Introduction

The United Nations divides non-dominant ethnocultural groups into two broad categories of ‘Indigenous peoples’ and ‘minorities’ that are contested as being over-simplified and problematic in context of understanding the implications for peoples under international law, the practices of nation states and claims to self-determination (cf. Castellino and Gilbert 2003; Kymlicka 2008; Castellino and Doyle 2018), plus they reflect distinctive approaches to operationalizing how rights are applied to either group. The category of Indigenous peoples emphasises an accommodationist approach focused on self-government and institutional pluralism, while that of minorities emphasises an integrationist approach focused on non-discrimination and civil rights (Kymlicka 2008). Of particular importance is that Indigenous peoples reject being designated as a minority because this fails to recognise their special status and inherent rights to assert sovereignty, self-governance, language and cultural revitalisation and economic development within their traditional territories (Castellino and Gilbert 2003; Kymlicka 2008; Castellino and Doyle 2018). For example, in Canada, Indigenous peoples are considered to be distinctive from minority groups in Canadian society because of their special legal and constitutional status. Specifically, Section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognises and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous (Aboriginal) peoples of Canada. This is based on the understanding that, prior to first contact, Indigenous peoples lived for centuries on the land in vibrant communities with distinctive cultures characterised by sophisticated practices of governance and diplomacy with other Indigenous communities (Morellato 2008). This chapter proceeds according to the fundamental assumption that formal and informal relations, rights and practices of Indigenous peoples are distinctive to those of minority groups within and across nation states.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2020) estimated that there are more than 370 million Indigenous people spread across 90 countries worldwide practicing unique traditions and retaining social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies within which they live. Historically, Indigenous peoples suffered colonisation, subjugation, integration and assimilation by merchants, traders, states and churches aimed at diminishing or eradicating Indigenous cultures, practices and identities (Russell 2009). The effects of colonisation deprived Indigenous peoples of access to and collective ownership of the natural resources of their traditional territories, undermined unique cultures, languages and spiritualities and delegitimised their social economies. Post-colonial governments exacerbated these negative effects by supporting and advancing non-Indigenous interests over those of Indigenous peoples (Russell 2009). According to the United Nations State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples report, Indigenous peoples in industrialised economies such as Canada, USA, Australia, and New Zealand consistently lag behind the non-Indigenous population in education and endure higher unemployment rates. Indigenous peoples face many challenges such as poor health, discrimination, substandard education, the loss of traditional livelihoods and restricted access to work and other socioeconomic opportunities (Dhir 2015; UNDP 2012).

Globally, there is a growing trend towards creating Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures that reflect a community’s culture and traditions, and works to ameliorate socioeconomic issues and challenges. This strategy of venture creation functions through enabling Indigenous peoples to assert their place in the world and to exercise and protect their rights to maintain culturally appropriate political, economic, social, and environmental systems. This has, in turn, facilitated increased non-Indigenous engagement with Indigenous entrepreneurs and community-based ventures as equal partners in socioeconomic opportunities occurring on or near their traditional territories and also internationally (Peredo et al. 2004; United Nations General Assembly 2008; Colbourne 2017). This chapter demonstrates how Indigenous entrepreneurship is grounded in local culture, traditions and values and examines how these ventures focus on social, economic, and environmental value creation to improve the conditions of Indigenous peoples and their communities. It begins by exploring how indigeneity and emerging Indigenous rights have influenced how and what contributions entrepreneurial ventures are making to Indigenous communities. This is followed by an examination of Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid venture creation and the underlying global trends that have influenced the design, structure, and mission of Indigenous hybrid ventures in communities. The chapter ends with brief case studies of Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures that provide practical examples of how Indigenous entrepreneurship promotes social, environmental and economic value creation by, and for the benefit of, Indigenous peoples. This chapter asserts: (1) that Indigenous entrepreneurship results in ventures that are developed with explicit goals to benefit the community, instigate social change and protect the environment; and (2) that the structure, focus and values of Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures are contingent on the particular culture, traditions and spirituality of the people connected to the land and its resources (Wuttunee 2004; Spiller et al. 2011; Curry et al. 2009).

Indigeneity, Identity and Indigenous Rights

Indigenous peoples continue to face many challenges such as poor health, discrimination, substandard education, the loss of traditional livelihoods and restricted access to work and other socioeconomic opportunities (Dhir 2015; UNDP 2012). In response, Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures seek to address social issues as diverse as poverty, healthcare, economic development, infrastructure development, education, housing, culture and language revitalisation. Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures create the conditions for Indigenous peoples to pursue economic decolonization or economic reconciliation through leveraging the growing global support for Indigenous rights and self-determination to enable economic development focused on Indigenous-centric social, economic and environmental value creation (Sengupta et al. 2015; Gladu 2016). In order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of Indigenous entrepreneurship, it is important to outline Indigenous perspectives on indigeneity and Indigenous rights.

  1. 1.

    Indigeneity

Most Indigenous peoples have a land-based, holistic and relational worldview that is both spiritual and material, it is an expression of their identity, culture and values that encompasses their livelihood and community and continuity of their cultures, values and traditions (Wuttunee 2004; Kuokkanen 2011). This worldview is founded on the active recognition of the interconnection, interrelationship and interdependency of people and the natural and spiritual realms. This results in Indigenous peoples having a profound connection to their land of origin (traditional territories) and the wide array of resources on these lands in which all aspects of the ecosystem are related and dependent on each other. This worldview stresses that Indigenous peoples are stewards of the land mandated with the responsibility to ensure all their actions and interactions with other peoples are sustaining and respectful. In this, they are obligated to care for, respect, conserve and promote wellbeing for all in their community and on their lands (Wuttunee 2004; Spiller et al. 2011; Kuokkanen 2011).

Table 1 compares collectivist and individualist perspectives on dimensions central to Indigenous entrepreneurship within Indigenous communities. While collectivist perspectives have a direct influence on the design and mission of Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures, it is important to stress that Indigenous worldviews are not fixed or static, but are flexible and adaptable to the changing circumstances they encounter. In context of a collectivist worldview, Indigenous peoples generally recognise that collective and individual rights are mutually interactive rather than in competition (Holder and Corntassel 2002).

Table 1 Collectivism vs individualism
Full size table
  1. 2.

    Indigenous Identity

Many countries have been reluctant or have failed to develop clear determinations of ‘indigenous’ and ‘Indigenous peoples’ within their areas of jurisdiction (Lama 2013). The most respectful approach to articulating indigeneity is to identify, rather than define Indigenous peoples recognising the fundamental criterion of self-identification (United Nations 2020) (Table 2).

Table 2 Identification of Indigenous peoples
Full size table

While there are several approaches to identifying Indigenous peoples, all approaches display three common characteristics. First, the recognition of the diversity of Indigenous peoples and the right to self-identification. Second, the recognition of Indigenous peoples as descendants of those who inhabited a geographical region at a time before people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived and became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. Third, the legitimisation of pre-existing Indigenous traditional cultural, economic, social or political institutions (Asian Development Bank 2020; International Labour Organization 2020; United Nations 2020; World Bank 2020). Ultimately, the question of identifying who is Indigenous is best determined by Indigenous communities themselves in a manner that addresses important issues such as self-determination, land rights and cultural integrity, while reflecting and reinforcing community governance practices, values, tradition and connection to land (Corntassel 2003). Communities exert a regulative influence on venture creation (Marquis and Battilana 2009; Colbourne 2017) and the key to understanding Indigenous entrepreneurship is that the identities and cultures of Indigenous peoples are inextricably linked to their traditional lands and practices. These influence how social, economic and environmental value creation reflect the land, the culture, traditions and spirituality of the people connected to the land and its resources (Wuttunee 2004; Dana 2007; Curry et al. 2009; Spiller et al. 2011).

Indigenous Rights

In the past, Indigenous peoples’ economic, social and legal status often limited their capacity to defend their interests in and rights to traditional territories and resources. It also limited the potential to benefit from entrepreneurial activities on or near their communities, resulting in Indigenous peoples frequently becoming among the most marginalised and vulnerable segments of the population of a country or geographic region. In recognition of Indigenous peoples’ long-standing struggle for redress, the United Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) on September 13, 2007 to enshrine those rights that ‘constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of the indigenous peoples of the world’ (Article 43) (Blackstock 2013; Amnesty International Canada 2020). The most relevant concepts relating to Indigenous entrepreneurship are: (1) the right to self-determination; (2) the right to be recognised as distinct peoples and (3) the right to free, prior and informed consent.

  • Self-Determination. The right to self-determination is the right for Indigenous peoples to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development while being respectful of the human rights of their community members and other peoples (United Nations General Assembly 2008; Blackstock 2013). This includes the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as the ways and means for financing their governance and economic development activities (United Nations General Assembly 2008).

  • Recognition. Indigenous peoples have the right to be recognised as distinct peoples. They have a collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully in the political, economic, social and cultural life of their country (United Nations General Assembly 2008). They have the right to manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains (United Nations General Assembly 2008).

  • Free, Prior and Informed Consent. The right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) obliges governments to obtain the consent of Indigenous peoples before making decisions that impact them within their traditional territories (United Nations General Assembly 2008). FPIC does not supersede a sovereign country’s law with respect to its legislative and decision-making responsibilities. The principle that Indigenous peoples have the right to give or withhold their free, prior and informed consent is not only recognised by and strengthened as a legal right by the UNDRIP (Anderson 2011), but is reinforced by other international bodies as well.

Despite broad efforts over the past four decades to improve the socioeconomic wellbeing of Indigenous peoples and increase their recognition, many countries have still not yet recognised and/or acted on Indigenous rights (Dhir 2015).

Indigenous Entrepreneurship

Indigenous peoples occupy the physical and ideological frontiers of world struggles with globalisation and in occupying this space, stand to be the most profoundly impacted (Doyle and Gilbert 2010). Indigenous entrepreneurship is a process of extracting and contributing value that is anchored within a community’s particular set of socioeconomic conditions (Jack and Anderson 2002; Kenney and Goe 2004) and is a means by which Indigenous peoples exercise and sustain their rights to design, develop and maintain political, economic and social systems or institutions that secure their own means of subsistence and development, and enables community members to engage in traditional, cultural and/or economic activities occurring on or near their traditional territories (Peredo et al. 2004; United Nations General Assembly 2008). Indigenous entrepreneurship involves creating, managing and developing new ventures by and for Indigenous peoples that are responsive to the community, its values, traditions, culture and socioeconomic needs and objectives (see Table 3) (Peredo et al. 2004; Anderson et al. 2004, 2006b; Lindsay 2005; Hindle and Moroz 2007).

Table 3 Identification of Indigenous entrepreneurship
Full size table

As globalization’s reach is amplified by new and emerging technologies, even the most remote and isolated Indigenous communities are required to respond to and address the unprecedented growth in global demand and competition for oil, gas, minerals, forests, water and arable lands (Doyle and Gilbert 2010). For many Indigenous peoples, entrepreneurial ventures are used as a platform to protect and act on their rights and to sustain social, economic and environmental values in a manner that recognises and is respectful of the community, its Indigenous culture and traditions (Wuttunee 2004; Curry et al. 2009). For these efforts to be successful and sustainable, Indigenous peoples worldwide have had to assert their permanent rights and self-determination over the social, economic and environmental resources contained within their traditional territories (Corntassel 2008).

Indigenous Socioeconomic Objectives

Not all Indigenous communities share the same socioeconomic values and objectives as Indigenous economic development and entrepreneurship is influenced by the interconnectedness of the particular social relationships, governing institutions and values within which the individual or venture is embedded (see Table 4).

Table 4 Indigenous Socioeconomic Objectives
Full size table

An Indigenous community’s socioeconomic needs and objectives can be conceptualised as being nested within the environmental dimension within which each of the economic, social, spiritual and cultural dimensions exert a differential influence on Indigenous entrepreneurial activities and hybrid venture creation (see Fig. 1) (Morgan 2006). In contrast, Western society’s socioeconomic objectives can be characterised as being nested within the economic dimension with each of the environmental, social, spiritual, and cultural dimensions being successive subsets of a primarily economic focus.

Fig. 1
Two Venn diagrams. On the left, environmental objectives include cultural or spiritual, social, and economic objectives. Right, Economic objectives include cultural or spiritual, social, and environmental objectives.

Indigenous versus Western Socioeconomic Objectives

Full size image

As Fig. 1 demonstrates, Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures embedded in Indigenous communities are environmentally, socially, spiritually, and culturally grounded, while economic value creation is considered a less central objective. In contrast, Western entrepreneurial ventures are economically centred with environmental, social, spiritual, and cultural objectives being subordinated to economic objectives. The decision to engage in specific entrepreneurial activities and create hybrid ventures, for example, is influenced by a particular Indigenous community’s social values and cultural/spiritual beliefs as translated into laws, policies and procedures by a community’s governing institutions. The manner in which socioeconomic objectives are nested, balanced and blended affects community and individual participation in Indigenous entrepreneurial activities, whereby a community’s particular blend of socioeconomic objectives influences the types of opportunities that are available to (or appropriate for) an Indigenous entrepreneur to pursue, as well as expectations regarding the venture’s particular balance of social, cultural, spiritual and environmental value creation activities.

Indigenous entrepreneurs are guided towards entrepreneurial venture creation by a community’s: (1) particular Indigenous identity (indigeneity); (2) associated values, traditions, culture and worldview; (3) particular development strategy (standard vs nation building); (4) socioeconomic needs and objectives and, (5) orientation towards the use of economic development and entrepreneurial ventures (opting in or opting out) as mechanisms for asserting inherent rights, sovereignty, self-determination and self-governance (Peredo et al. 2004; Anderson et al. 2004; Lindsay 2005; Anderson et al. 2006b; Hindle and Moroz 2007). Through engaging in value creation activities, Indigenous entrepreneurs seek to balance their personal experience, ambitions and value creation orientation with a particular community’s socioeconomic needs and priorities for social, cultural, spiritual and environmental value creation (Peredo 2001; Anderson et al. 2004; Murphy and Coombes 2008; Anderson et al. 2008; Hindle 2010; Battilana et al. 2012). Many Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures adopt a value creation strategy that is responsive to a community’s particular socioeconomic needs and objectives to address issues as varied as poverty, healthcare, economic development, environmental stewardship, education, housing, traditional culture, law and politics (Murphy and Coombes 2008; Anderson et al. 2008; Hindle 2010; Dana and Anderson 2013).

Participation in the Global Economy

Encouraged by emerging international standards and court rulings affirming and clarifying rights in particular countries, Indigenous communities are redefining the nature of their participation in economic development opportunities that occur on or near their traditional territories. This represents an unprecedented opportunity for improving Indigenous economic wellbeing based on rights to the land, assets and resources that are foundational to developing sustainable Indigenous economic development activities (Anderson et al. 2008, 2014). To do this, Indigenous peoples must assert their place in a global economy controlled and dominated by national and international political and corporate interests with differing and often conflicting worldviews. There are two options available to Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs for engagement with the global economy: opting out or opting in (Anderson et al. 2006b).

  • Opting Out. This option has two possibilities that reflect an Indigenous entrepreneur’s or community’s choice of engaging in economic development and entrepreneurial activities. Opting out can be passive, in which a community exerts little or no impact on a regional, national or international economy. This reflects an Indigenous community’s desire to remain isolated, to protect its community’s culture, values and traditions from potentially overwhelming effects of economic development initiatives or to participate only in those economic activities that align with their particular socioeconomic needs and objectives (Cornell and Kalt 2006; Anderson et al. 2006b; Anderson et al. 2007; Cornell and Kalt 2010). Alternatively, opting out can be more assertive reflecting an Indigenous community’s objective to actively reject, resist or even undermine regional, national and/or international economies through protest, lobbying or revolt. In May 2015, for example, the Lax Kw’alaams band in northern British Columbia (Canada) rejected a $1.15 billion CDN package from Malaysia’s Petroliam Nasional Bhd after the community unanimously voted against the US$30 billion project in three polls. The offer would have compensated each band member $319,000 CDN for the right to build a natural gas export terminal on ancestral lands (Donville and Penty 2015). Garry Reece, mayor of the town of Lax Kw’alaams indicated that opposition to the plan was overwhelming and a spokesperson for the community stated that the Canadian public need recognise that ‘this is not a money issue: this is environmental and cultural’ (Donville and Penty 2015). Winning the support of Lax Kw’alaams was critical to advancing the Pacific NorthWest liquid natural gas (LNG) project and other gas export plans in Canada and despite generous cash incentives on offer, the community cited environmental and cultural concerns as central to the community’s decision to opt out of participation.

  • Opting In. This option reflects an Indigenous community’s decision to actively participate in regional, national and international economic development initiatives. Participation is characterised by the degree to which an Indigenous community chooses to act on or transform economic development opportunities to align with their particular culture, traditions, values and socioeconomic objectives (Cornell and Kalt 2006; Anderson et al. 2006b; Anderson et al. 2007; Cornell and Kalt 2010). In contrast to the Lax Kw’alaams, the Osoyoos Indian Band (also in British Columbia, Canada) view economic development as a way to assert their sovereignty and protect their rights to create and to maintain culturally appropriate political, economic, social and environmental initiatives. The community’s socioeconomic objectives are to achieve self-reliance through economic development in order to preserve and promote their traditions and culture, manage and protect their lands, and create jobs and opportunities for future generations (Anderson et al. 2006b; Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation 2020). In opting to actively participate in regional, national and international economic development opportunities, the Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation identified four principles to guide socioeconomic value creation activities: (1) to increase the overall standard of living for Osoyoos Indian Band members; (2) to decrease dependency on government funding through increased economic development and entrepreneurial activities that promote self-sufficiency; (3) to promote cultural revitalisation that emphasises their traditional values of honour, caring, sharing and respect; and (4) to increase the community’s academic, athletic, vocational and cultural education levels (Anderson et al. 2006b; Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation 2020). With the goals of promoting the Okanagan language and culture foremost, the Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation is fostering nation building strategies through owning and operating a number of entrepreneurial ventures including vineyards, retail stores, a construction company, a concrete company, a golf course and various eco-tourism businesses (Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation 2020) (see Table 5). In opting in, the Osoyoos Indian Band has proactively participated and initiated regional, national and international economic development opportunities on or near their traditional territories in a way that reflects and reinforces their particular culture, values, and beliefs.

    Table 5 Select Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation Businesses
    Full size table

As the discussion above demonstrates, Indigenous entrepreneurship is grounded and sustained in the social context of the communities within which they are embedded (Jack and Anderson 2002; McKeever et al. 2014, 2015). From an Indigenous perspective, it is the convergence of social, cultural, economic and environmental resources with the community’s particular socioeconomic, self-governance and self-determination objectives that guides Indigenous entrepreneurs towards hybrid venture creation. This reflects an entrepreneurial focus on value creation that draws from a particular Indigenous community’s land base, political and administrative structures, internal economy, culture, traditions and values within which the Indigenous entrepreneur is embedded (Jack and Anderson 2002; McKeever et al. 2014, 2015). Entrepreneurial venture creation occurs in the context of strong social interrelationship and interdependencies that are embedded in cultural and spiritual understandings, beliefs and practices and the particular geographical and environmental ecosystem within which a community is situated. However, this is not without practical issues and challenges, because while Indigenous peoples embody strong incentives for entrepreneurship, their non-mainstream status sometimes prevents Indigenous entrepreneurs from realising their potential (see Table 6).

Table 6 Challenges to Indigenous Entrepreneurship
Full size table

These ventures balance extracting community-based value embedded in the community’s social, cultural, political and/or economic resources, geographic location, traditional territory and/or community demographics with contributing back value that is responsive to the community’s socioeconomic needs and objectives (Peredo 2001; Jack and Anderson 2002; Anderson et al. 2004; Murphy and Coombes 2008; Anderson et al. 2008; Hindle 2010; Battilana et al. 2012). Overall, Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures are characterised by the need to consider the following: (1) how ventures will be accountable to the Indigenous community within which they are embedded; (2) how to focus on community-centric value creation in a manner that reflects and leverages community resources, assets, culture, values and traditions; (3) which entrepreneurial value creation activities are culturally appropriate for addressing community socioeconomic needs and objectives and (4) which organisational and governance structures are appropriate for mobilising idle or underutilised community value and/or resources (Johnstone and Lionais 2004; Peredo et al. 2004; Rante and Warokka 2013). Therefore, the approach adopted by a particular Indigenous community or entrepreneur in reaction to the forces of the global economy is heavily influenced by local conditions and occurs within the context of multiple, overlapping and often conflicting requirements for social, economic and environmental value creation (Anderson et al. 2014; Ovaska et al. 2014). Through participating in the global economy and the national economy, and by exercising effective control over and use of their traditional lands and resources, Indigenous entrepreneurs can achieve particular socioeconomic objectives valued by their communities through the development of specific hybrid ventures. From an Indigenous perspective, it is the convergence of economic, environmental and social resources with the social purpose (values, traditions, culture, etc.) that represents the value in developing viable hybrid ventures.

Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Venture Creation

Hybrid ventures operate at the core of economic reconciliation through securing community rights and access to the social, environmental and economic resources required for actualizing Indigenous cultures, values and social economies required to thrive into the future. In eschewing a primary focus on maximising shareholder value, many Indigenous entrepreneurs create market-based hybrid ventures that balance social, economic and environment value creation with a highly localised, community-context dependant social mission (i.e. promoting self-determination, eliminating poverty, etc.). These hybrid ventures embrace a distinctive Indigenous identity with goals and objectives closely related to the social, economic and environmental conditions of their traditional territories, cultures, values and traditions (Table 7).

Table 7 Indigenous socioeconomic objectives
Full size table

The motivation for developing hybrid ventures can come from complex environmental change, from a community’s emergent needs, from an entrepreneur’s particular understanding of an opportunity, or from legal or regulatory changes (Peredo 2001; Murphy and Coombes 2008; Dana and Anderson 2013). Hybrid ventures can involve the development of innovative solutions that address community poverty, healthcare, economic development, environmental stewardship, education, housing, traditional culture, law and politics (Anderson et al. 2008; Murphy and Coombes 2008; Hindle 2010; Dana and Anderson 2013). Indigenous entrepreneurs are embedded in the particular social relations and social economy of their community.

Decisions to develop hybrid ventures are premised on a particular community’s values, traditions, culture and social history, as well as by an entrepreneur’s particular position, connection and engagement within the community (Anderson et al. 2004; Peredo et al. 2004; Dana 2007; Anderson et al. 2008). These ventures can be private, public or non-profit that can benefit individual Indigenous entrepreneurs or more broadly provide multiple social and economic advantages for entire communities as well as non-Indigenous enterprise partners (Hindle and Lansdowne 2005). Consequently, many Indigenous entrepreneurs do not necessarily seek to maximise economic value, rather they emphasise the value contribution to their community based on a particular combination of economic, environmental and social resources (Peredo 2001; Jack and Anderson 2002; Anderson et al. 2004; Murphy and Coombes 2008; Anderson et al. 2008; Hindle 2010; Battilana et al. 2012). The nature of Indigenous hybrid ventures ranges from small individual or family-run entrepreneurial ventures to large community-owned operations focused on an array of industries and markets such as agriculture, aquaculture, farming, forestry, energy (geothermal, wind, run-of-the-river hydro), mining, seafood, fashion, public relations, art, design, communications and tourism. The brief case studies that follow explore some examples of the creation, management and development of hybrid ventures by Indigenous peoples focused on social, economic and environmental value creation.

Indigenous Entrepreneurial Ventures Case Studies

  1. 1.

    Manitobah Mukluks

Manitobah Mukluks is an Indigenous-owned Canadian footwear design and manufacturing firm that is widely acclaimed for its innovative designs of mukluks and moccasins. Since its founding by Sean McCormick, the company has emphasised its mission to support Indigenous artisans and Indigenous peoples in Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada). Manitobah Mukluks’ roots are grounded in his community where he started by selling leather and furs to Indigenous artisans as a high school student (Pauls 2015). McCormick is Métis and grew up wearing mukluks in a community that was characterised by a rich culture, traditions and practices, but marred by a legacy of poverty, drug abuse and other socioeconomic challenges that marginalised and disadvantaged many community members. He describes Manitobah Mukluks as a private business that is almost a social venture (Pauls 2015) or, in other words, a hybrid venture.

Manitobah Mukluks exemplifies a significant global trend among Indigenous entrepreneurs towards creating hybrid ventures that pursue social, environmental and cultural value creation while relying on economic value creation to sustain and grow operations. It hires Indigenous peoples in management, manufacturing and creative design roles; provides annual bursaries that support Indigenous finance and business students; creates partnerships with Elders and artisans through its non-profit Storyboot Project; and promotes cultural revitalisation through enabling Indigenous Elders and artisans to teach Indigenous youth traditional beading and leather skills in the Storyboot School (Pauls 2015). Manitobah Mukluks’ status as an Indigenous hybrid venture has added to the company’s appeal with consumers and, with revenues experiencing almost 300 percent growth between 2008 and 2013, it was named one of the fastest-growing companies in Canada in the Profit 500 list of 2014 (Pauls 2015). In maintaining strong connections to his community and in having drawn on traditional Indigenous practices, values and culture, McCormick has become a positive role model for aspiring Indigenous entrepreneurs looking to develop ventures within their communities (Pauls 2015; Smith 2015). Manitobah Mukluks’ success proves that Indigenous entrepreneurs can draw upon their unique identities, worldviews and experiences to develop innovative products or services that can make positive contributions back to their communities through celebrating and revitalising Indigenous values, culture and traditions (Smith 2015).

  1. 2.

    Yaru Water

In the Bundjalung language ‘yaru’ means rock and the water bottled by Australia’s first Indigenous-owned bottled water venture Yaru Water is drawn from an aquifer at the base of Mount Warning in the Tweed Heads-Byron Bay area of north-eastern New South Wales (Allen 2013; Westpac Group 2014). Local Indigenous peoples, the Bundjalung, had used Mount Warning, known as Wollumbin or ‘cloud catcher’, for thousands of years as a sacred place of cultural law, initiation and spiritual education. While local entrepreneur Shaun Martin’s family owned the property surrounding the aquifer at Mount Warning since 1904, it was not until 2004 that he established the Mount Warning Spring Water bottling plant there (Allen 2013; Westpac Group 2014). The Martin family had a long history of engagement with local Bundjalung and were looking for opportunities to contribute back to the local Bundjalung community in a way that would make a difference and initially had considered donating a percentage of bottled water sales to fund employment and training initiatives for local Indigenous youth. However, in 2011 they decided to establish a boutique Indigenous bottled water brand, Yaru Water, in partnership with local Indigenous entrepreneurs, Kyle and Josh Slabb, who would hold a majority share of 51 percent of the business. Yaru Water was founded with a vision to create a successful business that would support Indigenous youth programmes, leadership and cultural training in the Bundjalung community (Allen 2013; Westpac Group 2014).

Yaru Water’s revenues facilitate social value creation activities that include: (1) employment opportunities for community members; (2) employee training and development; (3) Indigenous youth leadership development programmes; (4) positive community branding and (5) entrepreneurship and enterprise management workshops for other Bundjalung communities through the Yaru Foundation. Spiritual/cultural value creation activities focus on the provision of spiritual and cultural education and training programmes for Indigenous youth and on funding the construction of an accommodation and training centre on the Martin family farm where Kyle Slabb teaches Indigenous children, corporate visitors and other groups about Bundjalung values, traditions and culture. The Yaru Water brand focuses consumer attention to the Bundjalung community’s connection to Wollumbin or ‘cloud catcher’ (Mount Waring) as a sacred place of cultural law, initiation and spiritual education. This informs and contributes to the venture’s environmental value creation activities by which Indigenous stewardship in managing the resource (water) on their traditional territories is facilitated, garnering increased consumer respect for and insights into Indigenous worldviews and perspectives on sustainability.

  1. 3.

    Hupacasath First Nation Upnit Power Corporation

In 2001, British Columbia (BC) Hydro proposed the construction of the Duke Point natural gas-fired generation plant for the City of Port Alberni, a waterfront community on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Canada) (Jones 2007; Sayers and Peredo 2017; Henriques et al. 2020). The local population, environmentalists, the Hupacasath First Nation, and many others opposed the plan on the grounds of its environmental impact and successfully blocked the proposal. The Hupacasath Nation were concerned that the facility would damage their land, air and waters, contrary to the community’s deeply held values that any resource-based projects proposed for their traditional territories should not be driven by economics, but by resource sustainability for all people of the lands (Hupacasath First Nation 2004). While the Hupacasath opposed this energy project, they were also aware that the region remained in need of power and began searching for an environmentally friendly alternative solution. Ten possible run-of-the-river power opportunities were identified and the Hupacasath determined that China Creek was the best option that would respect the community’s environmental values (Sayers and Peredo 2017; Henriques et al. 2020).

The Hupacasath rejected the traditional energy methods being proposed by BC Hydro. Instead they undertook a process which involved developing effective and reciprocal alliances of NGOs, citizens, private and public sector organisations and enterprises (Bornstein and Davis 2010). Working in collaboration with the Pembina Institute, Synex Energy, Natural Resources Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the City of Port Alberni, the Hupacasath defined the cultural and resource values of their territory and undertook an assessment of wind and water resources (Hupacasath First Nation 2004). In 2003, with help from researchers at the Pembina Institute and Sigma Engineering (wholly owned subsidiary of Synex Energy), the Hupacasath council identified that the China Creek site did not have sacred sites, that there were no issues that could affect the salmon, that it would create a very small footprint on the land and that it had an adequate flow of water for at least eight to ten months of the year, making the project economically, culturally and environmentally feasible as having run-of-the-river hydro potential (Jones 2007; Sayers and Peredo 2017; National Centre for First Nations Governance 2018; Henriques et al. 2020). Water from China Creek was diverted out of a creek into a penstock pipe and then run over a vertical drop through a turbine generator and returned to the creek downstream without significantly affecting the local water resource or natural environment. According to Trevor Jones, Executive Director of the Hupacasath First Nation, the run-of-the-river hydro approach was chosen because it complied with the Hupacasath community’s values, satisfied the need for more power on Vancouver Island, was an energy source that did not increase greenhouse gases, provided opportunities for partnerships and community benefits, required no storage reservoir, was non-consumptive (did not take away from Mother Earth), and had minimal environmental impacts (Jones 2007). More specifically, the China Creek run-of-river project minimised environmental impacts because China Creek has falls that are difficult to access, there were no salmon spawning issues and the project minimised environmental issues by locating the powerhouse in an existing industrial gravel pit. The end result was a run-of-the-river‚ 6.5 MW‚ low impact‚ Hupacasath First Nation inspired green energy project that‚ during peak operations‚ powers up to 6000 homes (Jones 2007; Sayers and Peredo 2017), while ensuring that China Creek continues to be Port Alberni’s main water source. Most importantly, the City of Port Alberni was involved and cooperated in all stages of planning, financing and development and the Hupacasath First Nation signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with BC Hydro. In proposing their own community-owned power project, the Hupacasath moved from being a consulting stakeholder to an Indigenous social entrepreneur. They were centrally involved in the planning, decision-making and development processes to minimise any negative effects and ensure that First Nations communities would share in the benefits. In initiating this community-based social venture, Chief Judith Sayers, Hupacasath council and Hupacasath Executive Director Trevor Jones became Indigenous entrepreneurs (Henriques et al. 2020).

Conclusion

Indigenous entrepreneurship is not just about money, it is about history, tradition, culture, and language embedded in time and traditional territory. It is the creation, management and development of entrepreneurial ventures by Indigenous peoples for the benefit of Indigenous peoples. As demonstrated in this chapter, many Indigenous leaders have consistently and repeatedly declared their desire to participate in the global economy, capitalise on the abundance of resources on their traditional lands and create long-term sustainable and distributional social and economic development opportunities within their communities. They believe that sovereignty over their lands and resources enables the community to foster socioeconomic development without sacrificing their distinct cultures, values and traditions. This results in the creation of Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures characterised by the integration of social, environmental and economic business models that are responsive to their community’s particular geographic location, access to natural resources, socioeconomic needs, values, traditions and culture. The Manitobah Mukluks, Yaru Water and Hupacasath First Nation Upnit Power Corporation cases are examples of successful Indigenous entrepreneurial initiatives that contributed to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of their communities. These ventures were based on access to a community’s particular resources and informed by Indigenous knowledge and experience embodied in the community’s traditional territory. These examples demonstrate that Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures represent a significant opportunity for Indigenous communities to build vibrant Indigenous-led economies that support sustainable social, economic and environmental value creation as a means by which they can assert their rights to design, develop and maintain Indigenous-centric political, economic and social systems and institutions. Ultimately, Indigenous peoples worldwide have the right to engage freely on their own terms in traditional and economic activities occurring on or near their traditional territories. Self-determination, to be sustainable in practice, has to come with the right of self-determination over natural resources within traditional territories (Corntassel 2008). Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures are more successful when the rights of Indigenous peoples are addressed and when these initiatives are led by or engage with Indigenous communities. With increased recognition of rights comes increased opportunities for Indigenous ventures that focus on social, economic and environment value creation for and by Indigenous peoples. This, in turn, represents a strong potential for Indigenous peoples globally to revitalise their cultures, values and tradition and establish larger regional economic networks that facilitate the formation alliances that might lead to even greater opportunities for Indigenous peoples (Corntassel 2008).