80
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
participant, also gave an example as to how social investment could be used to
‘cushion’ the impacts of O&G activities:
Well some of them (social investments) are very important to cushion the effects of O&G
operations. And I give you one quick example: when you go to an area, a community in a
river in [names country], where the means of transportation is water… You do navigation on
rivers for travel and trade. If you’ve been in O&G operations, then, you will have big vessels
travelling the same narrow waterways with small community vessels. So we definitely have
to do something around [a] marine safety campaign. But it [safety campaigning] also happens
to manage your operations so that you don’t create accidents. (P4, social investment expert)
P4 aligned social investment with safety procedures. While P4 talked about how
O&G social investment could be used to mitigate the impacts of O&G activities,
s/he also mentioned that such social investment was not a legal requirement: “We
call it social investment because we recognise that some of the investment that you
do to benefit the communities and the local area where we operate, some of them are
voluntary, which is normal Corporate Social Responsibility” (P4, social investment
expert).
P4’s acknowledgement that some social investment was voluntary introduced
another facet of working around discourses. Often social investment under working
around discourses was developed through a voluntary scheme, where a company’s
social investment goes beyond legislative compliance (Gunningham et al., 2004;
Morrison, 2014). Participants’ quotes suggested that their concern with benefiting
the community reflected: (1) acknowledgement of the dangers and impacts of O&G
activities, and (2) how they did not entirely agree with some of the companies’
activities. Yet, as O&G company employees, participants were constrained by institutional discourses and practices within the broader O&G realm. In order to work
‘within/against’ dominant institutional discourses (Lather, 2008), participants looked
for alternative ways to deal with tensions between their own beliefs and company
practices. For example, in the excerpts above, some participants saw social investment as a compensatory arrangement that allowed for their own ‘peace of mind’,
regardless of a country’s legal requirements for O&G operations.
Participants also challenged social investment used for legal compliance purposes.
Some drew on working for discourses to speak about social investment developed in
response to legal requirements. I turn to working for discourses now.
6.3 Working for Discourses
Participants drew on working for discourses of social investment when they discussed
social projects developed to meet a legal requirement. In this form of social investment, social programmes were used by the State to complement its development
efforts. In this case, O&G companies had to develop social investment according to
the government’s instructions and demands in order to secure an operational license.
In this sense, power relations were one-way, and top-down, but government-centred
(Fig. 6.3).
6 Social Investment Discourses in Participants’ Interviews
participant, also gave an example as to how social investment could be used to
‘cushion’ the impacts of O&G activities:
Well some of them (social investments) are very important to cushion the effects of O&G
operations. And I give you one quick example: when you go to an area, a community in a
river in [names country], where the means of transportation is water… You do navigation on
rivers for travel and trade. If you’ve been in O&G operations, then, you will have big vessels
travelling the same narrow waterways with small community vessels. So we definitely have
to do something around [a] marine safety campaign. But it [safety campaigning] also happens
to manage your operations so that you don’t create accidents. (P4, social investment expert)
P4 aligned social investment with safety procedures. While P4 talked about how
O&G social investment could be used to mitigate the impacts of O&G activities,
s/he also mentioned that such social investment was not a legal requirement: “We
call it social investment because we recognise that some of the investment that you
do to benefit the communities and the local area where we operate, some of them are
voluntary, which is normal Corporate Social Responsibility” (P4, social investment
expert).
P4’s acknowledgement that some social investment was voluntary introduced
another facet of working around discourses. Often social investment under working
around discourses was developed through a voluntary scheme, where a company’s
social investment goes beyond legislative compliance (Gunningham et al., 2004;
Morrison, 2014). Participants’ quotes suggested that their concern with benefiting
the community reflected: (1) acknowledgement of the dangers and impacts of O&G
activities, and (2) how they did not entirely agree with some of the companies’
activities. Yet, as O&G company employees, participants were constrained by institutional discourses and practices within the broader O&G realm. In order to work
‘within/against’ dominant institutional discourses (Lather, 2008), participants looked
for alternative ways to deal with tensions between their own beliefs and company
practices. For example, in the excerpts above, some participants saw social investment as a compensatory arrangement that allowed for their own ‘peace of mind’,
regardless of a country’s legal requirements for O&G operations.
Participants also challenged social investment used for legal compliance purposes.
Some drew on working for discourses to speak about social investment developed in
response to legal requirements. I turn to working for discourses now.
6.3 Working for Discourses
Participants drew on working for discourses of social investment when they discussed
social projects developed to meet a legal requirement. In this form of social investment, social programmes were used by the State to complement its development
efforts. In this case, O&G companies had to develop social investment according to
the government’s instructions and demands in order to secure an operational license.
In this sense, power relations were one-way, and top-down, but government-centred
(Fig. 6.3).