6.2 Working Around Discourses
79
gain a social license to operate, there should be “an equitable balance, or harmony,
between different societal interests that allow a specific activity to continue and to
thrive” (Morrison, 2014 p. 2). When talking about a social license, P7 and P11 also
referred to social investment as an involving mutually beneficial relationship between
companies and communities.
However, the understanding that social investment should seek an operational
license, while benefiting the community is contradictory. This is because obtaining
social operational license through social investment is constructed by companycentred discourses (as Fig. 6.2 illustrated), meaning that the operation license is
the driver of the social investment programme. Company-centred concerns may not
always align with community concern (as noted in Chapter 2). Consequently, within
working around discourses, company-centeredness can constrain social investment’s
capacity to benefit host communities.
The ideal of achieving a balance between communities and businesses’ interests
(see P7 and P 11, and Morrison 2014) may not be realistic when you consider that
O&G prospection and production activities impact host communities in the first place
(Goodland, 2006; Norlen, 2005; Redford, 2006; Selverston-Scher, 2000). Arguably,
there is a fundamental unbalance in the company–community relationship, which
is likely to shape social investment programmes that aim to primarily benefit O&G
companies.
In my study, within working around discourses, the social license to operate
also related to compensatory claims. For example, participants described a need to
‘give back’ a proportion of the company profits, thereby ‘benefiting’ communities.
A couple of participants explain this below:
Our business operations, or our business planning or just our way of operating has to involve
giving something to a place where [we] are deriving profits and I think that even if we have
our oil prices, you know, going down, and the problems that they [O&G companies] are
facing now… it can be argued that companies still are the big ones, the larger ones are still
for the most part profitable. I think it is just a central way of just doing business that you got
to invest something in countries where you are coming to take something from. (P10, social
investment expert)
P10 talked about benefiting the community through compensation. Compensation
implies making up for someone’s loss and/or damage. A construction of social investment as compensation can be seen as an intention with a view of programmes aimed
as benefiting communities, since company actions are associated with mitigating
(compensating for) harm. Additionally, although not explicitly, P10’s narrative indicated a level of ‘apprehension’ about companies taking the community’s natural
resources and generating impacts through O&G operations without compensation,
as in “you got to invest something in countries here you are coming to take something
from” (P10 social investment expert).
Similarly, working around discourses were also found in narratives that described
social investment as a way to manage or mitigate the risks of O&G operations.
Participant P3 explained her/is role: “And so social investment was one of my key
role[s]. [I had to] understand those risks and put the right strategy for mitigation
of risks as well as of execution of strategy” (P3, social investment expert). Another
79
gain a social license to operate, there should be “an equitable balance, or harmony,
between different societal interests that allow a specific activity to continue and to
thrive” (Morrison, 2014 p. 2). When talking about a social license, P7 and P11 also
referred to social investment as an involving mutually beneficial relationship between
companies and communities.
However, the understanding that social investment should seek an operational
license, while benefiting the community is contradictory. This is because obtaining
social operational license through social investment is constructed by companycentred discourses (as Fig. 6.2 illustrated), meaning that the operation license is
the driver of the social investment programme. Company-centred concerns may not
always align with community concern (as noted in Chapter 2). Consequently, within
working around discourses, company-centeredness can constrain social investment’s
capacity to benefit host communities.
The ideal of achieving a balance between communities and businesses’ interests
(see P7 and P 11, and Morrison 2014) may not be realistic when you consider that
O&G prospection and production activities impact host communities in the first place
(Goodland, 2006; Norlen, 2005; Redford, 2006; Selverston-Scher, 2000). Arguably,
there is a fundamental unbalance in the company–community relationship, which
is likely to shape social investment programmes that aim to primarily benefit O&G
companies.
In my study, within working around discourses, the social license to operate
also related to compensatory claims. For example, participants described a need to
‘give back’ a proportion of the company profits, thereby ‘benefiting’ communities.
A couple of participants explain this below:
Our business operations, or our business planning or just our way of operating has to involve
giving something to a place where [we] are deriving profits and I think that even if we have
our oil prices, you know, going down, and the problems that they [O&G companies] are
facing now… it can be argued that companies still are the big ones, the larger ones are still
for the most part profitable. I think it is just a central way of just doing business that you got
to invest something in countries where you are coming to take something from. (P10, social
investment expert)
P10 talked about benefiting the community through compensation. Compensation
implies making up for someone’s loss and/or damage. A construction of social investment as compensation can be seen as an intention with a view of programmes aimed
as benefiting communities, since company actions are associated with mitigating
(compensating for) harm. Additionally, although not explicitly, P10’s narrative indicated a level of ‘apprehension’ about companies taking the community’s natural
resources and generating impacts through O&G operations without compensation,
as in “you got to invest something in countries here you are coming to take something
from” (P10 social investment expert).
Similarly, working around discourses were also found in narratives that described
social investment as a way to manage or mitigate the risks of O&G operations.
Participant P3 explained her/is role: “And so social investment was one of my key
role[s]. [I had to] understand those risks and put the right strategy for mitigation
of risks as well as of execution of strategy” (P3, social investment expert). Another