Arctic petroleum's community impacts: Local perceptions from Hammerfest, Norway

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

j ou rn a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c om / l o c a t e / e r s s

Original research article

Arctic petroleum’s community impacts: Local perceptions from Hammerfest, Norway

Julia S.P. Loe

^a,∗

, Ilan Kelman

^b,c

aFridtjofNansenInstitute(FNI),P.O.Box326,1326Lysaker,Norway

bUniversityCollegeLondon,IRDR,GowerStreet,LondonWC1E6BT,UK

cNorwegianInstituteofInternationalAffairs(NUPI),C.J.HambrosPlass2D,PB8159Dep,0033Oslo,Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received31August2015

Receivedinrevisedform11March2016 Accepted15March2016

Availableonline25March2016

Keywords:

Arctic Petroleum

CorporateSocialResponsibility(CSR) NorthernNorway

a b s t r a c t

ThisarticleexaminesperceptionsofpetroleumdevelopmentsintheNorwegianArctictownofHammer- fest,especiallyinthecontextofCorporateSocialResponsibility(CSR).Basedoneighteensemi-structured interviewsconductedinHammerfest,theperceivedeffectsofpetroleumdevelopmentsareidentiﬁedand discussed.Localsupportforpetroleumactivityishigh,particularlygiventheupsurgeinjobopportuni- tiesandeconomicrippleeffects,bothofwhichareconsideredessentialtothecommunity’ssurvival.

Environmentalconcernsandoppositiontooilandgasarelargelyascribedtoexternalforcesanddonot featureasmuchinthelocals’perceptions.WhileCSRisnotpartoftheinterviewees’vocabulary,the localpopulationhasclearexpectationsandviewsaboutpetroleumcompanies’responsibilitiestotheir community.InordertograspthefullpictureoftheArcticpetroleumdebate,itisimportanttoacknowl- edgethatexpectations,desires,andrealityonthegroundwillsometimesdivergestronglyfromnon-local considerations.

1. Introduction

Overthepastdecade,thepetroleumindustryhasincreasingly focusedonArcticoffshoreoilandgas.Asclimatechangemeltsthe seaice,vasthydrocarbonresourcesareassumedtobecomemore available.ManyparticipantsinpublicandacademicdebatesonArc- ticpetroleumhavehighlightedthenegativeimpactoflarge-scale industrialdevelopments[40,63,76],andtherisksofdevelopingoil andgasresourcesinaregionoftendescribedaspristineandeco- logicallyvulnerable[6,35,36,39].Additionally,thereisopposition tothedevelopmentofoilandgasproductioninnewareas,because itwouldincreasefossilfuelemissionsatatimewherethereisa needtomitigateclimatechange.

While someare againstArcticpetroleum developmentalto- gether, others, focusing on the local impacts emphasize the potentialforlimitingthenegativecommunityimpactsbyimple- menting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)[18,45] implying thatpetroleumcompaniestakeonasigniﬁcantresponsibilityfor ensuring the social and environmental well-being of locations affectedbypetroleumexplorationandextraction.

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](J.S.P.Loe),ilan[email protected](I.Kelman).

Whiletherehasbeenonshorehydrocarbonproductioninthe Arcticsincethe1960s,onlytwoArcticoffshorefieldsofsignificant scalehavecomeonstreamsofar:theSnowWhitenaturalgasfield inHammerfest,NorwayandthePrirazlomnoyeoilfieldinRussia.

TheRussiancase,however,isorganizedinawaythatgivesmin- imalimpactonthemainland.ThemunicipalityofHammerfestin NorthernNorwayisthereforearguablysofartheArcticcommunity mostaffectedbyArcticoffshorepetroleum.

The“SnowWhite”(Snøhvit)ﬁeldwastheﬁrstdiscoverytobe developed intheBarents Seawithproductionstarting in 2007.

ThegasistransportedbyseabedpipelinetolandinHammerfest whereitistransformedintoliqueﬁednaturalgas(LNG)attheMilk Islandplant,whichislocatedonlyfourkilometersawayfromthe towncenter.WithoilproductionduetostartatthenearbyGoliath (Goliat)ﬁeldin2016,Hammerfestoffersauniqueopportunityto studythecommunityimpactsofoffshorepetroleumdevelopments intheArctic.Thisarticleexploreslocalperceptionsoftheimpactof thesetwodevelopments,examiningtheviewsoftheresidentsof Hammerfestregardingwhatpetroleumdevelopmenthasbrought forthem andwhattheyexpectfromthepetroleumcompanies.

Datawereobtainedbymeansof18semi-structuredin-depthinter- viewswithrepresentativesofHammerfest’spopulation,including membersofthepublic,localpoliticians,andrepresentativesfrom various sectors,suchas petroleum,tourism,mediaand ﬁshery,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.008

0/).

(2)

cultureandeducation.Thestudyendeavorstoanswertwomain researchquestions.

1.HowdoesthelocalcommunityinasmallArctictownperceive theeffectsoflarge-scalepetroleumdevelopment?

2.Whatresponsibilitiesdorepresentativesofthelocalcommunity thinkpetroleumcompaniesshouldshoulderonbehalfofsociety andthenaturalenvironment?

Thequalitative,bottom-upapproachadoptedforthisresearch respondstoenergyresearchgapsidentiﬁedbySovacool([59]:1) indicatingadivisionbetweenacademicenergystudiesandthereal- lifeperspectivesconsideredimportantbymanydecision-makers.

Hearguesthatinenergyresearch,manysocialandhumanitarian disciplineshavebeentreatedassecondarytothe“hard”or“objec- tive”disciplinessuchaseconomics,statisticsandengineeringand encouragesabroadeningoftheﬁeldwithmoreinterdisciplinary researchthatapplies“humancenteredmethodsofdatacollection”

including“researchinterviews,focus groupsandﬁeld research”

[59]:25–26).Thisarticlehopestoﬁllpartofthisgapbypresenting perceptionsofrealityandattitudestolocalpetroleumactivities ofthepublicandofrepresentativesofgovernmentandindustry, targetingabroadacademicaudiencewithaninterestin energy research,butalsooftheroleandresponsibilitiesofbusinessesto societyandcommunitydevelopment.

ThenextsectionprovidesbackgroundtoCSRandtheArctic followedbythemethodologysection.Resultsofthestudyarepro- videdinSection5,andanalyzed,discussed,andcontextualizedin Section6.Thelastsectionconcludesandsynthesizesthearticle’s mainﬁndings.

2. CSRandtheArctic

PetroleumexplorationandextractionintheArctichavelong beenacontroversialtopic[26,53,55,75].Viewsrangefromthose ofNGOssuchasGreenpeaceU.S.A.whowant“tomaketheArctic offlimitstooilexplorationanddevelopment”¹—tothoseofgroups activelycallingfortheopeningupoftheArcticandotherareas theoiland gasindustry.Thislatter attitudeisepitomizedby a slogandevisedbypoliticiansintheU.S.RepublicanParty:“drill, baby,drill.”Localcommunitiesandindigenouspeoplesareoften caughtinthemiddle,attractedbytheopportunitiescreatedby petroleumand ashareinthebeneﬁts,whilewantingtocontrol theadverseimpacts.See,forexample,withregardtoCanada’sArc- tic[17,16],whileinteractionbetweenthepetroleumindustryand localstakeholdersintheRussianArctichasbeencoveredbye.g.

Refs.[19,62,65].

Fundamentally,manyArcticcommunities,bothindigenousand non-indigenous,oftensimplywishtobefullyconsultedandhavea strongsayindecisionsregardingresourceexplorationandextrac- tion[11,66]andtoensurethatcompaniesobtainasociallicenseto operate[73]beforestartingpetroleumactivities.TheyseeinCSR onepossibilityforachievingthatbalance[45,75].Whilethispaper reviewssomeoftheliteratureonthetopic,itwouldbebeyond thepaper’sscopetoreviewofeveryrelevantcontributioninevery implicateddiscipline.

InternationalinterestinCSRhasbeengrowinginrecentdecades, althoughconceptionsofwhatCSRmeansrhetoricallyandinprac- ticevarywidely(e.g.Refs.[3,10,48]).Theyincludeviewssuchas

“TheSocialResponsibilityofBusinessIstoIncreaseItsProﬁts”[25]

basedonthetheorythatbusinessesinafunctioningmarketecon- omyautomaticallycontributetoemploymentandgeneralwelfare

1 http://petitions.moveon.org/greenpeace/sign/stop-shell-from-drilling-2.

byfulﬁllingtheireconomicresponsibility,hencenomorerespon- sibilityisneededfrombusiness.Thisperspectivehasbeenwidely criticized(e.g.Feldman,2007).CSRisincreasinglybeenunderstood inbroaderterms,encompassingtopicssuchasdisclosure[31]to recognizingtheharmCSRcando[34].Manyargumentsconverge ontheusefulnessofintegrating CSRintoallbusiness activities, beneﬁtingbusinesses atvarious levelsthroughbalancing good- willandeconomiclogic,forexample[7,8,54].Someauthorsare notconvinced,however.CSRcannotinducecompaniestotakethe responsibilitythatisactuallyneededtobeeffective,theysay[14].

TheseviewsanddifferencesarepresentintheliteratureonCSR inthepetroleumsectorandonplacingCSRinwidercontextsforthe industryandaffectedpopulations.Attimes,thepetroleumindustry istoutedasoneoftheCSRleadersintheoryandinpractice[27].

Elsewhere,thepetroleumsectorhasbeenaccusedofgreenwashing [68],particularlyinfailingtoaccountforthewiderconsequences ofexploringandextractingpetroleumsuchasclimatechangeand dependencyonaﬁniteresource.ManyauthorssuggestthatCSR investigationsoftenunderrepresentpartieswhoseperspectivesare notparticularlycorporateorbusinessfriendly([58]:95;[20]:25).

Theyhaveperhapsspurredtheincreaseinstudiesofon-the-ground perspectives.

ThewideliteratureonCSRandoilprovidesmanylessonsbut alsohasdisplaysmanygapsinknowledgeoftheArcticcontext.

Authorsexploringoilcompanyemployeeattitudes[18]andgov- ernmentroles[4]indicatetheimportanceofinvolvingallplayers ininvestigatingandenactingCSR.Itisnotjustaboutcompany(or shareholders,e.g.Ref.[52])andcommunitydecisions.Instead− andparticularlygivenhowmuchattentiontheArcticgarners—even thosefarremovedphysicallyfromArcticsites,suchasemployees incompanyheadquartersorgovernmentsintheSouth,haveroles, responsibilities,andinterestsregardingcorporateactionsforArctic petroleum.

Because this article explores local perceptions of petroleum developmentalsointhecontextofCSR,rather thansubscribing toaspecificdefinitionofthetermCSR,weacknowledgeinstead thediverseandoftendivergentviews,usingthesedifferencesasa basisforunderstandingtheperspectivesofresidentsofHammer- fest.Andintermsoftranslationandculturaldifferences,imposing aspecificCSRdefinitiononintervieweesfromthebeginningcould produceleadingquestions.Instead,weseektoexplorelocalviews inHammerfest,incorporatingbutnotlimitedtodimensionsofCSR.

Giventhisarticle’sfocusonNorway,itmakessensetoreview Norwegian attitudes to CSR. CSR has often been discussed in relationtoNorwegian companiesoperating abroad[33,43], but is increasingly applied to corporate operations within Norway [29,44].AccordingtotheNorwegianParliament’swhitepaperon CSR,CSRdesignatesamongotherthings“whichresponsibilitybusi- nessesshouldtakeonforhumans,societyandenvironmentthat are affectedby thebusiness activity”([67]:7).Thisis more of a framework thana definition,perhapsillustrating thedeliber- ateNorwegianapproachofkeepingthefocusonpolicyrelevance andpracticalimplementationthanenteringintodetaileddefini- tionaldebatesthatarewellcoveredinthescientificliterature(e.g.

Refs.[15,21]).Norwegiansperceivethemselvestobeenvironmen- tallyresponsible(e.g.Refs.[50,51]),alsowithrespecttopetroleum explorationandextraction.Norwaywastheﬁrstcountrytorat- ifyILO Convention169Indigenous andTribalPeoplesConvention, 1989(neither SwedennorFinlandhasdoneso)and theindige- nouspeople(theSámi)havesigniﬁcantlandrights,especiallyin thenorthernmostcountyofFinnmark.Theseexamplessetthestage forunderstandingNorwegianviewsonNorway’soilandgassector, includingitsoperationsintheArctic.

Although petroleum is Norway’s most important industry, certainpolitical factionsoppose exploration in someareas due toenvironmental concerns and conﬂictinginterests withother

(3)

industries,suchasﬁsheries[42].Additionally,Norwayisoftendis- cussed as themodel of a petro-state[12],extracting resources responsiblyandinvestingthemoneyinthecountrytodevelopa supportivesocialwelfarestateandplansforthepost-petroleum future. Norway, for example, has the world’s largest sovereign wealthfund,ostensiblytosupportpensionsinperpetuitybutalso toprotecttheNorwegianeconomyfromoilpriceﬂuctuations.

Interms of CSR’senvironmentaldimensions,Norway isalso seenasanenvironmentallyfriendlycountry,withbothpeopleand politicssupportingprogressivepoliciesonclimatechange,environ- mentalprotection,andresponsibleresourceextraction.Thetruth ismorecomplicated,andNorway’senvironmentalismisrootedin conflict.For instance,DeepEcology [47]emerged fromprotests overtheconstructionofriverdamsandpollutionfromthepulp and paper industry in settlements in Norway’s north.Environ- mentalpoliticscontinuestobecomplicated.OrderudandKelman [51]showthelackofconvergencebetweenNorwegianpolitical partiesandthetraditionalone-dimensionalaxisoftheleftaspro- environmentandtherightasanti-environment.Instead,theseven mainpoliticalpartiestendtopositionthemselvesindifferentplaces alongtwoaxes,left/rightandgreen/non-green.Proportionalrep- resentationinParliamentmeansthatsmallerpartiescanhavea significantinfluenceonnationalpolicy,sometimespreventingor sparkingresourcedevelopment.

In the Norwegian Arctic, an earlier case study of theSnow WhiteprojectconcludedthatresultsofCSRinitiativesinHammer- festwereimperfectinsofaras“CSRattempts tocurtailnegative externalities,orcapitalizeonpositivespin-offs,inapre-emptive mannerandcannotultimatelyprepareacommunityorindustry forinevitablemishaps”([38]:55).Thelargestwinnersofpetroleum activitiesinHammerfestarelocalbusinessgroupsandsuppliers interestedinearningmoneyandcreatingemployment.Environ- mentalists and the Sámi population gain less. Klick ([38]: 55) pointsoutthattheoutcomesinHammerfestdemonstratecommu- nitydevelopmentwithoutsuggestingsustainability.Thepetroleum companiesinHammerfest,ontheotherhand,areconsciousabout usinglocalsuppliers;culturalandsocialeventsincreasetheattrac- tivenessofthecommunity;andthereareopportunitiesforhighly skilledworkers.ThisisbroadlyseenastheircontributiontoCSRfor Hammerfest.

3. Methodology

3.1. Casestudyresearch

Thedatapresentedherearebasedonasingle-casestudy,some- thingwithbothadvantagesanddisadvantages.Themaintrade-off betweenqualitativeandquantitativeanalysesisbetweenbreadth anddepth:acasestudyprovidesopportunitiestogointodetail, henceincreasinginnervalidity,whilelimitingthepossibilitiesto generalize[2,28].FromanArcticperspective,acomparative,multi- caseapproachwouldbeusefultoassesscommunityeffectsofoil andgas.OffshorepetroleumextractionintheArctic,however,is stillatanearlystageandHammerfestis,sofar,auniquecaseand thereforeworthyofinvestigationasasingle-casestudy.

3.2. Interviews

Qualitative,semi-structuredinterviewingisthemainmethod usedinthisresearchwithtworoundsofﬁeldworklastingaweek each,in2013and2014,includingattendanceattheBarentsSea Conference2014inHammerfest.Additionally,thisarticle’smain authorwasborninHammerfest,shehasfamilyrootsintheregion andvisitedthecommunityseveraltimesbeforethearrivalofthe petroleumindustry. Thislocal foundationmayenable a deeper

Table1

IntervieweesinHammerfest.

# Gender Industry

1 Male Tourism

2 Male Supplierindustry(worker)

3 Male Supplierindustry(worker)

4 Male Student,previouslypolitics

5 Male Businesscluster

6 Male Competencebuilding

7 Male Indigenouslivelihood

8 Male Engineer

9 Male Advisor,broadﬁeldofexperience

10 Male Oilcompany

11 Female Localbusinessdevelopment

12 Female Culture

13 Female Culture

14 Male Fisheries

15 Female Media

16 Male Politician

17 Female Oilcompany

18 Female Education

understandingofthecontextbutitmightalsocreatelocalbias.

ThesecondauthorisnotNorwegian;heprovidesanexternalview, identifyinglocalbiases,andbringinganabilitytoplacetheresearch inabroadercontext.

Eighteensemi-structuredinterviewswereconducted(Table1) in Norwegian by the main author, who afterwards coded the data and interpreted the resultsin English. In some cases, the interviewswereconductedtogetherwitha Norwegianresearch assistant.Researchmethodologyoffersmanydifferentsuggestions on how best togain accessto respondents and conduct semi- structuredinterviews([30]:671).Inthiscase,intervieweeswere chosenviaacombinationofpurposive,snowball,andconvenience sampling,theaimbeingtohaverepresentativesofdifferentcom- munitygroups,includinglocalbusinesses,ﬁshermen,petroleum companies, local authorities and the general population, both indigenousandnon-indigenous.Theagerangeofintervieweesis approximately20–70,andbothmaleandfemaleintervieweesare represented.Theviewsidentiﬁedfromtheinterviewsshouldnot beregardedasfullyrepresentativeofthewholepopulation,asthe numberofrespondentsislimited.However,theresearchersdid succeedininterviewingalmostalloftherespondentsthatwere contacted.

Allintervieweesweregiventheopportunitytoremainanony- mous in order to promote openness. The disadvantage of anonymityisthatitlimitstheopportunityavailabletoothersto validatethematerialandreplicatethestudy.Inotherwords,there isatrade-offbetweeninnervalidityandreliability([37]:26).Inthis case,theformerwasprioritizedoverthelattertoachievethemain researchgoalofillustratingtrendsinperceptions.

Asemi-structuredinterviewguidewasdevelopedtoemphasize fourthemes,generalizedinthefollowingquestions:

1.How hasthe oiland gasindustry, from your point of view, affectedthelocalcommunity?

2.DoyouknowthetermCorporateSocialResponsibility(CSR)and, ifyes,whatdoesitmeantoyou?

3.What,inyourknowledge,haveoilandgascompaniesdonefor thelocalcommunityintermsofsocialandenvironmentalmea- sures?

4.Whatdoyoupersonallythinkshouldbetheresponsibilityofoil andgascompaniesoperatingintheregiontowardssocietyand theenvironment?

Theintervieweeswerepresentedwiththetopicsandallowed tospeakfreelyandwithoutinterruptionaslongastheystayed ontopic.Follow-upquestions,oftenreferredtoas“prompts,”and

(4)

wereused,withthepurposeofkeepingtheconversationﬂowing orhelpingtherespondentﬁndtheirowntrack.

Interviewslasted30–90min.Theinterviewsweretranscribed word-for-word,orwrittendownbasedondetailednotestakenby oneortworesearchersonthesamedayastheinterviews.

Inallinterviews,theNorwegiantermfor“CSR”–Bedriftenes samfunnsansvar,whichliterallymeans“businesses’societyrespon- sibility” – was used.The interviewer focused onrecording the personalinterpretationsoftheintervieweesratherthanexplain- ingwhatwasmeantbytheconceptorwhattheintervieweewas

“expected”totalkabout.Theanalysisishencebasedonwhatthe localpopulationunderstandswithrespecttoCSRandresponsibility ofthepetroleumcompaniestothelocalcommunity.

4. Hammerfest

Hammerfestisasmalltownwithapproximately10,500inhab- itants[60]ofwhichapproximately1200workinthepetroleum industry.Ofthem,500workdirectlywithoilandgas,whileother petroleum-relatedjobs,includingthesupplierindustry, employ approximately700people[41].

Afternaturalgaswasdiscovered140kmoffshoreofHammerfest in1984,localinterestgroupslobbiedactivelyforitsdevelopment [42]whilethere wasopposition fromenvironmentalists,fisher- menandtheSámi([38]:25).Atthetime,Hammerfest’seconomy reliedheavilyonfishingandasmallamountoftourism,thetown promotingitselfasEurope’snorthernmost,withfewotherliveli- hoodprospects.Thedeclineinthefisheriesinthe1980sand1990s resultedinunemploymentanddepopulation,andpessimismpre- vailed.

Sinclair [57] describes pre-Snow White Hammerfest as a dyingtownwithschoolclassroomsclosing,out-migration,anda depressedrealestatemarket.Buoyedbytechnologicaladvancesfor operatingintheArcticandhighdemandforgas[57],constructionof theSnowWhitefacilitiesbeganin2002withgasproductionstart- ingin2007.Theanticipationandrealityofgasrevenuesrevitalized Hammerfest,providingjobs,developingculture,andmakingitan attractiveplacetolive[22,57].

FivecompaniescomprisetheSnowWhitelicensegroupwiththe operatorStatoil–apubliclimitedcompanyinwhichtheGovern- mentofNorwayowns67percentoftheshares–owningthelargest shareat36.79%[49].Theextractionofnaturalgasisdoneonthe seabedwithoutanysurfaceinstallationsandthegasispipedtoon- landfacilitiesinthepeninsulaMelkøya(“MilkIsland”inEnglish, althoughitisconnectedtothemainlandbyasmallstripofland) forliquefyingandloadingontoLNGcarriersforexport.Melkøya lies400mfromtheHammerfestshorelineand4kmfromthecity center;itisalwaysvisible.In2016,oilproductionfromtheGoliath field,operatedbytheItalianoilcompanyENI,isexpectedtostart upnearHammerfest.Theoilwillbetransportedtomarketsdirectly fromtheoffshorefield,andtherewillbenoonshoreinstallations affectingHammerfestdirectly.However,ENIhasaclearpresencein thelocalcommunity,withalocalofficeandstaffofapproximately 50[23].

5. Results

5.1. Rapid,visible,positivechanges

Oilandgasactivitieshaveledtorapidsocio-economicchanges inHammerfest,affectingthewholeofthepopulation.Forareturn- ingvisitorwhoknewthetownpriortoSnowWhite,thephysical transformationispalpable.Newbuildings,refurbishedfac¸ades,a modernculturehousewithacousticsreportedlyonlymatchedin NorwaybytheoperahouseinOslo,andheatedpavementsthatmelt

snowandiceautomaticallyaresomeofthefeaturesofHammerfest today,andsignalsofthetown’sthenewwealth.

Whenintervieweeswereaskedwhatoilandgasdevelopments have meantfor Hammerfest, all 18 mentioned positive effects.

Noneweredirectlyopposedtooilandgasactivities,althoughthe degreeofsatisfactionvaried.Severalintervieweesusedstrong,pos- itivewordstoillustratehowmuch petroleumdevelopmenthad meanttothelocalcommunity.Thesecommentsbyastudent,busi- nessman,andpoliticianrespectivelyaretypical:

•“Ithasbeenablessing.Thisisastrongword,buttherehasbeena totalchangefrompessimismtoenormousoptimism”(Interviewee 4).

•“EverythingchangedwithSnowWhite.Thatwaswhenthefuture camebacktoNorthernNorway”(Interviewee6).

•“SnowWhiteturnedeverythingupsidedown−thesituationwent fromsunsettosunrise”(Interviewee16).

Eightrespondentsrepresentingawiderangeofdifferentback- grounds highlighted the municipality’s property tax system as central to reaping local economic beneﬁts of the Snow White project(Interviewees1,2,3,4,8,15,16,18).PropertytaxfromMilk IslandgivesthelocalmunicipalityapproximatelyNOK157million peryear[64],whileHammerfest’srevenue in2013totaledNOK 979.8million[32].Inanticipationofthistaxrevenueandfacing severeeconomicproblems,themunicipalityborrowedhugesums forinvestinglocally.Asaresult,by2014themunicipalitywasmore than1.8billionNOKindebt,thehighestamountperinhabitantof anymunicipalityinNorway.Currentandfuturerevenueisexpected tobesufﬁcienttohonorthedebtinthelongrun.Nointerviewees expressedoppositiontothisdecision,evenifitmeantanextratax onallhouseowners.

5.1.1. Jobscreatinglivability

ThesinglemostimportantconsequenceofpetroleuminHam- merfest,accordingtotheinterviewees,isjobcreation(Interviewees 1,2,3,11,7,10,14,16,17,18).Thejobsprovideincentivesfor youthtostayinthecommunityaftersecondaryschool,forlocals withhighereducationtoreturnafterstudies,andforhighlyskilled workerstomovetoHammerfestfromotherregionsinNorwayor, indeed,othercountries.Jobopportunitieshavecorrelatedwitha substantialriseinpopulation.Sincetheendofthepre-petroleum decline,Hammerfest’spopulationhasincreasedfrom9020inhab- itantsin2002–10,417in 2015[60].While intervieweesexplain howthecommunitywasinitiallynot convincedthatpetroleum companyemployeeswouldlivepermanentlyinHammerfest,the majorityofStatoilemployeesworkingonSnowWhitenowlivein Hammerfestwiththeirfamilies.

Theimportanceofjobswasexpressedbroadly,asinthewords oftheseintervieweesinthreedifferentlivelihoods,hereexpressed byarepresentativeoftheﬁsheryindustry,abusinessdeveloper, andareindeerherder,whoalsorunsalocalbusiness:

•“Ourchildrengrowuphere,soitisimportanttohavealternative kindsofjobs.WeareinfavorofpetroleumactivityintheBarents Sea,butitmustbecarriedoutinasustainablemanner”(Interviewee 14).

•“Hammerfesthasbecomeamoderncommunitywithhighcompe- tencejobs;afterworkingherepeopleareattractiveforemployersall overtheworld.Thisisanuniqueopportunitywehaventhadsince the1970s”(Interviewee11).

•“Petroleumisextremelyimportantforthewholeregion.Itcreates jobs,andthatisthemostimportant−ifnotitwouldhavebeen quiteemptyhere”(Interviewee7).

(5)

Althoughviews diverge,as will beseen below,there was a remarkabledegreeofhomogeneityintheresponsesfrominter- vieweesacrossdifferentbackgroundsandinterests.

InadditiontojobscreateddirectlybyStatoilandENI,theoil companiesalsoproviderippleeffectsbylettinglocalcompanies tenderforcontracts,andbysupportinglocalbusinessincubators suchasPetroArcticandProBarents.Furthermore,severalsupplier companiesoperatelocally,implyingincreaseddemandforallkinds ofgoodsandservicesand,consequently,jobsinthecommunity.

5.1.2. “Bolyst”:Hammerfestasanattractiveplacetolive

Manyintervieweesfurthermoredescribedhowoilandgashad madeHammerfesta moreattractive placetolive(Interviewees 1,4, 5,12, 13,16, 17).Theword “bolyst”wasfrequentlymen- tioned,literallytranslatedas“dwelldesire”or“dwellwish”but whichcanbetranslatedas“residentialappeal”.Awholerangeof oil-company-sponsoredactivitieswerementionedascontributing to“bolyst,”includingtownpartiesandfestivalsarrangedbySta- toilwithfamous Norwegianartistsandentertainersgiving free concerts in thetown center. Statoil,according tointerviewees, supportedchildrenand youthin particularthroughits“Tomor- row’sheroes”campaigninvolvingculture,sport,andtechnology.

Statoil-supportedculturaleventsoutsideHammerfest werealso mentioned; for example, theNorth CapeFilm Festivalin Hon- ningsvåg,theVarangerfestivalinVadsø,andtheInsomniafestival inTromsø.ENIwasfrequentlymentionedasasponsorofart.People canapplydirectlytoStatoilorENIformoney,asbothcompanies havelocalliaisonofﬁcesforcommunitycontact.

Inadditiontofinancialsupporttocultural,sports,andeduca- tionalprojects,immigrationfromotherpartsofthecountryand fromabroadreportedlyalsohelpmakeHammerfestabetterplace tolive.Interviewee1epitomizedthisview:“Peoplefromsouthern Norwaymoveherewithnewideas,theystartmovie-andhikingclubs, orotheractivities.”Asurgeofoptimismandprideintheirowncom- munityemergedovertheirachievements,notleastbecauselocal lobbyingandnegotiationskillsareseenbysomeasthereasonfor thepetroleumbenefitsthatHammerfestreaps.Therewasasense ofownershipintheindustry,itsrewards,andthevisibleindustrial development,withStatoilperceivedasopenandtransparentby invitingpeopletovisittherefiningfacilities.

5.2. “AblessingforHammerfest,but...”

Despitebroadsupportforoilandgas,anundercurrentemerged insomeoftheinterviews,particularlywithintervieweeswhowere notdirectlyinvolvedinbusinessdevelopmentorpolitics.Theten- dencywastofirsttalkaboutallthebenefitsofpetroleum,telling asimilar,apparently“official,”sunshinestory.Afterawhile,the word“but”oftenappearedfollowedbynegativesideeffects,the mainbeingeconomicandsocialinequalityandtheincreasedprice ofhousingandservices,allofwhichmakelifeharderforpeople whoarenotworkinginthepetroleumindustry.

Thepetroleumsectorisknownforitshighincomelevels.To attractandretainhighlyskilledlabor,additionalincentiveshave beenofferedtopeopleworkingintheindustry.Afamilywithboth parentsworkinginthepetroleumindustrywillusuallybefarbet- teroffthanfamilieswhosebreadwinnersworkelsewhere.While Hammerfest’sincomelevelwaslowbyNorwegianstandards,it was neverthelessrelatively similar for most of the population.

Petroleumhasreportedlyintroducedlargeincomegaps.

Norwegiansalarystatisticsshowthattheaveragepre-taxsalary offull-timeworkersinthepetroleumsectorisNOK66,900per month,excludingovertime[61].Incontrast,employeesinNorwe- gianmunicipalitiesworkingin theﬁeldof healthorsocialcare, includingkindergartens,earnonaverageNOK37,300permonth, pre-tax[61].AdditionalbeneﬁtsforworkersinStatoilapparently

includeattractivemortgages.ENIprovidesanlistofthebeneﬁts ofworkingforthemincludingadvantageousbankloans,insurance andpensioncontributionsalong withayearlyhealthcheckand extradaysoff[23,24].Consequently,whilemanypeoplearebet- teroff,thecostofliving,includingpropertytaxesandthecostof hiringtradespeoplelikeplumbersandcarpenters,hasincreased foreveryone.Itiseasierforyoungpeopletogetwell-paidjobs,but harderforeveryonetoaccessservicesatreasonableprices.

Thesocialeffectsweredescribedindifferentways,including thetransitionfroma simplelifewhere mostpeoplekneweach other,toa“harder”societywithmorefocusonmoneyandstatus.

Wordsmentionedwere“lessfocusonsoftervalues”(Interviewee1) and“increasedclassdifferences”(Interviewee5).Oneinterviewee explained:“Thepetroleumindustryhasledto,well,notexactlyasnob factor,butmoneymeansmorethanbefore....Westillhaveourfriends andvisiteachotherbutithaskindofbecomeabit‘colder.’People caremoreaboutstatus,[material]thingsandexpensivecars.People talkaboutbuyingnewsnowscootersandwheretheyareplanningto travel.Thepetroleumindustryhascreatedanillusionthathavingmuch moneyishappiness.Itwasdifferentbefore.Calmer”(Interviewee15).

ItwasalsomentionedthatHammerfestshouldhavebeenbet- terpreparedfortheconsequencesofpetroleumdevelopment,as explainedbyInterviewee14:“Intheconstructionphase,3000–4000 peoplecameherefromdifferentplaces.Thereweremanycasesofdrugs andviolence.Statoilshouldhaveplannedforthis....Itwasnotgoodfor thelocalcommunity—atoughtime.”Othernegativeeffectsinclude lessfocusondevelopingotherlivelihoods:“Everythinginthemunic- ipalitycatersforoilandgasbusiness;largeindustrialareasaremade availablefor thesector. Meanwhile,othersectors, suchastourism, donothaveaspowerfulspokespersons,anddonotgetprioritized”

(Interviewee1).

Intervieweeswereoftenmorereluctantaboutexpressingneg- ativeopinionsthanpositive ones.Thismaymeanthatnegative opinionsarecontroversial,orthattherespondentsdidnotwant toletthepositivesidesbeovershadowedbylessimportantside- effects.

5.3. ViewsofCSR

5.3.1. Whatshouldpetroleumcompaniesdo?

The term CSR, presented in English and then translated as

“Bedriftenessamfunssansvar”inNorwegian,wasunfamiliartoall excepttworespondents(interviewee6and17).Butevenifitwas unfamiliar,allintervieweesshowedahighdegreeofknowledge aboutwhatthepetroleumcompanieshaddoneforthelocalcom- munity.Theyalsohadclearopinionsregardingwhattheythink shouldbetheresponsibilityofpetroleumcompaniestowardslocal society.

Opinionsvaried,butsomeaspectsofwhattheywantedtosee intermsofcompanyresponsibilitywereemphasized,particularly thecreationofrippleeffectsbyofferingjobopportunitiesforthe localpopulation,usinglocalsuppliers,developinginfrastructure, andincreasingtheattractivenessofHammerfestasaplacetolive.

Examplesofresponsesare:

•“Themostimportantistohirelocalpeoplesothereismoretodo [jobopportunities]here,sothatoneisabletokeep peoplehere”

(Interview12).

•“I thinkit is important not to create social differences, through highsalariesforsomegroups,andpushinghousingpricesup.Big companiesshouldthinkaboutthesocialeffectsoftheiroperations”

(Interviewee5)

•“Itisveryimportantthatcompaniestakearoleinthelocalcommu- nity,andallcontributionsarepositive.Concertsandfestivalswould nothavebeenarrangedifthecompanieshadnotdoneit.Itisimpor- tantwithwell-beingandwelfare,andtohaveamixofactivitiesso

(6)

thatalsowives[ofworkersinthepetroleumindustry]wantto movehere”(Interviewee1)

These expectationswere offset by theviews of Interviewee 11who preferredthecompanies nottodo more thanin other petroleumregions,suchasinStavanger,Norway’spetroleum“cap- ital”in thesouthwestof thecountry. Overall, theinterviewees expectedtheoilcompaniestomakesigniﬁcantcontributionstothe welfareofthecommunity,whetheritwascalledCSRorsomething else

5.3.2. “Ifit’slegalit’ssafe”:hightrustinenvironmentalregulation Intermsofwhatpetroleumcompaniesshouldberesponsiblefor inrelationtothelocalcommunity,environmentalissuestendednot tobementioned.Whenrespondentswereaskedexplicitlyabout theenvironmentalimpactofoilandgas,typicalanswersincluded:

•“Environment?Onlyasmallgroupfocusesonthat.Wefeelthatthe oilcompaniesinformuswell,handlethingswell,takechallenges seriously,havegoodemergencypreparedness.Wefeelsafethatthe environmentistakencareof.Weseemorebeneﬁtsthandisadvan- tagesfromoilandgas.Butofcourse,ifanaccidenthappens,itis serious”(Interviewee5).

•“Concernsaboutnegativeeffectsfortheenvironmentmostlycome fromoutside.Theyarenottakenseriouslyhere,theyaregivenno recognitionorrespectherewhatsoever.Ithinkmanypeopletrust theauthoritiesto regulatetheindustry,andthat regulationsare followed.ButIdoknowthereissomerisk”(Interviewee9).

•“Environment?Well,nationalenvironmentalorganizationssuchas WWFand‘NatureandYouth’wereagainstthedevelopmentofSnow WhiteinHammerfest−butagain,theyareagainst“everything”.

Fisheriespollutemuchmorethanpetroleum...thepetroleumindus- tryisverystrictlyregulated.Theemergencypreparednesslevelis veryhigh,anaccidentisveryunlikely,andthefocusonsafetyis high”(Interviewees2and3).

Theopinions expressedin thequotes aboveepitomizes the hostilityexpressedtowardpeoplecominginfromtheoutsideto opposeoilandgas,whichsomemembersofthecommunitycon- sider to beHammerfest’s basis of existence. This hostility was expressed even more explicitly by another respondent: “I am pissedoffatacademicsandpeoplesittingincafesinGrünerløkkain Oslo[atrendyneighborhoodinNorway’scapital]arguingagainst petroleum.Theyhavetheirthings—sowhyshouldtheybegrudgeusto havesomethingaswell”(Interviewee4).

Thattheindustryinvolvedacertaindegreeofriskwasacknowl- edgedbyrespondents,buttheriskswerelargelytrumpedbythe beneﬁts.Environmentalriskwasdescribedasapriceworthpaying byInterviewee5whoexpressedtheostensibletrade-offsuccinctly:

“Forus,ithasnotbeenaquestionofenvironmentalriskbutofsurvival andhavingaplacetowork···Ournatureandcultureinthisregion [wherefisheriesusedtodominate]istosurvive,andweknowthere isariskinallactivities.Furthermore,wehavegrownuphere,and don’tseethenaturesurroundingusassounique.”Anotherintervie- wee,representingfisheries,nuancedthepicture,butparticularly emphasizedtherisktothereputationoftheArcticregion:“Wecare abouttheenvironment,wehaveuntouchednaturehere,andwedon’t wantittobedestroyed.Wedon’tliveherebecauseoftheclimate!A blowoutwouldbenegative,especiallybecauseitwoulddamageour reputationintheglobalmarketforfish.Itwouldbeconsiderednegative tobuyfishfromanareawheretherehasbeenanoilspill”(Interviewee 14).

Theseresponsesmaybesymptomaticofthegenerallyhighlevel ofpublictrustinNorwegianauthorities,wherethestate(Norway’s government)isresponsibleforenvironmentalregulationswhich areassumedtobemonitoredandenforced.Theyalsohighlight

arisk-benefitbalance,withtheintervieweesacknowledgingthe risksbutindicatingwillingnesstoaccepttheminordertoreapthe benefits.Somerespondents,however,highlightedthesocialsanc- tionsthatarebroughtobearonthoseexpressingoppositionto petroleumdevelopment;theseviewsweremostclearlyexpressed byinterviewees15, 11and 12. Interviewee12, ayoungfemale culturalworker,explainedthatenvironmentalconcernswouldtyp- icallybemetwithcommentssuchas“Ifyoucaresomuchaboutthe environment,thenwhyareyoulivinghereandreapingallthebenefits fromoilandgas?”

6. Discussion

Sovacool[59]suggestsawiderangeofareasthatcoulddeepen and broaden energy research,formulating75 under-researched questions,including“Whydoenergyprojectscontinuetoholdsuch analluredespitetheirinherentdrawbacks?”([59]:17)and“Howdo peoplemakedecisionsaboutenergywhenthosedecisionsneces- sitatetradeoffs?”([59]:18).Whilethecontextoftheseconcrete researchquestionsisrelatedtogeographyandscaleandbehav- iorofenergyusers,similarquestionscanusefullybeaskedofthe Hammerfestcaseinsofarasthestudyinvestigatesperceptionsof theemergenceoftheoilandgasindustrylocally,ofwhetheritis worthitdespiteofenvironmentalrisk,andwhatpeoplethinkofthe necessarytrade-offs.Thesequestionsareaddressedinthediscus- sionbelow,aswellastherelevanceofCSRinthiscontext.Athird, morenormative,questionrelatedtopromotingclimate-friendly behavioralchangealsoisdiscussedinlightoftheHammerfestcase.

6.1. WhatdoresidentsofHammerfestwant?

Synthesizingtheinterviewdatapresentedinthepreviouschap- ter,theresultsindicateabroadconsensusaboutthepositiveeffects ofpetroleumdevelopmentinHammerfest,whiletheemphasison negativeeffectsvariesamonginterviewees.Eventhoughmostof ourintervieweeswereunfamiliarwithCSRassuch,theyallknew whatpetroleumcompanieshadbeendoingforthelocalcommu- nityandallwereclearaboutwhattheyshouldbedoingforsociety atlargeandtheenvironment.Threemainareaswereidentiﬁedas importanttothelocalpopulation:(i)jobcreation;(ii)rippleeffects;

and(iii)makingthetownanattractiveplaceinwhichtoliveand work.

Environmentalmattersincludingclimatechangewerenotgiven prominence,yetwereclearlyofconcerntosomeinterviewees.It seemsthattheenvironmentisconsideredimplicitlyintermsof livabilityandqualityoflife,unlikethepoliciespursuedbyexternal parties(internationallyrepresentedbyGreenpeaceandnationally byNatureandYouth[NaturogUngdom])whowanttoprotectthe environmentforitsownsake.Italsoseemsasiftheinterviewees largelyassumetheenvironmentwillbeprotectedsincethis,after all,isNorwaywe’retalkingabout,whereactionstakeninNorway areassumedtobesociallyandenvironmentallyacceptablebecause theyareregulatedandoverseenbyNorway’sgovernment[50,51];

seealsoRef.[75].

On the environmental aspect, some ambiguity is apparent regarding“theArctic.”Manynon-Hammerfest-basedcommenta- torsopposeexplorationandextractionofpetroleumintheArctic, includingintheBarentsSea.Hammerfestislocatedwellabovethe ArcticCircle,justabove70^◦N,yetneithertheconceptnortheword

“Arctic”wasusedbyanyintervieweeintheirdescriptionsofthe region.Infact,mostpeopleinNorwaydonotusetheterm“Arc- tic,”referringinsteadtotheregionsimplyasNorthernNorwayin EnglishandNord-NorgeinNorwegian—apartfromcertaincontexts suchas whenNorwegianenvironmentalistsdiscussBarents Sea petroleum.ReferencetotheArcticinthesecontextsmaybeused

(7)

preciselytohighlighttheemotiveaspectofwhatistakentobe thepristineandvulnerable“wilderness”athighnorthernlatitudes [6,35,36,39].

Intervieweesdifferfundamentallyhowever,intheirconceptu- alizationofplace,ontheonehand,andexternalvoices,ontheother.

Theexternal voices areopposed the extractionand production petroleumabovetheArcticCircle,includinginplaceslikeHam- merfest.LocalsinHammerfestseetheirtownasaregularplace wherepeopleliveandneedjobs.Theyframethepetroleumtopic notinenvironmentalterms,butintermsoftheeconomicwoesof thepastandtheneedformeansofmakingalivelihood,afﬁrming theArcticasadiversesubjecttomultiplediscourses[74].

In Hammerfest, theSnow White but partlyalso theGoliath developmentshave resultedin clearand visiblechanges inthe community.Thesechangesappeartohavebenefitedthetowneco- nomicallyandsocially,notmerelythepeopledirectlyinvolvedin theoilandgassector.Thewholearea’spopulation,asmentioned byEikelandetal.[22]andKlick[38],enjoystherewards.Thevisible benefitsmentionedincludethephysicalappearanceofthetown, whichhasbeengivena“face-lift,”improvementstoservicedeliv- ery,suchasbettereducationalfacilities,andfinallyopportunities toenjoyeventssuchasindustry-sponsoredtownfestivalswithfree foodandmusic.

Thepopulationitselfhasthusbecomethegreatestadvocateof anArcticpetroleum industry,andiseager toattractcompanies totheregionandreaptherewardsthecompaniesoffer.Thatis essentiallytheCSRthepublicwanttosee.Otherconceptionsof CSRinvolveleavingtheenvironmentuntouched.Differentconcep- tualizationsofCSR(e.g.Ref.[3,10,48])areconﬁrmed,especially whenitcomestodifferencesascribedtoinsidersandoutsiders, aswellasthedifferentplayersintheArcticengagedindifferent manifestationsofpetroleum-relatedCSR[4,73].

Regardingthebenefitsfrompetroleumactivityanditstrade- offs,opinionsweredivided.Somewereawareoftheenvironmental risksbutwillingtotakethoserisksinlightoftheeconomicand job gains. Without jobs,the community would likely die, they said.Theyrarelyconsidernon-petroleumlivelihoods,theimplicit assumptionbeingthattheycouldnotbeasrewardingandlucra- tive.ThislackofenvironmentalconcernfoundinHammerfestisin linewithKlick’s([38]:39)research:“Inspiteofitscriticalrolein thedebatesurroundingSnøhvit’sdevelopmentandBarentsSeaoil andgas,theenvironmentispoorlyrepresentedbyprimarystake- holders.”ThereportedviewsoftheintervieweesonOslo-based environmentalNGOsalsocorroborateKlick’s([38]:41)findings insofarasthoselivinginHammerfest“largelyconsideredtheorga- nizationsasantagonistsinterferingwiththecommunity’srightto economicdevelopment”.Fishers’environmentalviews aresimi- larlymatchedbythisstudyandbyKlick([38]:31):“Inthefaceof severecommunitydeclineanddepression,fishermenwereeager toseeeconomicdevelopmentthatwouldbenefittheirchildrenand qualityoflife.”

IntheHammerfestcase,thepublicseemsbothtoacceptand supporttheindustry.However,when Aasetal.[1]studiedper- ceptionsofhighvoltagepowerlinesinNorway,theyfoundthat acceptancecanbedifferentfromsupportofenergyprojects.The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome, identiﬁed in many petroleumandotherprojects(e.g.Ref.[9]),isalsocounteredby anemergent“InMyBackYardIfIGain”(IMBYIIG)instead.This IMBYIIGresultissimilartotheﬁndingsofmanyotherstudiesof attitudestolarge-scaleenergyprojects,notjustpetroleumones [62]butalsosolarenergy[13]andwindenergy[5,70].

ThismakesitrelevanttobringinathirdquestionfromSovacool ([59]:18)“Howcanonepersuadeorintroducebehavioralchangein waysthatsubjectsdonotperceiveasoverlycontrolling?”Theques- tionconcernshowtofacilitatebehavioralchangesothatpeople arewillingtoacceptmoreclimate-friendlysolutions.Itsnorma-

tivefundamentcannotbetransferreddirectlytothelocalcontext ofHammerfest.Nevertheless,ifthereisan“outsider’s”viewcon- cerningtheneedtoraiseawarenessabouttheenvironmentalrisks, itmaybearelevantquestioninourcontexttoo.

ThereisadominatingnarrativeinHammerfestwhichframes petroleumdevelopmentsasasuccessstory:Hammerfestisbecom- ing“important,”Hammerfest,aplacewhere“thingshappen,”and wherepeopleareexpectedtobe“positive.”Thequestioniswhether thisconvictionisbasedpurelyonfactsorwhetherwishfulthinking andsocialexpectationsareintermingled.Withthecontinuingfall inpetroleumpricessincelate2014,plustheongoingmovement tospeedupgreen energyand fossilfueldivestment,thefuture forNorway’sArcticpetroleumisuncertain.Productionfromthe SnowWhiteandGoliathﬁeldsisplannedtolastseveraldecades, butnewprojectsintheregioncannotbetakenforgranted.Doesthe populationhavearealisticviewofthefutureofArcticpetroleum?

Andshouldonenotlistentotheviewsofoutsiders− including thoseofdistantshareholdersinapetroleumcompany[52]—before choosingacareer,takingaction, andmakingchoices?Isit right forpeopleandorganizationsthatarenotintheArctictooppose anArcticpetroleumindustryifthepopulationintheArcticisin favor?ForNorway’sArctic,thisdebatehaslongbeenplayedout andtheorizedinDeepEcology[47],withthisHammerfeststudy yieldingdilemmassimilartothosethatledtothecreationofthe Deep Ecologymovement. Whatisthedifferencebetween“per- suading,” “encouraging,”“introducing,” and “forcing”behavioral change,asperSovacool’s[59]question?Theintervieweesprovide someanswers,providingfurtherreasonstoexaminetheoriesabout resourcedevelopmentandCSRforandinNorway[29,33,43,44].

Theinterviewswiththethreewiththemostcriticalviewofthe petroleumindustryprovideadifferentsnapshot;theiropinionsare notsociallyacceptedandthoseexpressingoppositiontopetroleum areoftenthesubjectofsocialsanctions.Perhapswhatisstatedas beingwhat“thepeople”wantisnotalwaysrepresentativeofall localviewsorevenevidenceofanearlytotalconsensus—notto mentionviewsof“people”fromoutsidethecommunityinques- tion.

6.2. TherelevanceofCSR

TherearemanyquestionsrelatedtoCSRinthepetroleumsector thatremainunresolved.Howfarshouldapetroleumcompanygo tofulﬁllitsCSRs?ShouldCSRrequirecompaniestothinkbeyond thepresentandadoptalonger-termperspectivethanthepopu- lationexpresses?Shouldcompaniessimplyseektomeetthelocal population’sexpressedneeds—ortheneedsofacertainsegment ofthepopulation?InHammerfest,CSRwasnotaknownterm,but theintervieweeswereclearaboutwhattheyfeltwereStatoiland ENI’ssocialresponsibilities.

Fundamentally,thecrucialthingsseemedtobealivabletown and job opportunities. The perks, such as festivals, were seen as secondary, especially since Norway’s system of governance, whichgiveswidepowerstolocalandregionalgovernment,allows infrastructure and social servicesto befunded frompetroleum revenues, even though they are still seen as being part of the government’s mandate. Petroleum, according to Hammerfest’s community, brings inevitable economic beneﬁts. That baseline couldbeseenasthecompanies’contributiontoHammerfestwith thegovernmenttakingresponsibilityforlivability.Notionsof“cor- porateresponsibility”wouldnotnecessarilyenterthediscussions.

ThisinterpretationhasimplicationsforCSRtheory,withmanyof theopinionsquotedaboveimplicitlyorexplicitlyassumingthat CSRhasareality.

Nevertheless,somepetroleumsupportershave beencompa- niesthatareactivelysellingthebeneﬁts,ratherthanpromoting a balanceddiscussionof thepros andcons.Thelackof balance

(8)

isfurtherindicatedbythehostilitydirectedatoutsideopponents ofpetroleum.Anarrativeisbuiltaroundthepetroleum“adven- ture”and aroundboosting Hammerfest’sself-conﬁdencesothat potentialthreatscanbeignoredandpeoplewithdoubtssilenced.

Hammerfest’sintervieweesgenuinely appear tobelieve that theyhavereapedmanyrewardsandthatpetroleumhasgiventheir cityandcommunityafuture;thisisonlythebeginningofaper- petualgrandadventure.TheiropinionmatchesofﬁcialNorwegian petroleumpolicy,whereArcticareasaredescribedascoreareasin the“Norwegianoilandgasadventure”ofthefuture[46].Barents Searesourcesareincreasinglyexpectedtocompensatefordecreas- ingNorthSeaproduction[46],eventhoughsomeofexpectations mightbeexaggerated.

Theexpectationsgeneratedbyadecade’slongstoryofanindus- trialadventuremeanthatmostpeopleaccepttheprioritygivento thepetroleumsectorandbelieveapost-petroleumfuturedoesnot needtobeconsidered.ThisviewispartofHammerfest’slife,culture,andlivability,nowandinthefuture,irrespectiveofCSR.Even ifpetroleumpricesremainlowforalongtime,ornewsubstantial discoveriesarenotmade,theregionalimpactisnotstraightfor- ward.thatsaid,ﬁnancial obligationsrelatedtotheSnowWhite projectwillremainforseveraldecadesandGoliathisexpectedto addtotherippleeffectsinHammerfest’seconomy.

Apartfromtheassumptionthatthepetroleumadventure(or fairytale,sincetheNorwegianword“eventyr”meansboth)would last decadesand obviates anyneed toworry aboutthe future, suchquestionsofscale,eitherspatialortemporal,wereeffectively absentfromtheinterviewees’consciousness.Whenpartiesexter- naltoHammerfestopposepetroleumdevelopmentsinnorthern Norway,theirargumentslargelycircumventlocalsettingsandlocal economiestofocusinsteadontheintrinsic valueof nature,the damagecausedbyspillsof oilorothersubstances, andclimate change.Climatechange,inparticular,representstheglobalscale andlong-termtimeframe,especiallyincomparison tothetime framesofourintervieweeswhoremainedfocusedonthevisible changes(andgenerallyovertheshort-term)totheircommunity.

Thisscalemismatchbetweeninternal and externalviews of petroleumdevelopmentisafundamentalreasonforthemismatch ofperspectivesbetweentheintervieweesandexternalparties.The scalemismatchfurtherprovidesinsightsintothequestionsposed bySovacool[59]withrespecttotherelevanceofCSR.Ifthegoalof CSRistoinducebehavioralchange,thentheprovisionofimme- diatelocalbeneﬁtsmayresultin sentimentsof supportamong agoodproportionofthepopulation,astheHammerfestcaseso aptlydemonstrates.Butafocusonglobal,long-termconsequences –ostensiblydistantinspaceand time–isnotaslikelytohave suchanextensiveimpact.Indeed,ithasfrequentlybeendemon- stratedasareasonforinactiononclimatechange(e.g.Ref.[71]).

Similarly,focusingonimmediatelocalbeneﬁtsdemonstratesthe allureofenergyprojects.Thedrawbacksmightbeglobalandinthe distantfuture,buttherearelocalbalancesandtrade-offsforpeople inHammerfestseekingjobs,livelihoods,andagoodplacetolive andwork(“bolyst”).

Andwhen we discussand implement CSR,towhomshould petroleumcompaniesbesociallyresponsible?Inseekingasocial licensetooperate[73],suchasbyusingthetenetsof‘free,prior, informedconsent’[11],somegroupsarenecessarilyrepresented andothersnecessarilyunderrepresented.Noteveryoneinacom- munitywillnecessarily agreeoneveryissue [69].For instance, NaturogUngdomhasabranchinHammerfest’scountyofFinn- mark,althoughatthetimeofwritingitdoesnothaveaHammerfest branch.

Thisdiscussionreturns tothequestionsposed atthebegin- ningofthissection,namely“Howfarshouldpetroleumcompany CSRsgo?”DoesapetroleumcompanyCSRsmeanavertingclimate changeandtherefore shiftingover tonon-fossilenergy sources

andservicesreducingdemand?ShouldStatoilandENIcloseSnow WhiteandGoliathdown,andinsteadinformHammerfestresidents aboutthethreatfromclimatechangeandtheneedtoacquirelocal, sustainableenergysuppliesandadaptdemandtosupply?Thecom- panieswould havetothinkbeyondthepresent,aspartsofthe populationoutsideHammerfest believetheyshouldbedoing.If thatweretohappen,thenCSRmightworkmorewidelyforhuman- ityandforfuturegenerations,butpeopleinHammerfestwouldnot seeitasaresponsibilitybeingmetontheirbehalf,norwouldit matchanyoftheCSRpoliciesofthepetroleumcompanies,includ- ingtheirownemployeesandshareholders[18,52].

7. Conclusions

Thispaperoffersoneoftheﬁrststudiesoflocalperceptionsof thedevelopmentofapetroleumindustryintheNorwegianArctic inexaminingwhatpeopledirectlyaffectedthinktheindustryhas giventhemandwhattheyexpectoftheoilcompaniesintermsof beneﬁtstosociety.Thetworesearchquestionswere:

1.HowdoesthelocalcommunityinasmallArctictownperceive theeffectsoflarge-scalepetroleumdevelopment?

2.Whatresponsibilitiesdorepresentativesofthelocalcommunity thinkpetroleumcompaniesshouldshoulderonbehalfofsociety andthenaturalenvironment?

Regardingtheﬁrstquestion,therearestarkdifferencesinthe wayHammerfestresidentsperceivetheeffectsofthepetroleum industry and responsibilities ofthe petroleumcompanies com- paredtotheviewsofexternalgroupsandorganizations.Thelocal populationisfocusedontheimportanceofjobsandeconomicrip- pleeffects,bothdecisiveinmakingthecommunityalivableplace andreversingtheoldtrendofdepopulation.Negativeeffectsofoil andgasarereportedtoo,butasanundercurrent,andenvironmen- talissuesremainlowontheagenda.

Regardingthesecondquestion,thegeneralviewofpetroleum companies’responsibility tosociety and environment is in line withFriedman’s[25] originalviewthatcorporate contributions to employment and generalwelfare sufﬁces as their responsi- bilitiesto society. Later interpretations explore a broaderview where businesses are expected to contribute actively to society’s well being and protection of the environment (e.g. Refs.

[3,10,14,16,17,43,44,54].These,however,arenotreﬂectedinthe localviewsofwhatbeneﬁtsHammerfest.

Theseﬁndingsmayservetoﬁllpartof thegapdescribedby Sovacool[59]betweenwhat energy policyresearcherstheorize asimportant and whatcommunities and policymakersthink is importantandhowtheyactinreality.Therespondentsinterviewed inHammerfest,includingbusinesspeopleandauthorities,havea differentperceptionoftheirneedsandintereststhanmanynon- localswithadviceandrecommendationsonhowthepetroleum sectorshouldproceedintheregion.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthe populationis ignorantof thesocial and environmental risksof developingArcticpetroleumorthattheythinkthoserisksareirrel- evant.Instead,theyprioritizedifferently.Inordertograspthefull pictureoftheArcticpetroleumdebate,itisimportanttoacknowl- edgedivergingviewsandthatrealityonthegroundissometimes differentfromdistantconsiderations.

Given that large-scale Arctic offshore projects have been exploredinotherArcticlocations–forexample,Alaska[45,56], northernCanada[16,17],andRussia[72]—experiencesreportedin thiscasestudymayprovidelearningpointsforcompanies,gov- ernments,andnon-proﬁtorganizations.Whilerecognizingthatthe Arcticregionconsistsofdistinctcommunitieswithdiverseinter- estsandneeds,increasedawarenessoftheexistenceofdiverging