Lessons Learnt from Corporate Social Investment at PetroSA

By

Table of Contents

5.1INTRODUCTION1

5.2SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS1

Non delivery of sustainable projects1

Lack of communication channels2

Not robust engagement process with local stakeholders2

Lack of strategic management focus2

Lack of clarity of CSI process3

Lack of robustness of the CSI framework system3

Lack of leadership from community stakeholders4

Lack of knowledge on the influence of PetroSA business on the environmental impact4

5.3IMPLICATIONS5

5.4LEARNINGS6

Lack of Coordination between PetroSA and Municipality6

Development by Lagerberg7

Process of Project approval8

5.5RECOMMENDATIONS8

5.6FURTHER RESEARCH9

REFERENCES11

CHAPTER 05: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1INTRODUCTION

In this chapter the researcher will consolidate findings from data that has been captured from various stakeholders and resources. As was mentioned in chapter 1, the scope of this research focus on the challenges faced by PetroSA from the community in which it operates. There seem to be disconnection between PetroSA and community expectations as a result PetroSA seem not to able to fulfill its social objective. The following questions which are elementary to the research problem which is the basis in which the researcher is doing this study will be addressed.

•Why does PetroSA seem not to satisfy expectations of its community stakeholder?

•Is the current PetroSA CSI framework system effective?

•Are the projects being managed successfully?

The research objectives will as a result be heightened which will provide valuable lessons to be learnt by among others, businesses who have operations in the community, the community and the local government.

5.2SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS

The main findings of the study are;

Non delivery of sustainable projects

According to beneficiaries, when PetroSA came into existence they were promised opportunities to be funded on the community projects and they heard from other people that can potentially support the community projects. According to beneficiaries, there are various problems at the moment. There is no follow up, poor communication from PetroSA. There is also always a new person all the time from PetroSA who comes to the community without knowledge of what has been going on. As a result they always have to provide the same information to different people. PetroSA doesn't really know what exactly is going on in the projects they funded. According to participants, they only see PetroSA staff when they want to show somebody else what projects they funded and they don't even let us know in advance they will be coming (Andrews, 2001, 45).

Lack of communication channels

According to beneficiaries, PetroSA is a relevant and important partner except on the issues that were mentioned earlier about monitoring and making follow up on the projects that have been put in place. According to beneficiaries, there is no feedback from the queries that they have submitted to PetroSA.

Not robust engagement process with local stakeholders

According to beneficiaries, they are not aware of any process that was followed in allocating tenders to the suppliers. They feel that the funds that were paid to the suppliers were improperly done because they had no knowledge why these suppliers were paid. They were instructed by PetroSA personnel to pay for work that was not done. These suppliers were not local, some came from Durban and they feel that local suppliers ...