74
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
Social investment based on charity and one-off donations increases communities
and government’s dependency, which is likely to harm society (Ackah-Baidoo, 2012;
Ite, 2004, 2005). The quotes above reveal participants’ reservations regarding social
investment in the form of one-off, top-down gift giving. Although participants, such
as P11 and P3, expressed explicit disapproval of social investment conceptualised in
terms of working on communities, contradictions also emerged when they drew on
working on discourses to describe ‘rewarding’ social investment programmes. In the
following narratives, two social investment experts talked about social investment
programmes that they had found rewarding: “In about two or three weeks that we
spent in the area it was like God came down to save the people” (P4);
If I had to categorise them, to me those are like the best types of social investment because
you are really investing in humans, human beings. You know you are giving them, giving an
individual knowledge, a skill, a trade. (P10)
In both excerpts, the participants clearly intended to ‘do good’ and to assist local
communities. However, apparently, they had not followed any specific ethics codes
to verify the impact generated by the social investment. Further, the participants’
accounts revealed that power was not exercised bilaterally. Rather, the participants
positioned companies as like “God” (P4), and as keepers of “knowledge, a skill and
a trade” (P10). In doing so, these participants positioned the company as agents of
‘development’. In other words, in the excerpt above, the participants’ companies
were positioned as superior entities that knew best.
Within working on discourses, power is operating in a dialectical relationship
between companies and communities, where the company can be seen as occupying an ‘oppressive’ role, in Freirean terms (Freire, 2005; Freire & Macedo, 1995;
Freire & Mellado, 1973). In my research, the interviewees both critiqued working on
discourses in relation to O&G social investment, and took up such discourses when
discussing O&G social investment.
Working on discourses purport to be ‘doing good’ while maintaining hierarchical
power relations with the host community. As discussed in Chapter 4, social investment within such relations of power can be seen as involving acts of ‘false generosity’.
Powerful groups, such as O&G companies, have vested interests in maintaining
power (Macdonald et al., 2002) and “cannot find in this power the strength to liberate
either the oppressed or themselves” (Freire & Mellado, 1973, p. 21) from the relationship. The term ‘false generosity’ (Freire & Macedo, 1995; Freire & Mellado,
1973) refers to the conscious or unconscious efforts of powerful groups to provide
other groups with the impression of a beneficial relationship.
Framing a company as superior to the host community (and the host government)
could be advantageous from a business perspective if it generates an imbalance in
the company–host society relationship. Such an imbalance could then be further
explored and strategically used so that social investment becomes a mechanism of
domination and control (Davis, 1973; Fleming, Roberts, & Garsten, 2013). Where
social investment is grounded in working on discourses, companies may discursively
and materially construct social investment as a way to obtain business advantage.
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
Social investment based on charity and one-off donations increases communities
and government’s dependency, which is likely to harm society (Ackah-Baidoo, 2012;
Ite, 2004, 2005). The quotes above reveal participants’ reservations regarding social
investment in the form of one-off, top-down gift giving. Although participants, such
as P11 and P3, expressed explicit disapproval of social investment conceptualised in
terms of working on communities, contradictions also emerged when they drew on
working on discourses to describe ‘rewarding’ social investment programmes. In the
following narratives, two social investment experts talked about social investment
programmes that they had found rewarding: “In about two or three weeks that we
spent in the area it was like God came down to save the people” (P4);
If I had to categorise them, to me those are like the best types of social investment because
you are really investing in humans, human beings. You know you are giving them, giving an
individual knowledge, a skill, a trade. (P10)
In both excerpts, the participants clearly intended to ‘do good’ and to assist local
communities. However, apparently, they had not followed any specific ethics codes
to verify the impact generated by the social investment. Further, the participants’
accounts revealed that power was not exercised bilaterally. Rather, the participants
positioned companies as like “God” (P4), and as keepers of “knowledge, a skill and
a trade” (P10). In doing so, these participants positioned the company as agents of
‘development’. In other words, in the excerpt above, the participants’ companies
were positioned as superior entities that knew best.
Within working on discourses, power is operating in a dialectical relationship
between companies and communities, where the company can be seen as occupying an ‘oppressive’ role, in Freirean terms (Freire, 2005; Freire & Macedo, 1995;
Freire & Mellado, 1973). In my research, the interviewees both critiqued working on
discourses in relation to O&G social investment, and took up such discourses when
discussing O&G social investment.
Working on discourses purport to be ‘doing good’ while maintaining hierarchical
power relations with the host community. As discussed in Chapter 4, social investment within such relations of power can be seen as involving acts of ‘false generosity’.
Powerful groups, such as O&G companies, have vested interests in maintaining
power (Macdonald et al., 2002) and “cannot find in this power the strength to liberate
either the oppressed or themselves” (Freire & Mellado, 1973, p. 21) from the relationship. The term ‘false generosity’ (Freire & Macedo, 1995; Freire & Mellado,
1973) refers to the conscious or unconscious efforts of powerful groups to provide
other groups with the impression of a beneficial relationship.
Framing a company as superior to the host community (and the host government)
could be advantageous from a business perspective if it generates an imbalance in
the company–host society relationship. Such an imbalance could then be further
explored and strategically used so that social investment becomes a mechanism of
domination and control (Davis, 1973; Fleming, Roberts, & Garsten, 2013). Where
social investment is grounded in working on discourses, companies may discursively
and materially construct social investment as a way to obtain business advantage.