76
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
operate. Even if they may not be able to develop the whole country. (P4, social investment
expert)
P1 and P4’s narratives suggest genuine concern for the host community in cases
where government fails to assist them. P1 considered social investment as a way
of supplementing a government’s provision in delivering social goods. Working on
discourses tended to justify O&G company activities in terms of government failure,
but at the same time, those who spoke in this way also highlighted their concerns
about O&G companies performing the role of the government. Arguably, experts
could have used an apparent lack of ‘good government’ as justification for social
investment strategies that provided competitive advantage. However, in my research,
some social investment experts described cases where top-down approaches involved
performing the role of the government, but out of concern for communities, not as a
strategy to obtain business advantage.
O&G social investment that compensates for lack of government fosters the
host community and government’s reliance on the O&G sector for their wellbeing,
resulting in their—communities and governments’—willingness to welcome O&G
activities (Cash, 2012; Frynas, 2005, 2009; Hilson, 2012). By fostering such reliance,
corporations hold themselves socially accountable for the host society, beyond the
host government’s legal expectations, as a source of political empowerment. In this
way, social investments created social dependency upon O&G provisions, which
could threaten the division of power between public and private institutions (Davis,
1960, 1973; Garriga & Melé, 2004).
Contradictions, however, surfaced when participants debated against and/or
argued for social investment based on working on discourses. One example is when
participants censured a top-down and company-centred approach at the same time
that they portrayed themselves the keepers of ‘knowledge’ and ‘development’ when
referring to social investment programmes they found rewarding. Other contradictions that emerged in participants’ use of working on discourses revealed alternative
ways of thinking about social investment, for example, as working around, working
for and working with communities. I discuss working around discourses next.
6.2 Working Around Discourses
Participants drew on working around discourses of social investment when they
discussed social projects that were company-centred. However, working around
discourses of social investment differed from working on discourses because they
referred to community participation in the social investment design. Where participants drew on working around discourses they acknowledged that communities
could impede O&G operations, conferring communities power to interfere in O&G
matters, such as the design and delivery of social investment programmes. In this
vein, both actors (companies and communities) exercised agency and power in
developing social investment (as Fig. 6.2 reveals). Social investment grounded in
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
operate. Even if they may not be able to develop the whole country. (P4, social investment
expert)
P1 and P4’s narratives suggest genuine concern for the host community in cases
where government fails to assist them. P1 considered social investment as a way
of supplementing a government’s provision in delivering social goods. Working on
discourses tended to justify O&G company activities in terms of government failure,
but at the same time, those who spoke in this way also highlighted their concerns
about O&G companies performing the role of the government. Arguably, experts
could have used an apparent lack of ‘good government’ as justification for social
investment strategies that provided competitive advantage. However, in my research,
some social investment experts described cases where top-down approaches involved
performing the role of the government, but out of concern for communities, not as a
strategy to obtain business advantage.
O&G social investment that compensates for lack of government fosters the
host community and government’s reliance on the O&G sector for their wellbeing,
resulting in their—communities and governments’—willingness to welcome O&G
activities (Cash, 2012; Frynas, 2005, 2009; Hilson, 2012). By fostering such reliance,
corporations hold themselves socially accountable for the host society, beyond the
host government’s legal expectations, as a source of political empowerment. In this
way, social investments created social dependency upon O&G provisions, which
could threaten the division of power between public and private institutions (Davis,
1960, 1973; Garriga & Melé, 2004).
Contradictions, however, surfaced when participants debated against and/or
argued for social investment based on working on discourses. One example is when
participants censured a top-down and company-centred approach at the same time
that they portrayed themselves the keepers of ‘knowledge’ and ‘development’ when
referring to social investment programmes they found rewarding. Other contradictions that emerged in participants’ use of working on discourses revealed alternative
ways of thinking about social investment, for example, as working around, working
for and working with communities. I discuss working around discourses next.
6.2 Working Around Discourses
Participants drew on working around discourses of social investment when they
discussed social projects that were company-centred. However, working around
discourses of social investment differed from working on discourses because they
referred to community participation in the social investment design. Where participants drew on working around discourses they acknowledged that communities
could impede O&G operations, conferring communities power to interfere in O&G
matters, such as the design and delivery of social investment programmes. In this
vein, both actors (companies and communities) exercised agency and power in
developing social investment (as Fig. 6.2 reveals). Social investment grounded in