6.1 Working on Discourses
75
In the excerpts included above, participants either referred to top-down, companycentred social investment with disapproval (as illustrated by P11 and P3), or unintentionally (as illustrated by P4 and P10). However, one interviewee talked openly
about social investment that involved a top-down and company-centred approach,
irrespective of any ethical considerations. When I asked how s/he understood social
investment, P9 replied:
Because in fact when I walk into several projects sometimes they use social investment like
a tool, ok? For compensation strategy or to give, or to influence leaders ok? So, in fact that
is what the objective of social investment. Do you understand me? (P9, social investment
expert)
Here, P9 noted that some social investment was used as a tool to ultimately influence
leaders. Implicit in their comments is an acknowledgement that social investment
constructed in terms of working on discourses did not address the best interests of the
host community. Rather, they positioned working on social investment as a form of
bribery. Fleming et al. (2013) note that the use of such forms of social investment fuels
a profound cynicism in relation to social investment ideals and the activities of large
enterprises. Instead of supporting communities, corporations use social investment as
an instrument of control and exploitation in the name of profit (Davis, 1973; Fleming
et al., 2013).
However, the majority of my interviewees revealed an awareness of the risks of
‘top down’ (working on) social investment, and positioned themselves in opposition to this type of social investment, particularly where used as a substitute for
the government. For example, one interviewee said, “You have to explain that the
company is not here to undertake the responsibility of the government” (P1 social
investment expert), apparently debating his/her position in this regard.
On the other hand, later on in the interview, P1 acknowledged that the company
could take some of the government’s responsibility if the government did not have
the means to support the host community. S/he said:
The situation is very tough and because of the financial crisis and I am very worried that
these people [in the local community] will be the most affected by the crisis because of …
the government, who won’t be able to fight for or support them. So, at the end of the day I
am happy to help in this situation. (P1, social investment expert)
Although P1 understood that the company was not there to perform the role of
the government, s/he saw value in the company supporting the community if the
government was unable or unwilling to do so.
Another interviewee expressed concerns about governments not being able to fulfil
their roles in host societies. P4 suggested that O&G companies had an important role
to play where government was weak:
They [social investments] are found in areas where governments and governors are very weak
all over the world. Just check it from South Africa to far away Russia, Sakhalin to Kazakhstan,
you know all those places all around the world, where you have big oil reserves nowadays
they are countries that there is weak government, there is weak public infrastructure. And
there is corruption and there are a lot of problems and it becomes very very important for the
O&G to able to contribute to the development of the local communities around where they
75
In the excerpts included above, participants either referred to top-down, companycentred social investment with disapproval (as illustrated by P11 and P3), or unintentionally (as illustrated by P4 and P10). However, one interviewee talked openly
about social investment that involved a top-down and company-centred approach,
irrespective of any ethical considerations. When I asked how s/he understood social
investment, P9 replied:
Because in fact when I walk into several projects sometimes they use social investment like
a tool, ok? For compensation strategy or to give, or to influence leaders ok? So, in fact that
is what the objective of social investment. Do you understand me? (P9, social investment
expert)
Here, P9 noted that some social investment was used as a tool to ultimately influence
leaders. Implicit in their comments is an acknowledgement that social investment
constructed in terms of working on discourses did not address the best interests of the
host community. Rather, they positioned working on social investment as a form of
bribery. Fleming et al. (2013) note that the use of such forms of social investment fuels
a profound cynicism in relation to social investment ideals and the activities of large
enterprises. Instead of supporting communities, corporations use social investment as
an instrument of control and exploitation in the name of profit (Davis, 1973; Fleming
et al., 2013).
However, the majority of my interviewees revealed an awareness of the risks of
‘top down’ (working on) social investment, and positioned themselves in opposition to this type of social investment, particularly where used as a substitute for
the government. For example, one interviewee said, “You have to explain that the
company is not here to undertake the responsibility of the government” (P1 social
investment expert), apparently debating his/her position in this regard.
On the other hand, later on in the interview, P1 acknowledged that the company
could take some of the government’s responsibility if the government did not have
the means to support the host community. S/he said:
The situation is very tough and because of the financial crisis and I am very worried that
these people [in the local community] will be the most affected by the crisis because of …
the government, who won’t be able to fight for or support them. So, at the end of the day I
am happy to help in this situation. (P1, social investment expert)
Although P1 understood that the company was not there to perform the role of
the government, s/he saw value in the company supporting the community if the
government was unable or unwilling to do so.
Another interviewee expressed concerns about governments not being able to fulfil
their roles in host societies. P4 suggested that O&G companies had an important role
to play where government was weak:
They [social investments] are found in areas where governments and governors are very weak
all over the world. Just check it from South Africa to far away Russia, Sakhalin to Kazakhstan,
you know all those places all around the world, where you have big oil reserves nowadays
they are countries that there is weak government, there is weak public infrastructure. And
there is corruption and there are a lot of problems and it becomes very very important for the
O&G to able to contribute to the development of the local communities around where they