3.2 Why Do O&G Social Investments Succeed?
39
Studies suggest that O&G industries can assist host nations in addressing macrolevel governance issues such as revenue transparency and accountability via their
own social investment practices (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Frynas, 2009a). Studies
recommend that social investment should focus on assisting the country’s governance processes to operate transparently before developing and implementing social
programmes (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Frynas, 2005, 2009a, 2010). However,
Frynas (2010) argues that most O&G companies are reluctant to play a role in the
host government’s governance role.
Nevertheless, a few companies have faced the challenge, and now play an important role in strengthening the host government and assuring the success of its social
investment (Frynas, 2010). For instance, in 2001 BP made public information of
payments to the Angolan and Azerbaijan governments in respect of productionsharing contracts, taxes and levies (Frynas 2010). By making public all payments—
voluntary and mandatory—made to the host government, O&G companies aimed
to benefit host countries in fighting corruption (Frynas, 2009b). Social investment derived from either voluntary, tax or royalty schemes is more likely to be
fairly distributed by a government whose governance is participatory, transparent,
accountable, honest and fair.
In the following section, I outline some ‘gaps’ in the existing O&G social
investment literature, in order to situate my own research.
3.3 ‘Gaps’ in the Existing Literature
on O&G Social Investment
While considerable research has examined how O&G social investment may harm or
benefit the host society, there are also several areas where further research is needed.
Currently, there is little published that explores the views and understandings of O&G
social investment experts. Most research focusses on O&G managers and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), instead of the experts that develop social investment on the
ground. This research contributes to the current literature on O&G social investment
by analysing the multiple discourses that social investment experts draw on to talk
about social investment, and considering how these discourses may influence social
investment practices and host communities.
Furthermore, the impact of a country’s governance in determining the success of
O&G social investment is also under-researched. Little published work considers
O&G social investment experts’ views of the role of the host country government in
assisting O&G companies to implement social investment effectively. In part, this
research explores social investment experts’ perceptions of host governments’ roles
in O&G social investment.
Despite the existence of literature on O&G social investment, it appears that
limited attention has been given to fully understanding the implications of guideline
documents that social investment experts use to implement social investment in host
39
Studies suggest that O&G industries can assist host nations in addressing macrolevel governance issues such as revenue transparency and accountability via their
own social investment practices (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Frynas, 2009a). Studies
recommend that social investment should focus on assisting the country’s governance processes to operate transparently before developing and implementing social
programmes (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Frynas, 2005, 2009a, 2010). However,
Frynas (2010) argues that most O&G companies are reluctant to play a role in the
host government’s governance role.
Nevertheless, a few companies have faced the challenge, and now play an important role in strengthening the host government and assuring the success of its social
investment (Frynas, 2010). For instance, in 2001 BP made public information of
payments to the Angolan and Azerbaijan governments in respect of productionsharing contracts, taxes and levies (Frynas 2010). By making public all payments—
voluntary and mandatory—made to the host government, O&G companies aimed
to benefit host countries in fighting corruption (Frynas, 2009b). Social investment derived from either voluntary, tax or royalty schemes is more likely to be
fairly distributed by a government whose governance is participatory, transparent,
accountable, honest and fair.
In the following section, I outline some ‘gaps’ in the existing O&G social
investment literature, in order to situate my own research.
3.3 ‘Gaps’ in the Existing Literature
on O&G Social Investment
While considerable research has examined how O&G social investment may harm or
benefit the host society, there are also several areas where further research is needed.
Currently, there is little published that explores the views and understandings of O&G
social investment experts. Most research focusses on O&G managers and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), instead of the experts that develop social investment on the
ground. This research contributes to the current literature on O&G social investment
by analysing the multiple discourses that social investment experts draw on to talk
about social investment, and considering how these discourses may influence social
investment practices and host communities.
Furthermore, the impact of a country’s governance in determining the success of
O&G social investment is also under-researched. Little published work considers
O&G social investment experts’ views of the role of the host country government in
assisting O&G companies to implement social investment effectively. In part, this
research explores social investment experts’ perceptions of host governments’ roles
in O&G social investment.
Despite the existence of literature on O&G social investment, it appears that
limited attention has been given to fully understanding the implications of guideline
documents that social investment experts use to implement social investment in host