communities that ‘received’ the social investment benefits became highly dependent upon
the investment resources. With time, the communities incorporated the resources
derived from Shell’s assistance programme and began perceiving the programme’s
resources as operation ‘rent’, rather than as ‘gifts’. After 20 years of developing
community assistance programmes, since 1998, Shell changed its strategies towards
social investment in the Niger Delta. Shell created the Community Development
3 Literature Review: Social Investment …
where to spend the money on their gift card, among a range of available charitable
projects. This meant that the gift-card recipient had a choice over which project to
move forward, which increased recipients’ self-determination, sense of autonomy,
competence and relatedness (Mulder & Joireman, 2016, p. 236).
This section has explored five different scenarios that may lead O&G social investment to fail and harm communities, with a few exceptions reported on the literature.
Programmes that replicate the same social investment concept and design in different
contexts, that share the oil revenue with a few individuals, that are used as an alternative to the government and that are solely based on philanthropy are likely to harm
host communities. However, the literature on O&G social investment also identifies
the conditions under which O&G social investment may benefit society. I explore
these in the following section.
3.2 Why Do O&G Social Investments Succeed?
According to some research, O&G companies can play a big role in benefiting their
host communities (Idemudia & Ite, 2006; Ite, 2004, 2005). This section explores the
conditions under which this is possible. These are: (1) where O&G social investments
are community-oriented, and (2) where O&G social investments address issues of
local governance.
3.2.1 Community-Centred O&G Social Investment
O&G social investments may be successful if they are community-oriented. ‘Bottomup’ social investment design is the main predictor of a successful social investment (Frynas, 2009a; Gilberthorpe & Banks, 2012; Ite, 2004). Having communities develop their own development plan based on their experiences, talents and
knowledge empowers communities and significantly reduces their dependency on
companies for economic development (Ite, 2004).
For example, Shell in Nigeria has adopted a bottom-up social investment design
through a long history of social investment programmes, dating back to 1960. For
around 20 years, Shell developed a top-down approach towards social investment in
the Niger Delta. However, the people from the Niger Delta—20 million people within
the nine states of the federation—continued to live in poverty. Further, the communities that ‘received’ the social investment benefits became highly dependent upon
the investment resources. With time, the communities incorporated the resources
derived from Shell’s assistance programme and began perceiving the programme’s
resources as operation ‘rent’, rather than as ‘gifts’. After 20 years of developing
community assistance programmes, since 1998, Shell changed its strategies towards
social investment in the Niger Delta. Shell created the Community Development