Content uploaded by Rick Colbourne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rick Colbourne on Mar 20, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
93
CHAPTER 4
INDIGENOUS
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND
HYBRID VENTURES
Rick Colbourne
ABSTRACT
Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid venture creation represents a sig-
nicant opportunity for Indigenous peoples to build vibrant Indigenous-led
economies that support sustainable economic development and well-being.
It is a means by which they can assert their rights to design, develop and
maintain Indigenous-centric political, economic and social systems and
institutions. In order to develop an integrated and comprehensive under-
standing of the intersection between Indigenous entrepreneurship and
hybrid ventures, this chapter adopts a case study approach to examining
Indigenous entrepreneurship and the underlying global trends that have
inuenced the design, structure and mission of Indigenous hybrid ventures.
The cases present how Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures are, rst and
foremost, hybrid ventures that are responsive to community needs, values,
cultures and traditions. They demonstrate that Indigenous entrepreneur-
ship and hybrid ventures are more successful when the rights of Indigenous
peoples are addressed and when these initiatives are led by or engage
Hybrid Ventures
Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 19, 93–149
Copyright © 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1074-7540/doi: 10.1108/S1074-754020170000019004
94 RICK COLBOURNE
Indigenous communities. The chapter concludes with a conceptual model
that can be applied to generate insights into the complex interrelationships
and interdependencies that inuence the formation of Indigenous hybrid
ventures and value creation strategies according to three dimensions:
(i) the overarching dimension of indigeneity and Indigenous rights; (ii)
indigenous community orientations and (iii) indigenous hybrid venture
creation considerations.
Keywords: Civic enterprising; Indigenous entrepreneurs; hybrid
ventures; sustainable development; social entrepreneurship;
economicdevelopment; Aboriginal economic development
INTRODUCTION
I dream of a day when we’re not a business helping a community; but rather, a commu-
nity helping ourselves …we will continue to build the dream of building a vibrant, global
brand that Aboriginal people can feel proud of and be part of.
——Sean McCormick, founder and CEO of Manitobah Mukluks (Smith, 2015)
Manitobah Mukluks is an Indigenous-owned Canadian footwear design and
manufacturing rm that is widely acclaimed for its innovative designs of muk-
luks and moccasins. Since its founding by Sean McCormick, the company
has emphasized its mission to support Indigenous artisans and Indigenous
peoples in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Canada. Manitobah Mukluks’ roots are
grounded in his community where he started by selling leather and furs to
Aboriginal artisans as a high school student (Pauls, 2015). McCormick is
Métis and grew up wearing mukluks in a community that was characterized
by a rich culture, traditions and practices but marred by a legacy of poverty,
drug abuse and other socioeconomic challenges that marginalized and dis-
advantaged 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.
Hybrid ventures seek to address complex social issues through prioritiz-
ing, balancing and blending social, cultural, economic and/or environmental
value creation activities to address societal socioeconomic needs and objec-
tives (Douglas, 2010, p. 72; Russo et al., 2015; Seelos et al., 2011; Wilson
& Post, 2011, p. 717). Manitobah Mukluks exemplies a signicant global
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 95
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 nance and business students; cre-
ates partnerships with Elders and artisans through its non-prot Storyboot
Project and promotes cultural revitalization 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 con-
sumers, and with revenues experiencing almost 300% growth between 2008
and 2013, it was named one of the fastest-growing companies in Canada by
2014’s Prot 500 list (Pauls, 2015). In maintaining strong connections to his
community and in having drawn on traditional Indigenous practices, val-
ues and culture, McCormick has become a positive role model for aspiring
Indigenous entrepreneurs looking to develop ventures within their commu-
nities (Pauls, 2015; Smith, 2015). Manitobah Mukluks’ success proves that
Indigenous entrepreneurs can draw on their unique identities, worldviews and
experiences to develop innovative products or services that can make positive
contributions back to their communities through celebrating and revitalizing
Indigenous values, culture and traditions (Smith, 2015).
This chapter adopts a case study approach to exploring the intersection
between Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid ventures and the underlying
global trends that inuence the structure and mission of Indigenous hybrid
ventures. It begins with an examination of how indigeneity and Indigenous
rights constitute individual and community identities, values, traditions and
culture and Indigenous entrepreneurs towards hybrid venture structures and
value creation strategies. This is followed by a discussion of how standard and
nation building community development strategies facilitate/constrain hybrid
venture and value creation strategies and inuence how an Indigenous com-
munity chooses to participate (or not) in regional, national and international
economic development opportunities. Given this context, the intersection of
hybrid ventures and Indigenous entrepreneurship is examined through den-
ing Indigenous entrepreneurship and exploring the inuence of community
embeddedness on hybrid venture structures and value creation strategies.
This is followed by case studies which present three contrasting examples of
Indigenous hybrid ventures: (i) Booderee National Park; (ii) Yaru Water and
(iii) Ainu Museums and Heritage Sites. Each example provides insights into
the community conditions, the nature of the hybrid venture, the degree of
96 RICK COLBOURNE
embeddedness and the practical approach taken to dening and addressing
cultural, social, environmental and economic value creation in response to
a particular community’s socioeconomic needs and objectives. The chapter
concludes with a summary discussion that frames the conceptual model used
in the chapter for understanding the nuanced complexities and principles
behind the use of Indigenous hybrid ventures and value creation strategies to
address the socioeconomic needs and objectives of Indigenous communities.
INDIGENEITY AND INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2015, p. 1) esti-
mates that there are more than 370 million Indigenous people spread across
70 countries worldwide practicing unique traditions and retaining social, cul-
tural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the
host country within which they live. Historically, Indigenous peoples suffered
colonization, subjugation, integration and assimilation by merchants, trad-
ers, states and churches aimed at diminishing and/or eradicating Indigenous
cultures, practices and identities (Russell, 2009). The effects of colonization
deprived Indigenous peoples of access to and collective ownership of the
natural resources of their traditional territories, undermined unique cul-
tures, languages and religions and delegitimized their social economies. Post-
colonial governments exacerbated these negative effects by supporting and
advancing non-Indigenous interests over those of their Indigenous peoples
(Russell, 2009).
Indigenous peoples face many challenges such as poor health, discrimina-
tion, substandard education, the loss of traditional livelihoods and restricted
access to work and other socioeconomic opportunities (Dhir, 2015; UNDP,
2012). Indigenous hybrid ventures, such as Manitobah Mukluks, have
emerged to address social issues as diverse as poverty, healthcare, economic
development, infrastructure development, education, housing, culture and
language revitalization. These ventures provide Indigenous peoples with
diverse opportunities to pursue economic decolonization or economic recon-
ciliation through leveraging the growing global support for Indigenous rights
and self-determination in order to facilitate economic development focused
on Indigenous-centric social, cultural, economic and environmental value
creation activities (Gladu, 2016; Sengupta et al., 2015).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 97
Indigeneity
This Story is the Land, and the Land is the Story.
The Story holds the people,
and the people live inside the Story,
The Story lives inside the people,
And the Land lives inside the people also.
It goes all ways to hold the Land.
Turner and Perrurle (2010, p. 45)
Indigenous traditions, laws and customs are the practical application of
Indigenous values grounded in their particular experience and worldview
(Bear, 2000, p. 79). While not all Indigenous peoples share identical world-
views, most have a land-based, holistic and relational worldview that is both
spiritual and material. It is an expression of identity and culture that informs a
community’s socioeconomic values (Kuokkanen, 2011; Wuttunee, 2004, p.14).
Many Indigenous peoples experience a profound connection to their land of
origin (traditional territory) and to the interdependent ecosystem of fauna
and ora within which they interact and live as a result of worldviews that are
founded on the active recognition of the interconnection, interrelationship and
interdependency of people and the natural and spiritual realms. This relational
worldview stresses that Indigenous peoples are stewards of the land mandated
with a responsibility to ensure all of their actions and interactions are sus-
taining and respectful. In this, they are obligated to care for, respect, conserve
and promote well-being for all people, fauna and ora residing within their
traditional territories (Kuokkanen, 2011; Spiller et al., 2011, p. 223; Wuttunee,
2004). Consequently, many Indigenous communities favour socioeconomic
initiatives that recognize this interdependency and therefore, pursue objectives
that promote sustainability and reciprocity between the human, natural and
spiritual realms (Kuokkanen, 2011, p. 219; Walters & Takamura, 2015).
Indigenous worldviews inform and frame the socioeconomic culture of
an Indigenous community through foregrounding certain values over others
(i.e. social, cultural, environmental over economic) and this particular blend
of values exerts an inuence on the nature of Indigenous entrepreneurial
activities. When viewed as a continuum, Indigenous worldviews inform the
development of collectivist-oriented cultures while Western worldviews have
traditionally resulted in more individualistic-oriented cultures (Braun et al.,
2014, p. 122; Peredo & McLean, 2010, p. 606). The degree to which a commu-
nity has a collectivist or individualist culture varies signicantly in practice
due to the effects of historical legacies, social conditions and/or geographical
contexts that inuence how a culture expressed in practice by an Indigenous
98 RICK COLBOURNE
community. Table 1 compares Indigenous collectivist cultural orientations
with non-Indigenous (Western) ones across dimensions of that are of par-
ticular importance to Indigenous entrepreneurs.
Collectivist-oriented cultures emphasize individual socioeconomic inter-
dependence within the community. Individuals act interdependently with oth-
ers and value is placed on activities that benet the community and sustain
harmonious relations. Individual needs, wants and desires are subordinated
to the collective needs of the community (Frederick & Henry, 2004; Henry,
2007; Tassell et al., 2010, p. 139; Thornton et al., 2011). Western Individualist-
oriented cultures are characterized by individual identities focused on satis-
fying personal needs, desires and wants. Individuals act in competition with
others, and value is placed on personal achievement and, in many cases, on
Table 1. Collectivism Versus Individualism.
Dimension Indigenous Collectivism Western Individualism
Social structure • Group achievement
• Emphasis on inclusion, mutual
support and interdependence
• Personal achievement
• Emphasis on competition,
economic or class
stratication
Power • ‘Power with’
• Sit within a complex ecosystem
of relationships
• ‘Power over’
• Sit on top of a series of
relationships
Rights • Mutually interactive • In competition
Change • Cyclical and harmonious • Linear process of progress
and development
Knowledge • Journey towards knowing
• Relational and context sensitive
• Asset to be accumulated
• Rational and xed
Moral imperative • Stewardship
• Sacred trust with responsibilities
to future generations
• Nation or international
economic interests
• Job creation
Goals • Group interests • Personal interests
Accountability
over time
• Ancestors through to
7 generations
• Present and next
generation
Environment/resource
orientation
• Gifts from the creator • Commodities or assets to
exploit
Resource use • Sustainable development • Unrestricted exploitation
Land use • For sustenance
• For social ends
• For prot
• For personal means
Wealth • To be shared or given away • To be accumulated
Sources: Harper (2003), Henry (2007), Holder and Corntassel (2002), Peredo and McLean
(2010), Tassell et al. (2010) and Thornton et al. (2011).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 99
the accumulation of wealth that is viewed as being superordinate to commu-
nity needs (Frederick & Henry, 2004; Henry, 2007; Tassell et al., 2010, p. 139;
Thornton et al., 2011).
Collectivist and individualist cultures neither inherently promote nor
inhibit entrepreneurial activities, rather, particular worldviews translate into
cultural and social norms which act as guiding principles for the creation
of entrepreneurial ventures through facilitating/constraining, encouraging/
discouraging or framing/directing opportunity recognition, venture creation
and/or venture structure within Indigenous and non-Indigenous communi-
ties (Frederick & Henry, 2004; Harper, 2003). In the context of a collectivist
worldview, Indigenous peoples generally recognize that collective and indi-
vidual rights are mutually interactive rather than in competition (Holder &
Corntassel, 2002, p. 129; Ritsema et al., 2015, p. 170), and they favour col-
lective approaches to entrepreneurship that generally involve hybrid venture
creation (Anderson et al., 2005, 2006a; Frederick & Henry, 2004; Galbraith
& Stiles, 2003; Peredo & McLean, 2010).
Communities exert a regulative inuence on venture creation (Marquis &
Battilana, 2009; Ritsema et al., 2015, p. 170), and the key to understanding
Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid venture creation is that the identities
and cultures of Indigenous peoples are inextricably linked to their traditional
lands and practices. Indigenous entrepreneurial activities reect different val-
ues, traditions, access and proximity to markets, lands and resources, degrees
of collectivity and differing socioeconomic conditions that inuence what is
viewed as an opportunity and how a venture is structured to achieve the par-
ticular blend of social, cultural, environmental and economic value creation
of importance to the community (Curry & Donker, 2009; Dana, 2007; Spiller
et al., 2011; Wuttunee, 2004). A community’s collective orientation facilitates
or constrains an Indigenous entrepreneur’s ability to identify opportunities
and develop hybrid ventures (Anderson, 2001; Anderson et al., 2006b, 2008;
Dana & Anderson, 2011; Hindle, 2010; Lindsay, 2005) and Indigenous entre-
preneurs risk that ventures which do not conform to a particular Indigenous
community’s cultural norms and values may be suppressed by that commu-
nity (Lindsay, 2005).
Indigenous Rights
Many countries have been reluctant or have failed to develop clear determina-
tions of ‘indigenous’ and ‘Indigenous peoples’ within their areas of jurisdiction
(Lama, 2013, p. 34). The most respectful approach to articulating indigeneity
100 RICK COLBOURNE
is to identify, rather than dene Indigenous peoples through recognizing the fun-
damental criterion of self-identication (United Nations, 2015; see Table 2).
While there are a number of approaches to identifying Indigenous peoples,
all approaches display three common characteristics: (i) the recognition of
the diversity of Indigenous peoples and the right to self-identication; (ii)
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, settle-
ment or other means and (iii) the recognition and legitimation of pre-existing
Indigenous traditional cultural, economic, social or political values and insti-
tutions (Asian Development Bank, 2015; International Labour Organization,
2015; United Nations, 2015; World Bank, 2015).
Indigenous peoples’ economic, social and legal status often limits their
capacity to defend their interests in and rights to traditional territories and
resources. It also limits the potential to benet from entrepreneurial activi-
ties on or near their communities, resulting in that Indigenous peoples are
frequently among a country’s most marginalized and vulnerable population.
In 2013, for example, the United States’ Census Bureau’s 5-year data sur-
vey reported that, at 27%, Native Americans and Alaska Natives exhibited
the highest national poverty rates in the country (Macartney et al., 2013).
Similarly, the 2011 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia
(HILDA) survey found that 19.3% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people were living below the poverty line compared with 12.4% of the gen-
eral population (Australian Council of Social Service, 2014). As the statistics
demonstrate, poverty and marginalization continue to be a signicant issue
even for those Indigenous peoples residing in wealthy and vibrant Western
economies. 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 well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world’ (Article 43; Amnesty
International Canada, 2016; Blackstock, 2013). The most relevant concepts
relating to Indigenous entrepreneurship and the development of hybrid ven-
tures are (a) the right to self-determination; (b) the right to be recognized as
distinct peoples and (c) the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
Self-Determination. The right to self-determination is the right for
Indigenous peoples to freely determine their political status and freely pur-
sue their economic, social and cultural development while being respect-
ful of the human rights of their community members and other peoples
(Blackstock, 2013, p. 12, United Nations General Assembly, 2008). This
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 101
Table 2. Identication of Indigenous Peoples.
Organization Indigenous Identication Factors
International Labour
Organization (2015)
Convention #169
• Does not dene who are
Indigenous and Tribal peoples
• Provides criteria for describing
the peoples it aims to protect
• Traditional life styles
• Culture and way of life different from the other
segments of the national population, e.g. in their ways
of making a living, language, customs, etc.
• Own social organization and political institutions
• Living in historical continuity in a certain area, or before
others ‘invaded’ or came to the area
The United Nations (2015)
Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues
• Considers the diversity of
Indigenous peoples, therefore
an ofcial denition of
‘indigenous’ has not been
adopted by any UN-system
body
• Self-identication as indigenous peoples at the individual
level and accepted by the community as their member
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler
societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environ-
ments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities
World Bank (2015)
• Recognizes the varied and
changing contexts in which
Indigenous Peoples live and
that there is no universally
accepted denition
• Self-identication as members of a distinct indigenous
cultural group and recognition of this identity by others
• Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats
or ancestral territories in the project area and to the
natural resources in these habitats and territories
• Customary cultural, economic, social or political
institutions that are separate from those of the dominant
society and culture
• An indigenous language, often different from the ofcial
language of the country or region
Includes:
• A group that has lost ‘collective attachment to
geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in
the project area’ because of forced severance
Asian Development Bank (2015)
• Recognizes diversity of
Indigenous peoples and refers
the characteristics displayed by
Indigenous peoples
• Self-identication and identication by others as being
part of a distinct indigenous cultural group and a
display of desire to preserve that cultural identity
• A linguistic identity different from that of the dominant
society
• Social, cultural, economic and political traditions and
institutions distinct from the dominant culture
• Economic systems oriented more toward traditional
systems of production than mainstream systems
• Unique ties and attachments to traditional habitats
and ancestral territories and natural resources in these
habitats and territories
102 RICK COLBOURNE
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 nancing their
governance and economic development activities (United Nations General
Assembly, 2008).
Distinct Peoples. Indigenous peoples have the right to be recognized as dis-
tinct peoples. They have a collective right to live in freedom, peace and secu-
rity 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 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). While the principle that Indigenous peoples have the right
to give or withhold their FPIC is recognized by and strengthened as a legal
right by the UNDRIP (Anderson, 2011), FPIC does not supersede a host
country’s law with respect to its legislative and decision-making responsibili-
ties. Despite broad efforts over the past four decades to improve the socio-
economic well-being of Indigenous peoples, many countries have still not
recognized and/or acted on Indigenous rights (Dhir, 2015).
The recognition of Indigenous rights, self-governance and self-determi-
nation is important as this facilitates entrepreneurship and the creation of
Indigenous hybrid ventures that contribute to revitalizing a community’s
cultural traditions, strengthening its connection to traditional territories
and reviving spiritual practices (Corntassel, 2008; Curry and Donker, 2009;
Wuttunee, 2004). In the United States, for example, Native American sov-
ereignty is recognized by treaties that created federally recognized tribes as
sovereign but domestic dependent nations. The United States’ federal gov-
ernment, therefore, has an obligation to protect Native American rights to
self- government, tribal lands and resources while ensuring the provision of
necessary services such as education and healthcare (Grande et al., 2015,
p. 106). Most tribes, however, exercise a limited degree of political sover-
eignty and their marginal economic, social and legal status often limits their
capacity to defend their interests and rights to land and resources. To address
this, Native American communities and leaders are developing innovative
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 103
hybrid ventures that reect the nation building efforts and particular tribal
identities, cultures, traditions and spirituality of the people connected to their
traditional territories and its resources (Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010; Curry &
Donker, 2009; Dana, 2007; Spiller et al., 2011; Wuttunee, 2004).
Indigenous-led socioeconomic development facilitates initiatives that
reect the community’s culture, values, traditions and worldview and its
struggle for self-determination and self-governance (Cornell & Kalt, 2010,
2006). Increased self-determination and self-governance in an Indigenous
community promotes enhanced accountability and transparency through
which Indigenous governing institutions and economic development policies
and procedures can be designed and rened to address local socioeconomic
needs and objectives (Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010). Community members and
leaders are learning how to do entrepreneurship and are creating Indigenous-
centric civic institutions, laws, policies and procedures that encourage hybrid
venture creation to improve individual and community socioeconomic well-
being inherent in these rights (Anderson, 2001; Colbourne, 2012). Indigenous
entrepreneurs and community leaders, therefore, must understand and
address the dynamics underlying their community’s particular socioeconomic
conditions and must engage in community development strategies that sup-
port entrepreneurs and sustainable hybrid venture creation.
INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION IN
THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Indigenous peoples occupy the physical and ideological frontiers of world
struggles with globalization. In occupying this space, they stand to be the most
profoundly impacted by threats to their very existence as peoples through the
destruction of their lands, cultures, traditions and identities (Doyle and Gilbert,
2010, p. 221). Encouraged by emerging international standards and court rul-
ings afrming and clarifying Indigenous rights, Indigenous communities are
redening the nature of their participation in economic development opportu-
nities that occur on or near their traditional territories. Indigenous communi-
ties worldwide share in a common struggle to address two central issues: (i) how
to create and foster economic opportunities for their members (employment,
entrepreneurship, subsistence, etc.) and (ii) how to fund and develop Indigenous
government and civic institutions (legal, judicial, social services, education, etc.;
Begay et al., 2007, p. 35; Cornell, 2006, p. 4; Corntassel, 2008). This can be
challenging for some Indigenous communities due to the size of the population
104 RICK COLBOURNE
(too small), for example, the quality of the land base of the territory, access
and rights to natural and human resources, proximity to economic centres,
markets and customers and/or due to the particular community’s legal status
within the host country. Through working to create optimal social, economic
and political conditions that support self-governance and sustainable economic
development, Indigenous leaders and entrepreneurs are preparing their com-
munities to participate (or not) in a global economy characterized by differ-
ing and often conicting worldviews. The section that follows identies and
describes two approaches to Indigenous community development focused on
developing effective self-governance mechanisms and on promoting economic
development and entrepreneurship. This is followed by an examination of
Indigenous community dynamics involved in choosing to opt in or opt out of
local, regional and international economic development opportunities.
Standard Versus Nation Building Strategies
The approach adopted by a particular Indigenous community and/or entre-
preneur is heavily inuenced by local conditions and occurs within the con-
text of multiple, overlapping and often conicting requirements for social,
cultural, economic and environmental value creation (Anderson et al., 2007b,
p. 209; Ovaska et al., 2014). The Native Nations Institute working with
Native American communities in the United States developed a framework
for understanding successful Indigenous community development according
to two characteristic strategies: (i) the standard strategy and (ii) the nation
building strategy (Cornell, 2006; Cornell & Kalt, 2006; Ritsema et al., 2015).
This framework emphasizes the importance of aligning a particular commu-
nity’s culture, values and traditions with the structure and organization of the
civic institutions involved in socioeconomic and political decision making.
Standard Strategy. Briey, the standard strategy is characterized by the
intersection between a host country’s economic policies and an Indigenous
community’s development policies developed in response to its particular
socioeconomic needs and objectives (Anderson et al., 2006a; Cornell & Kalt,
2006). This approach to community development has ve primary charac-
teristics: (i) decision making is typically short-term and non-strategic; (ii)
non-Indigenous persons or organizations are empowered to set the commu-
nity’s development agenda (i.e. outside governmental agencies, corporations,
federal, state or provincial governments, municipalities, etc.); (iii) value crea-
tion is economic-centric; (iv) Indigenous culture is viewed as an obstacle to
development and (v) Indigenous leadership roles are limited to raising funds
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 105
(usually from the host government) and/or distributing resources (i.e. social
assistance payments, jobs, healthcare, etc.) often to the detriment of the com-
munity’s long-term socioeconomic conditions (Cornell & Kalt, 2006, p.3).
Indigenous governments struggle to proactively govern in the long-term
interests of the community as inordinate time is consumed with tactical and
transactional issues of administrating federal programs, solving individual
member’s issues and challenges, applying for additional funding or addressing
ongoing and complex social challenges (Cornell & Kalt, 2006). Indigenous
community development, consequently, has a short-term focus that results
in community economic development and entrepreneurial efforts that fail to
create long-term and sustainable community value creation strategies and
undermine nation building efforts. This is a consequence of the (i) absence of
(or poorly designed) laws, policies and procedures that constrain rather than
facilitate venture creation (Cornell & Kalt, 2006); (ii) shortage of talent with
practical management and leadership experience (Anderson et al., 2007a);
(iii) absence of proactive succession planning and skill development strate-
gies (Colbourne, 2012); (iv) over-reliance on non-Indigenous enterprises with
no accountability to the community and which extract community resources
without contributing value back (Cornell & Kalt, 2006) and, (v) the creation
of highly politicized, inefcient community ventures and short-term projects
(Cornell & Kalt, 2006; Curry & Donker, 2009; Vining & Richards, 2016).
Nation Building Strategy. The nation building strategy emerged in the late
twentieth century from community efforts to facilitate economic development
and entrepreneurship through approaches grounded in a particular commu-
nity’s Indigenous culture, values and traditions (Cornell & Kalt, 2006). This
approach is characterized by a dual focus on (i) asserting Indigenous rights
and sovereignty through (ii) building Indigenous and community-centric
institutional and governance capacities to address socioeconomic needs and
objectives through targeted and sustained economic development activities
(Cornell & Kalt, 2006). The ve primary characteristics of the nation build-
ing approach that support Indigenous community development are: (i) acting
on Indigenous sovereignty in order to assert and retain decision-making pow-
ers within and over communities and their traditional territories (Cornell &
Kalt, 2006, 2010; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006); (ii) the development of effective
governing institutions that support culturally appropriate forms of economic
development (Anderson et al., 2006a; Cornell & Kalt, 2006; Curry & Donker,
2009; Curry et al., 2009); (iii) the alignment of Indigenous governing institu-
tions that integrate deeply held traditional and cultural values aligned with
the community (Anderson et al., 2008; Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010); (iv) a
development orientation that builds the skills and capabilities of community
106 RICK COLBOURNE
members to realize the community’s vision and aspirations (Anderson et al.,
2008; Colbourne, 2012; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006) and (v) nurturing social
and economic leaders with strong nation building orientations focused on
facilitating sustained economic development and enhanced community well-
being (see Fig. 1; Anderson et al., 2004, 2007a; Cornell & Kalt, 2006). This
provides communities with a strong foundation for deciding which socioeco-
nomic opportunities and initiatives are culturally appropriate to participate
in (or not) and for designing the particular venture structure and value crea-
tion strategy that serves the community’s particular strategic socioeconomic
needs and objectives.
Native American communities, for example, whose civic institutions
exhibited a high degree of alignment were found to have more successful
Indigenous-centric economies (Ritsema et al., 2015, p. 170). Self-governance
and self-determination when supported by effective, culturally aligned civic
institutions are fundamental factors in the development of successful eco-
nomic development activities (Ritsema et al., 2015) that facilitate the crea-
tion of Indigenous hybrid ventures. Self-governance and self-determination
are important because they: (i) facilitate the development of civic institu-
tions, governing mechanisms, laws, policies and procedures that are cultur-
ally aligned with and accountable to the Indigenous community; (ii) displace
external interests (governments, corporations, etc.) in favour of Indigenous
and community-centric socioeconomic interests and objectives; (iii) provide
Indigenous communities with greater control over social, cultural, political
and/or economic resources and (iv) shift short-term thinking orientations
(responding to crises, pursuing only what can be funded or concentrating
Nation Building & Aligned Leadership
Formal and informal leaders establish foundations for sustained community development
Strategic Vision & Strategic Thinking
Community sets long-term socioeconomic and political objectives linked to decision making
Self-Governance
Effective Civic Institution Building
Stable, effective and fair
Legitimate Institutions
Aligned with community’s culture, values
and traditions
Self-Determination
Practical decision-making power in the hands of the community;
political issue, not an organizational issue
Fig. 1. Community Socioeconomic Success. Adapted from
Ritsema et al. (2015, p. 161).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 107
on isolated problems, etc.) to long-term strategic ones (implementing the
community’s socioeconomic vision of the future; Ritsema et al., 2015,
pp.161–162) all of which, promotes increased use of Indigenous hybrid ven-
tures. Indigenous communities, therefore, are empowered to address their
issues, challenges, values, concerns and worldviews through Indigenous-
centric governing institutions and policies rather than being subject to
external non-Indigenous interests and policies imposed by host country
governments or non-Indigenous business interests (Cornell, 2006; Cornell
& Kalt, 2006, 2010).
Indigenous Socioeconomic Objectives
Not all Indigenous communities share the same socioeconomic values and
objectives as Indigenous economic development and entrepreneurship is
inuenced by the interconnectedness of the particular social relationships,
governing institutions and values within which the individual or venture is
embedded (see Table 3).
An Indigenous community’s socioeconomics needs and objectives can be
conceptualized as being nested within the environmental dimension within
which each of the economic, social, spiritual and cultural dimensions exert
a differential inuence on Indigenous entrepreneurial activities and hybrid
venture creation (see Fig. 2; Morgan, 2006, p. 5). In contrast, Western soci-
ety’s socioeconomic objectives can be characterized 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.
As Fig. 2 demonstrates, Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures embedded in
Indigenous communities are environmentally, socially, spiritually and cultur-
ally grounded while economic value creation is considered a less central objec-
tive. In contrast, Western entrepreneurial ventures are economically centred
with environmental, social, spiritual and cultural objectives being subordi-
nated to economic objectives. The decision to engage in particular entrepre-
neurial activities and create hybrid ventures, for example, is inuenced by a
particular Indigenous community’s social values and cultural/spiritual beliefs
as translated into laws, policies and procedures by the community’s govern-
ing 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 inuences the types of opportunities that are
available to or appropriate for an Indigenous entrepreneur to pursue as well
108 RICK COLBOURNE
Table 3. Indigenous Socioeconomic Objectives.
Objectives Description
Environmental • Indigenous stewardship of natural resources
–Sustainable practices: hunting, shing, harvesting
–Environmentally friendly practices: oil, gas, mining, timber
• Social, spiritual, cultural and economic are interdependent on environment
• Environment as geography
–Constitutes: Indigenous identity, knowledge base, culture, spirituality
• Constitutes the space for entrepreneurship: opportunity recognition,
hybrid venture creation, venture assets and resources
• Entrepreneurship ecosystem
Culture • Preservation and strengthening of traditional culture and values
–Cultural revitalization
–Language revitalization
–Traditional practice: ceremonies, protocol
• Application of traditional culture and values to economic development
activities
• Emphasis on Indigenous cultural knowledge and values based on history,
lived experience and connection to community and geography
• Long-term orientation – Seven Generations, Gifts of the Seven
Grandfathers
Spiritual • Improved spiritual circumstance for individuals, families and communities
–Spiritual renewal
–Spiritual teachings: schools, community events, Elders
Woven into day-to-day of community’s politico-socio economy
–Spirituality as a basis for action
–Spirituality as a basis for developing a sustainably sound entrepreneurial
model
Social • Improved social conditions for individuals, families and communities
–Indigenous self-governance based on cultural histories and geographies
–Indigenous self-determination and control
–Poverty alleviation
• Increased collective community-governed control
–Healthcare
–Education
–Business enterprises
• Increased Indigenous capacity through training and local workforce
development, mentoring and support
Economic • Recognition of Indigenous rights and title to land as foundation to
economic objectives
• Community self-sufciency
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 109
as expectations regarding the venture’s particular balance of social, cultural,
spiritual and environmental value creation activities.
Opting in or out of Economic Development Opportunities
As globalization’s reach is amplied by new and emerging technologies, even
the most remote and isolated Indigenous communities are being threatened by
unprecedented growth in global demand and competition for oil, gas, minerals,
Objectives Description
• Improved economic conditions for individuals, families and communities
–Employment
–Community/nation independence
–Indigenous government
• Improved economic development mechanisms
–Indigenous friendly laws, policies and procedures
–Indigenous hybrid venture creation
• Emphasis on Indigenous knowledge and values based on history, lived
experience, connection to community and geography
• Economic objectives complemented/blended with social, environmental,
cultural and spiritual objectives
Sources: Anderson et al. (2006a), Hansen and Brown (2016), Henry (2007), Hunt (2013), Hunt
and Smith (2006), Walters and Takamura (2015)
Environmental Objectives
Environmental
Objectives
Economic Objectives
Cultural/Spiritual
Objectives
Cultural/
Spiritual
Objectives
Social Objectives
Social Objectives
Economic
Objectives
Fig. 2. Indigenous Versus Western Socioeconomic Objectives.
110 RICK COLBOURNE
forests, water and arable lands (Doyle & Gilbert, 2010, pp. 221–222). Indigenous
approaches to community development focus on asserting sovereignty
through establishing strong mechanisms for self-governance that support
self-determination through economic development and venture creation.
This enables the community to make socioeconomic decisions that reect
their culture, traditions, values and concerns in the laws, policies and proce-
dures created by the community for the community’s benet rather than ben-
eting non-Indigenous interests (i.e. corporations, local, regional and federal
government, etc.; Cornell, 2006; Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010). Increased com-
munity engagement through the creation of strong Indigenous-centric civic
institutions facilitates accountability and transparency in decision making
that focuses on the community’s long-term socioeconomic vision and objec-
tives and informs choices to opt out or opt in of particular entrepreneurial
ventures and economic development initiative (Anderson et al., 2006a).
Opting Out. The rst option, opting out, has two possibilities that reect
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 reects an Indigenous community’s desire to remain isolated,
to protect its community’s culture, values and traditions from potentially over-
whelming effects of economic development initiatives or to participate only in
those economic activities that align with their particular socioeconomic needs
and objectives (Anderson et al., 2006a, 2007b; Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010).
Alternatively, opting out can be more assertive reecting an Indigenous com-
munity’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 & 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 opined that the Canadian public needed to
recognize that ‘this is not a money issue: this is environmental and cultural’
(Donville & Penty, 2015). Winning the support of Lax Kw’alaams was critical
to advancing the Pacic North-West 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 participating.
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 111
Opting In. The second option, opting in, reects an Indigenous commu-
nity’s decision to actively participate in regional, national and international
economic development initiatives. Participation is characterized by the
degree to which the Indigenous community chooses to act on or transform
economic development opportunities to align with their particular culture,
traditions, values and socioeconomic objectives (Anderson et al., 2006a,
2007b; Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010). In contrast to the Lax Kw’alaams, the
Osoyoos Indian Band, also in British Columbia, Canada views 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 cre-
ate jobs and opportunities for future generations (Anderson et al., 2006a;
Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation, 2016). In opting to actively
participate in regional, national and international economic development
opportunities, the Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation identi-
ed four principles to guide socioeconomic value creation activities: (i) to
increase the overall standard of living for Osoyoos Indian Band members;
(ii) to decrease dependency on government funding through increased
economic development and entrepreneurial activities that promote self-
sufciency; (iii) to promote cultural revitalization that emphasizes their tra-
ditional values of honour, caring, sharing and respect and (iv) to increase
the community’s academic, athletic, vocational and cultural education
levels (Anderson et al., 2006a, p. 52; Osoyoos Indian Band Development
Corporation, 2016). With the goals of promoting Okanagan language
and culture front and foremost, the Osoyoos Indian Band Development
Corporation is fostering nation building strategies through owning and oper-
ating 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, 2016;
see Table 4). In opting in, the Osoyoos Indian Band has proactively par-
ticipated and initiated regional, national and international economic devel-
opment opportunities on or near their traditional territories in a way that
reects and reinforces their particular culture, values and beliefs.
As the discussion above demonstrates, Indigenous entrepreneurship is
grounded and sustained in the social context of the communities within
which they are embedded (cf. Jack & Anderson, 2002; McKeever et al., 2014,
2015). From an Indigenous perspective, it is the convergence of social, cul-
tural, economic and environmental resources with the community’s particular
112 RICK COLBOURNE
socioeconomic, self-governance and self-determination objectives that guides
Indigenous entrepreneurs towards hybrid venture creation. This reects
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 & Anderson, 2002; McKeever et al., 2014,
2015). Consequently, the success of Indigenous hybrid ventures is facilitated
and/or constrained by a community’s particular development strategy (i.e.
standard or nation building) and/or by its choice of (and approach to) opting
in or opting out of regional, national and international economic develop-
ment opportunities.
Understanding the degree and type of community development, its leader-
ship, civic institutions and the sophistication of its laws, policies and proce-
dures, therefore, is of central importance to Indigenous entrepreneurs as these
dimensions interact to constitute the conditions which guide them towards
hybrid venture creation. The section that follows explores the intersection of
Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid venture creation and identies how
community embeddedness inuences an Indigenous entrepreneur’s particular
value creation strategies.
Table 4. Select Osoyoos Indian Band Development
Corporation Businesses.
Business Name Description
Nk’Mip Cellars • First Aboriginal-owned winery in North America
• Includes a world-class restaurant offering a locally sourced menu
• Offers quality VQA (Vintners Quality Alliance) wines from their
Winemaker’s Series to their premium Qwam Qwmt (’achieving
excellence’) reserve
• Local Aboriginal artisan merchandise
Nk’Mip Resort • Spa, hotel and conference centre
• Golf course
Nk’Mip Desert Cultural
Centre
• Provides on-site cultural tours, programs, self-guided nature
trails, interpretive sites, visitor programs, a gift shop, cultural
events and multimedia productions
• Home to rattlesnake research and tagging programs, native
sculptures and interactive displays of the desert experience
based on culture and traditions of the Okanagan people
Nk’Mip RV Park • One of the South Okanagan’s largest parks
• Offers over 320 sites ranging from simple tenting spots to full
service RV stalls, with yurts and a cabin
Source: Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation (2016).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 113
HYBRID VENTURES AND INDIGENOUS
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Hybrid ventures seek to address complex social issues and achieve out-
comes that benet particular communities through prioritizing, balancing
and blending social, cultural, economic and/or environmental value creation
activities (Douglas, 2010, p. 72; Russo et al., 2015; Seelos et al., 2011; Wilson
& Post, 2011, p. 717). To accomplish this, hybrid ventures balance their social
mission with the economic imperative of building a sustainable venture. This
requires decentring economic value creation in favour of focusing on social,
cultural and environmental value creation strategies that reect the entrepre-
neur’s aspirations and the community’s particular socioeconomic needs and
objectives (Douglas, 2010, p. 89). It is predicated on adopting value crea-
tion strategies that are responsive to the community’s needs within which the
venture is embedded. This is accomplished through prioritizing, balancing
and blending value creation activities in ways that avoid community conicts
and mutual reinforce the venture’s mission (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Wilson &
Post, 2011, p. 717). Hybrid ventures that decentre economic value creation
face distinct challenges in managing risks associated with the highly interwo-
ven dynamics of social, cultural, environmental and economic value creation
within the same venture (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Seelos et al., 2005; Wilson &
Post, 2011). Some hybrid ventures address this risk through separating social,
cultural and environmental value creation from economic value creation
activities (differentiated hybrids) while others combine, balance and blend
all value creation activities (integrated hybrids; Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 83).
Differentiated Hybrids. Differentiated hybrids separate economic value cre-
ation activities from social, cultural and/or environmental creation activities
(Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 83). Revenues generated by economic value creation
activities, such as selling products or services, for example, are used to fund
social, cultural and/or economic value creation activities in the community
through separate activities of offering training and development programs,
sponsoring spiritual or cultural events or through addressing environmen-
tal issues and challenges in the community. Revenues from economic value
creation activities fund social, cultural and environmental creation activities
(Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 83).
Integrated Hybrids. Integrated hybrid ventures, in contrast, prioritize, bal-
ance and blend social, cultural, economic and environmental value creation in
pursuit of a social mission through hiring and training community members
and/or providing essential services, for example, while generating sufcient rev-
enues to sustain operations (Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 83). Economic and social,
cultural and/or environmental value creation activities are interwoven to achieve
114 RICK COLBOURNE
the social mission. In contrast to differentiated hybrid ventures, an integrated
hybrid venture’s social values and revenues are realized through the same set of
interwoven activities (Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 83).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship
Indigenous entrepreneurship is a process of extracting and contributing
value that is anchored in a community’s particular socioeconomic conditions
within which an entrepreneur/venture is embedded (Jack & Anderson, 2002,
p. 468; Kenney & Goe, 2004, p. 699). It is a means by which Indigenous peo-
ples exercise and sustain their rights to design, develop and maintain politi-
cal, 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, p. 8). 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 5; Anderson et al., 2004, 2006b; Hindle & Moroz, 2007;
Lindsay, 2005; Peredo et al., 2004).
Indigenous entrepreneurs are guided towards hybrid venture creation by
a community’s: (i) particular Indigenous identity (indigeneity); (ii) associated
values, traditions, culture and worldview; (iii) particular development strategy
(standard versus nation building); (iv) socioeconomic needs and objectives
and (v) orientation towards the use of economic development and entrepre-
neurial ventures (opting in or opting out) as mechanisms for asserting inher-
ent rights, sovereignty, self-determination and self-governance (Anderson et
al., 2004, 2006a; Hindle & Moroz, 2007; Lindsay, 2005; Peredo et al., 2004).
Through engaging in value creation activities, Indigenous entrepreneurs seek
to balance their personal experience, ambitions and value creation orienta-
tion with a particular community’s socioeconomic needs and priorities for
social, cultural, spiritual and environmental value creation (Anderson et al.,
2004, 2008; Battilana et al., 2012; Hindle, 2010; Murphy & Coombes, 2009;
Peredo, 2001). Many Indigenous hybrid ventures adopt a value creation strat-
egy that is responsive to a community’s particular socioeconomic needs and
objectives to address issues as varied as poverty, healthcare, economic devel-
opment, environmental stewardship, education, housing, traditional culture,
law and politics (Anderson et al., 2008; Dana & Anderson, 2011; Hindle,
2010; Murphy & Coombes, 2009).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 115
Indigenous entrepreneurial value creation occurs in the context of strong
social interrelationship and interdependencies that are embedded in cul-
tural and spiritual understandings, beliefs and practices and the particular
geographical and environmental ecosystem within which a community is
situated. Although Indigenous peoples embody strong incentives for entre-
preneurship, their non-mainstream status carries a number of liabilities that
prevents them from realizing their entrepreneurial potential and results in a
number of practical issues and challenges (see Table 6.)
These ventures balance extracting community-based value embedded in the
community’s social, cultural, political and/or economic resources, geographic
Table 5. Identication of Indigenous Entrepreneurship.
Source Identication of Indigenous Entrepreneurship
Hindle and Lansdowne (2005) • The creation, management and development of new
ventures by Indigenous people for the benet of
Indigenous people
• Ventures can pertain to either the private, public or non-
prot sectors
• Desired and achieved benets of venturing can range from
the narrow view of economic prot for a single individual
to the broad view of multiple, social and economic
advantages for entire communities
• Outcomes and entitlements derived from Indigenous
entrepreneurship may extend to enterprise partners and
stakeholders who may be non-Indigenous
Dana (2007, p. 5) • Self- employment based on indigenous knowledge
• Viewed as a function of cultural perceptions of
opportunity
Peredo and Anderson (2006) • Occurs in Indigenous territory, which means that the
entrepreneur shares the social, economic and cultural
conditions of their community
• Viewed in terms of Indigenous goals, objectives or mission
Peredo et al. (2004, p. 14) • Process by which business opportunities are identied,
resources leveraged and organisations developed to
satisfy the Indigenous community’s economic and other
development objectives
Cradock (1979, p. 16) • Modern/individualist perspective – any Indigenous
enterprise owned by an Indigenous person
• Traditional sense of communal responsibility – any
enterprise whose specic goal is to further Indigenous
(understood as collective) interests
116 RICK COLBOURNE
location, traditional territory and/or community demographics with contrib-
uting back value that is responsive to community socioeconomic needs and
objectives (Anderson et al., 2004, 2008; Battilana et al., 2012; Hindle, 2010;
Jack & Anderson, 2002, p. 482; Murphy & Coombes, 2009; Peredo, 2001).
Indigenous hybrid ventures, then, are characterized by the need to con-
sider (i) how entrepreneurial ventures will be accountable to the Indigenous
community within which they are embedded; (ii) how to focus on commu-
nity-centric value creation in a manner that reects and leverages community
resources, assets, culture, values and traditions; (iii) which entrepreneurial
Table 6. Challenges to Indigenous Entrepreneurship.
Challenges Description
Worldview • Competing understandings of socioeconomic value, time, place, cultural
obligations, motivations
• Conicting views of entrepreneurship and value creation
• Traditional knowledge versus western knowledge and/or science
• Cross-cultural communication
Community • Poverty and addiction levels
• Conicting views regarding the impact of entrepreneurial activities on
local values, culture and traditions
• Disagreement on whether value creation activities (value contributions)
outweigh the costs (value extraction)
• Managing economic disparities through equitable redistribution of wealth
• Tensions in addressing community socioeconomic needs and objectives
versus focusing on economic value creation
Remoteness
(urban versus
rural)
• Greater cost of doing business
• Limited potential for networks and partnerships
• Limited access – capital, markets, nancing
• Lack of infrastructure – roads, Internet, airports
Land • Land claim, land status, title restrictions and jurisdictional issues
• Ownership/private property – difcult to access nancing where land is
held in trust by governments or where property is held collectively
• Entrepreneurs are unable to leverage land as collateral for loans
• Community land use and management
Stability • Status of treaty processes, Indigenous recognition, rights and sovereignty
• Status of civic institutional infrastructure – laws, policies and procedure
constrain or facilitate entrepreneurial venture creation
• Jurisdictional issues between Indigenous, local, regional and national
governments
Sources: Curry and Donker (2009), Gibson (2012), Ritsema et al. (2015), Sisco and Nelson
(2008, pp. 42–44), Westpac Group (2014).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 117
value creation activities are culturally appropriate for addressing community
socioeconomic needs and objectives and (iv) which organizational and gov-
ernance structures are appropriate for mobilizing idle or underutilized com-
munity value and/or resources (Johnstone & Lionais, 2004, p. 225; Peredo
et al., 2004; Rante & Warokka, 2013). For Indigenous entrepreneurs, value
extraction and creation occurs in the context of social interrelationships and
interdependencies that are inuenced by the community’s cultural and spir-
itual understandings, beliefs, practices and socioeconomic needs, all of which
are embedded in a particular geographical, environmental and community
development ecosystem within which the community is situated. It is impor-
tant, therefore, to understand how community embeddedness inuences
Indigenous hybrid venture creation.
Indigenous Community Embeddedness
Embeddedness is the nature, depth and extent of an entrepreneur or venture’s
connection to community that enables them to understand local rules, prac-
tices and customs, to access community resources (extract value) and to cre-
ate/contribute value back to the community (social, economic, cultural and
environmental; Jack & Anderson, 2002, p. 468; Seelos et al., 2011). The nature
of an entrepreneur’s embeddedness (high, medium or low) in an Indigenous
community serves to frame hybrid venture opportunity recognition and value
creation activities according to community needs, expectations and socioeco-
nomic orientations (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006); facilitates and/or constrains
entrepreneurial venture creation and management activities (Johnstone &
Lionais, 2004; McKeever et al., 2015; Seelos et al., 2011); and affects how and
which social, cultural, political and/or economic resources might be extracted
to contribute value back to the community (Jack & Anderson, 2002; McKeever
et al., 2014). The degree of embeddedness within a community impacts the
entrepreneur’s personal credibility, local knowledge and access to resources
and affects their ability to have a nuanced understanding of and practical
insights into how ventures should be organized, the formal and informal
rules, customs, traditions, policies and procedures associated with a particu-
lar Indigenous community (Anderson et al., 2004, 2006a; Jack & Anderson,
2002, p. 480; Kenney & Goe, 2004; Peredo et al., 2004; Peredo & McLean,
2010). For Indigenous entrepreneurship to thrive hybrid ventures need to be
developed that are responsive to and addresses the community’s particular
issues and challenges. In general, Indigenous hybrid ventures are character-
ized by three typical forms: (i) full Indigenous ownership; (ii) majority-owned
118 RICK COLBOURNE
Indigenous ventures or partnerships with non-Indigenous members and (iii)
non-Indigenous ownership or pure royalty arrangements (cf. Cornell, 2006;
Curry & Donker, 2009). They can range from small individual or family-run
entrepreneurial ventures to large community-owned ventures 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.
In order to create a stronger understanding of the intersection of
Indigenous entrepreneurship with hybrid venture creation, the three typical
forms of Indigenous venture creation (cf. Cornell, 2006; Curry & Donker,
2009) can be synthesized with the three degrees of embeddedness discussed
above (high, medium and low embeddedness; cf. Brush et al., 2007, p. 171),
to develop a framework that links the degree of embeddedness to the charac-
teristics of hybrid ventures within Indigenous communities (see Tables 7–9).
In order to maximize socioeconomic benets, most Indigenous communities
are characterized by the presence of all three forms of venture creation and
embeddedness.
High Embeddedness. Highly embedded Indigenous ventures are character-
ized by full Indigenous ownership in which a community, nation or individual
community members own and operate entrepreneurial ventures (see Table 7).
The Osoyoos Indian Band (OIB) example described above features highly
embedded ventures with full Indigenous ownership by OIB. In addition, it
has medium embedded ventures such as Nk’Mip Cellars in which OIB owns
51% of the company, while Vincor, Canada’s largest producer and marketer
of wine, owns 49% and has operating control. Nk’Mip Cellars are located on
OIB land, employ OIB members and serve primarily non-Indigenous markets,
the Osoyoos community experiences signicant social, cultural, economic
and environmental benets either directly or as spill overs from the venture’s
operating activities (Aboriginal Business and Investment Council, 2017).
Medium Embeddedness. Medium-embedded ventures are characterized by
majority-owned Indigenous ventures or partnerships with non-Indigenous
members in which the ventures may be located on Indigenous land, employ
Indigenous members and serve Indigenous markets (see Table 8).
Manitobah Mukluks is an example of a venture that was once highly
embedded in its community but with increased demand being met with a
shift to overseas production, it has become less embedded in the community
and shifted into being a medium-embedded hybrid venture. Sean McCormick
benets directly from international production and sales while his Métis com-
munity continues to realize additional socioeconomic benets (Pauls, 2015;
Smith, 2015).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 119
Low Embeddedness. Low-embedded hybrid ventures generally do not
guarantee community members employment or controlling participation in
the venture nor do they necessarily reect the community’s particular val-
ues, culture and traditions. Low levels of embeddedness are characterized
by non-Indigenous ownership or pure royalty arrangements in which the
ventures may or may not be located on Indigenous land, may or may not
employ Indigenous members and may or may not serve Indigenous markets
(see Table 9).
The Onion Lake Cree Nation’s partnership with Black Pearl Resources, for
example, is a low embedded venture in which Onion Lake Cree Nation receives
a 34.5% royalty on each barrel of oil extracted on their traditional territories.
Table 7. High Embeddedness.
Category Characteristics
High embeddedness Ownership
• 100% Indigenous owned
Mission
• Built the community’s socioeconomic needs and objectives
Motivation
• ‘Do well by doing good’ by, for and with community
Market
• Ventures have a signicant number of local (Indigenous) customers
Growth
• Primarily driven by community’s economic and social needs
• Policies and programs to develop Indigenous talent to ll
supervisory and management roles
• Careful consideration of ways to source local talent and resources
Value Creation
• Social value creation
–Commitment to hiring and developing Indigenous talent
–Commitment to supporting education, training and development
• Cultural value creation
–Reinforces or reects community values and culture
–Role model for local Indigenous entrepreneurs
–Reciprocal sharing of resources between individuals and/or groups
within the community
–Sponsors cultural activities
• Economic value creation
–Local employment
–Move individuals from menial to management roles
–Business and surrounding neighbourhood can be locally sustained
Sources: Anderson et al. (2007b), Brush et al. (2007, pp. 171–173), Cornell and Kalt (2006),
Peredo and Chrisman (2006).
120 RICK COLBOURNE
The community benets from the application of these revenues to social,
cultural, environmental and economic value creation activities managed by
funds deposited into a community trust run by the nation to fund future capi-
tal projects and business development efforts based on the Onion Lake Cree
Nation’s particular socioeconomic strategies and objectives (Coates, 2016).
The nature of the entrepreneur’s connection and embeddedness within
a particular community inuences all aspects of venture creation activi-
ties from opportunity recognition to business model design (community-
responsive value creation strategies) through to hybrid venture creation
(Jack & Anderson, 2002; McKeever et al., 2014). The Osoyoos Indian Band,
Table 8. Medium Embeddedness.
Category Characteristics
Medium
embeddedness
Ownership
• Majority-owned Indigenous ventures or partnerships (≥50%)
Mission
• Mixed mission – economic and social value creation
• Business to benet entrepreneur and family rst
• Spill over benets to the community
Motivation
• Generate revenues
• Serve as a role model for other entrepreneurs
Market
• Mix of Indigenous and non-local (non-Indigenous) customers
Growth
• Driven by combination of entrepreneur’s ambitions and community’s
socioeconomic needs and objectives
• Policies and programs favour Indigenous talent but business needs
dene supervisory and management roles
• Consider sourcing Indigenous and non-Indigenous talent and
resources
Value Creation
• Social value creation
–Increased education levels, training and development
–Reciprocal sharing of resources between individuals and/or groups
within the community
• Cultural value creation
–Reects some community values and culture
• Economic value creation
–Some employment creation
–Business and surrounding community spill overs
Sources: Anderson et al. (2007b), Brush et al. (2007, pp. 171–173), Cornell and Kalt (2006),
Peredo and Chrisman (2006).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 121
Manitobah Mukluks and the Onion Lake Cree Nation examples demon-
strate that Indigenous hybrid venture creation takes multiple forms and is a
necessary response to addressing the socioeconomic needs and objectives of
the communities within which each are embedded. Consequently, each of the
Indigenous hybrid ventures are characterized by differential levels of commu-
nity embeddedness and adopt value creation strategies that reect their par-
ticular community’s culture, values, traditions, traditional territories, assets
and resources.
Table 9. Low Embeddedness.
Category Characteristics
Low embeddedness Ownership
• Indigenous or non-Indigenous (ownership not an issue)
Mission
• No explicit social or community mission
• Business to benet entrepreneur, family or investors
Motivation
• To accumulate wealth
Market
• Primarily serve non-local (non-Indigenous) customers
Growth
• Driven primarily by entrepreneurial ambitions for wealth creation
• Hire experienced talent from inside or outside of the community
(no preference)
Value Creation
• Social value creation
–Potential for increased education levels, training and development
–Some or no sharing of resources with the community
–Little or no employment or engagement
• Cultural value creation
–Not a central consideration
• Economic value creation
–Equity loans typically from the corporate investor
–Loan guarantees
–Accrual equity options, that provide for increased Indigenous
equity over time
–Revenue-sharing arrangements – agreed-upon share of the
royalties
–Equity arrangements – impact and benet agreements as part of
the duty to consult and accommodate requirements
Sources: Anderson et al. (2007b), Brush et al. (2007, pp. 171–173), Cornell and Kalt (2006),
Peredo and Chrisman (2006).
122 RICK COLBOURNE
Indigenous Value Creation
An Indigenous community’s overarching socioeconomic needs and objec-
tives inform an entrepreneur or venture’s value creation strategies. They
function to centre or decentre economic value creation priorities which
Indigenous entrepreneurs and hybrid ventures must understand and
address. Indigenous hybrid ventures, therefore, face complicated chal-
lenges in prioritizing, balancing and blending social, economic, cultural
and environmental value creation activities. The range of value creation
strategies available to an entrepreneur may not easily be aligned to com-
munity needs or objectives or may conict with its particular value creation
beliefs and values thereby creating risk for the hybrid venture (Ebrahim et
al., 2014, p. 82). While non-Indigenous hybrid ventures face inherent ten-
sions in balancing and blending value creation activities in response to the
external pressures of shareholders and other interested parties (Murphy
& Coombes, 2009, p. 332; Russo et al., 2015, p. 9), Indigenous hybrid ven-
tures are more dependent on community acceptance and support based
on the venture’s degree of alignment with the community’s culture, values,
traditions, socioeconomic needs and objectives.
The challenge for differentiated hybrid ventures is managing the risk inher-
ent in ensuring a sustained and ongoing link between its economic value crea-
tion activities and the social needs and outcomes that they are seeking to
address (Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 89). This is particularly the case in which a
differentiated hybrid venture’s economic value creation activities are legiti-
mated or given social license by proposed social, cultural and environmental
value creation activities, but where, in practice, economic creation activities
prevent the venture from pursuing its social mission or are too detached from
the needs and objectives of the community (Ebrahim et al., 2014, p. 88). The
challenge for integrated hybrid ventures, in contrast, is managing the risk
that economic creation activities might overtake and/or erode social, cultural
and environmental creation activities and outcomes (Ebrahim et al., 2014,
p. 88). To mitigate this risk, Indigenous hybrid ventures must ensure that
value creation activities are clearly articulated and aligned with the commu-
nity’s socioeconomic needs and objectives and avoid conict with its culture,
traditions and values. Two frameworks have emerged that provide Indigenous
entrepreneurs with the practical tools they need to identify, develop, monitor
and assess value creation strategies and mitigate any risks associated with
Indigenous hybrid ventures: (i) the Quadruple Bottom Line (cf. Walters &
Takamura, 2015) and (ii) the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework
(cf. Morgan, 2006; Morgan & F`aui, 2014; Morgan et al., 2015).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 123
Quadruple Bottom Line.
The Quadruple Bottom Line framework is grounded in Indigenous perspec-
tives that seek to decolonize Western concepts of entrepreneurship, economic
development and innovation. It is premised on the notion that Indigenous
entrepreneurs are embedded in a community within which members have com-
mon and innate understandings of Indigenous values, traditions and culture.
This framework reects Indigenous concerns with the dynamic interrelated-
ness of community, spirituality, sustainability and entrepreneurship (Walters
& Takamura, 2015) and explicitly grounds Indigenous entrepreneurship in
an acknowledgement of the centrality of a community’s past experiences, its
values, tradition and culture in creating a sustainable Indigenous economy.
The Quadruple Bottom Line framework focuses on centring Indigenous
worldviews, socioeconomic needs and objectives as a lens for developing
hybrid ventures and value creation strategies that contribute to community
development and nation building. This framework is organized around four
central dimensions: (i) community, (ii) spirituality, (iii) sustainability and (iv)
entrepreneurship within which, four subdimensions of cultural, social, eco-
nomic and environment value creation are nested (see Table 10; Walters &
Takamura, 2015, pp. 77–78, 95).
The community dimension directs attention to Indigenous peoples’ deni-
tions of their indigeneity. This relates back to the recognition of the diver-
sity of Indigenous people; the right to self-identication; the recognition of
Indigenous peoples as descendants of those who rst inhabited a geographi-
cal region; and a peoples’ connection to traditional territory and its cultural,
spiritual, economic, social and/or political practices (Asian Development
Bank, 2015; International Labour Organization, 2015; United Nations, 2015;
Walters & Takamura, 2015; World Bank, 2015). As not all Indigenous com-
munities share the same culture, values and traditions, it is important that
hybrid venture creation is responsive to and reects the community’s socio-
economic needs and objectives within which it is embedded.
Spirituality within this framework recognizes the value and importance of
Indigenous knowledge (Walters & Takamura, 2015). It encompasses social
beliefs and the particular values, traditions and culture that permeate an
Indigenous community’s everyday life. Integrating spirituality is a central
consideration in the design of Indigenous hybrid ventures that involves: (i)
gaining strong understandings and insights into local Indigenous knowledge
through discussion, observation and participatory research; (ii) developing
individual and community socioeconomic objectives (value creation objec-
tives) and identifying how an Indigenous community’s values and/or beliefs
124 RICK COLBOURNE
facilitate and/or constrain them and (iii) choosing the particular blend and
balance of value creation strategies that are responsive to the Indigenous
community’s culture, values and traditions (Walters & Takamura, 2015).
Through acknowledging Indigenous spiritual connectedness to place, peo-
ple and values of community, this framework promotes the development of
hybrid ventures that contribute to nation building by being culturally aligned
to the community within which they are embedded. As previously discussed,
when cultural alignment is high, economic development and nation building
efforts within Indigenous communities are more successful (Cornell, 2006;
Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010; Walters & Takamura, 2015).
The sustainability dimension refers to economic sustainability and resil-
ience and environmental sustainability. It encompasses an Indigenous com-
munity’s internal Indigenous economy, its sociopolitical context as well as
the local geography and environment within which it is situated (Walters &
Takamura, 2015). The focus on sustainability and resilience recognizes the
importance that self-governance and self-determination have in facilitating
the creation of Indigenous hybrid ventures when supported by effective, cul-
turally aligned civic institutions and governance mechanisms. Indigenous
communities are empowered to address their social, political, economic and
Table 10. Dimensions of the Quadruple Bottom Line.
Dimension Description
Community • Differences between communities and nations require an Indigenous-
centric approach to dening the community or nation
• Articulates the Indigenous community and membership as
determined by the people themselves based on traditional
knowledge, present and future knowledge and the peoples’ particular
understanding of their indigeneity
Spirituality • Encompasses Indigenous social beliefs, values and traditions
• Recognizes the value and importance of Indigenous knowledge – it is
a means to bridge knowledge from the past to the present or from the
scientic to other ways of Indigenous knowing
Sustainability • Refers to economic sustainability and resilience as well as
environmental sustainability
• Involving a functioning Indigenous economy, social ecological
systems and environmental contexts
Entrepreneurship • A redenition of ‘entrepreneurship’ from the perspective of the
Indigenous community and its particular socioeconomic organization
• Incorporates a unique blend of Indigenous social, economic and
socio-ecological factors
Source: Walters and Takamura (2015, pp. 80, 82, 88, 90).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 125
environmental issues, challenges, values, concerns and worldviews through
the development of Indigenous-centric governing institutions (Cornell, 2006;
Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010; Walters & Takamura, 2015). Sustainability also
addresses the need to consider and incorporate Indigenous worldviews and
perspectives related to environmental stewardship through the adoption
of value creation strategies and sustainability practices that are aligned to
the community’s particular environmental ecosystem values and manage-
ment objectives (Walters & Takamura, 2015). Incorporating the dimension
of sustainability, therefore, provides communities with a strong foundation
for deciding which socioeconomic opportunities and initiatives are culturally
and environmentally appropriate to participate in (or not) and for designing
particular hybrid ventures and value creation strategies that serve the com-
munity’s socioeconomic needs and objectives (Cornell, 2006; Cornell & Kalt,
2006, 2010; Walters & Takamura, 2015).
Finally, the entrepreneurship dimension of the Quadruple Bottom Line
framework applies Indigenous perspectives to reframe entrepreneurial activi-
ties according to social, economic and socioecological factors or value crea-
tion objectives (Walters & Takamura, 2015, p. 90). This dimension guides
Indigenous entrepreneurs towards the creation of transformational hybrid
ventures that address a community’s particular socioeconomic needs and
objectives. It recognizes the need for Indigenous hybrid ventures to focus on
balancing and blending economic, social, cultural and environmental value
creation in a way that contributes to the community’s ability to act on their
inherent rights, protect and strengthen their sovereignty and support self-
governance and self-determination efforts through enabling Indigenous com-
munities to build sustainable and self-sufcient Indigenous-centric economies
(Cornell, 2006; Cornell and Kalt, 2006, 2010; Walters & Takamura, 2015).
Mauri Model Decision-Making Framework. The Mauri Model Decision-
Making Framework is a sustainability assessment tool that applies practical
understandings of the Ma ori worldview to Indigenous-centric community
and/or multi-party non-Indigenous decision making. For the Ma ori people,
mauri is a binding force through which everything exists and by which the
physical and spiritual elements of being are intertwined and interrelated.
Negative actions that weaken and disrupt mauri or the alignment of physi-
cal and spiritual elements result in the loss of a community’s socioeconomic
sustainability (Morgan, 2006; Morgan & F`aui, 2014; Morgan et al., 2015).
The adoption of mauri for sustainable socioeconomic related decision mak-
ing focuses attention to the intrinsic value creation imperative and/or well-
being quotients of a particular decision criterion through ensuring the
development of community and culturally aligned baselines and measures of
126 RICK COLBOURNE
social, economic, environmental and cultural value (Morgan, 2006; Morgan
& F`aui, 2014). Similar to the Quadruple Bottom Line framework, the Mauri
Model Decision Making Framework identies four dimensions of value
creation: (i) environment (Mauri of the Ecosystem); (ii) cultural (Mauri of
the Hapu); (iii) social (Mauri of the Community) and (iv), economic (Mauri
of the Whanau) (see Table 11; Morgan, 2006, 2009; Morgan & F`aui, 2014;
Morgan et al., 2015).
The Mauri Model Decision-Making Framework recognizes that not all
Indigenous communities are the same and emphasizes that environmental,
cultural, social and economic value creation/assessment dimensions need
to be determined by the particular community through strong community
engagement processes that focus on identifying and prioritizing value crea-
tion activities through assigning agreed on weighted values for each value
creation dimension (well-being). It provides a culturally informed method-
ology for facilitating community or multiparty decision making across sev-
eral stages of deliberation through: (i) determining a hierarchy (balance and
blend) of the value creation dimensions and their weightings using mauri
principles; (ii) selecting signicant indictors for each dimension with rela-
tive weightings applied; (iii) analysis of potential options by assessing the
impact on mauri for each indicator; (iv) aggregating all indicators organized
by proportional weightings within each value creation dimension and nally
(v) aggregating and ranking all value creation dimensions by proportional
weightings (Morgan, 2006, p. 6). This framework provides practical insights
and an applicable community-based process for identifying priorities and
ranking value creation activities within Indigenous hybrid ventures. It aids in
developing baselines and measures derived from the particular community’s
values, beliefs, traditions and socioeconomic needs and objectives that can
also be used to monitor and assess the venture’s value creation outcomes.
Both the Quadruple Bottom Line and the Mauri Decision-Making
Framework can be adapted for use by Indigenous entrepreneurs to facili-
tate opportunity recognition, hybrid venture creation and/or hybrid venture
assessment in the context of the community’s particular socioeconomic needs
and objectives. Indigenous entrepreneurs can utilize the Quadruple Bottom
Line framework to identify, integrate and align value creation strategies that
are culturally relevant to the communities within which they operate and
encourage the development of sustainable hybrid venture value creation that
aligns with nation building strategies and promote community well-being
(Walters & Takamura, 2015). The Mauri Decision-Making Framework can
be used in the development and assessment of Indigenous hybrid ventures
through focusing, dening and prioritizing each individual value creation
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 127
Table 11. Mauri Model Decision-Making Framework.
Dimension Description
Mauri of the Ecosystem Relates to the state of the environment that is passed onto future
generations – to the physical and spiritual integrity of the
ecosystem and includes all land, air, ora and fauna and water.
Environmental Considerations:
• Geographic boundaries established by a water catchment
• Region of a specic hapu
• Related impacts on estuaries, harbours and the ocean
Mauri of the Hapu
(kinship group, clan,
tribe, subtribe)
Relates to the well-being of the particular hapu and impacts on
identity, standing and authority.
Cultural Considerations:
• Reinforcing the ability to continue in a guardianship role
• Prestige associated with caring for visitors
• Maintenance of the hapu knowledge base through active
reinforcement
• Effective dissemination of knowledge to successive generations
• The integrity of all of these practices
Mauri of
the Community
Relates to community membership and well-being as determined
by the people themselves based on traditional knowledge,
present and future knowledge and the peoples’ particular
understanding of their indigeneity.
Social Considerations:
• Consideration of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples
• General health and safety, ability to accommodate future
community needs such as land and water resources, satisfy
housing demands, the creation of employment opportunities
• Aspects of day-to-day life such as recreational access to parks,
forests, beaches, reserves, rivers, lakes, estuaries and the ocean
Mauri of the Whanau
(family unit)
Relates to economic well-being in terms of the impact on the
whanau (family unit) because it is at this level that economic
decisions impact people.
Economic Considerations:
• Impact upon the mauri of the whanau is a measure of the direct
personal effect that accrues to a whanau as a result of a choice
of action
• Impact upon mauri varies from whanau to whanau and is
primarily measured in economic terms or a reduction in levels
of service
• Economic impact is the nancial consequence and may be
experienced as a direct fee, a portion of rates or taxation revenue
• In the majority of instances, there is little discretion on the part
of whanau to allocate these nancial resources to other priorities
such as sustenance, warmth or accommodation
Sources: Morgan (2006), Morgan and F`aui (2014), Morgan et al. (2015).
128 RICK COLBOURNE
dimension to create an aggregate view of value creation imperatives by which
the venture and/or entrepreneur can be assessed according to the commu-
nity’s particular worldview, culture, values, traditions and/or socioeconomic
needs and objectives (Morgan, 2003, 2006; Morgan & F`aui, 2014; Morgan
et al., 2015). Both frameworks emphasize the importance of understanding
the interconnectedness of social relationships, governing institutions, values,
traditions and cultures of the Indigenous community within which the indi-
vidual entrepreneur or hybrid venture is embedded as central to identifying,
blending, balancing and aligning value creation strategies to the community’s
socioeconomic needs and objectives.
INDIGENOUS HYBRID VENTURE CASES
Hybrid ventures are emerging worldwide as a platform by which Indigenous
peoples assert their sovereignty and act on inherent rights and self-determina-
tion to facilitate social, cultural, economic and environmental value creation
that reects the community, its needs, culture and traditions (Cornell, 2006;
Cornell & Kalt, 2006, 2010; Curry & Donker, 2009; Wuttunee, 2004). The
three case studies that follow, the Booderee National Park, Yaru Water and
Ainu museums and heritage sites, describe Indigenous hybrid ventures that
embrace a distinctive identity and feature value creation strategies that are
responsive to the particular social, economic and environmental conditions
of the traditional territories, cultures, values and traditions within which they
are embedded. The case analyses demonstrate how the concepts of indige-
neity, opting in/out, community embeddedness and the Entrepreneurship
dimension of Quadruple Bottom Line framework discussed above can
be applied to generate deep insights and understandings into the complex
dynamics informing Indigenous hybrid venture creation.
Australia: Booderee National Park and Yaru Water
Indigenous peoples in Australia have a history of engagement and connection
with their traditional territories, marine and coastal areas that has endured
for at least 40,000 years. They are estimated to make up 3% of the Australian
population, or approximately 670,000 individuals (down from the estimated
1.5 million people estimated in 1788; Mikkelsen, 2015, p. 218). While his-
torically, they lived in communities across the continent, currently 75% of
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 129
Australia’s Indigenous peoples live in regional centres or cities while the
remaining 25% live on traditional lands (Mikkelsen, 2015, p. 218). Australia’s
Indigenous peoples own or control approximately 20% of the land and asso-
ciated resources in Australia including access to minerals, water and biodiver-
sity (Westpac Group, 2014). The combined income of the top 500 Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander corporations for 2012 to 2013 was almost $1.71
billion, while an estimated $40 billion is held by 6,000 Indigenous organiza-
tions in trusts. This has engendered hundreds of Indigenous entrepreneurs
focused on value creation strategies embedded within their communities and
its unique resources, geographical location and/or individual and collective
capabilities (Westpac Group, 2014). While there are many issues and chal-
lenges facing Indigenous ventures in Australia, Booderee National Park and
Yaru Water are examples of successful hybrid ventures which demonstrate
different degrees of embeddedness characterized by contrasting hybrid ven-
ture structures that reect the entrepreneurs’ aspirations and value creation
orientations in the context of the community’s specic socioeconomic needs
and objectives and embodied by its traditional territory.
Booderee National Park. Booderee National Park is located 150 km south
of Sydney, NSW on Bherwerre Peninsula in Jervis Bay Territory on the coast
of south-eastern Australia and includes Bowen Island and a portion of the
Jervis Bay marine environment. Members of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal
Community fought a long political and legal battle for ownership of land
within the Jervis Bay Territory, including what became Booderee National
Park (formerly Jervis Bay National Park; Wreck Bay Community Council,
2017). Their struggles for ownership culminated in 1995 with the Aboriginal
Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 and the National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 that were amended to transfer freehold title
of the Jervis Bay National Park to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community. The
transfer of the freehold title was made on condition that the Park was leased
back to the Australian Government’s Director of National Parks for 99 years
and that park management would transition from joint management towards
sole management by the Aboriginal community (Wreck Bay Community
Council, 2017). The Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council (Council),
formed to manage, guide and implement the specics of the freehold transfer,
owns the park and jointly manages it with Parks Australia, the Australian
government’s protected area management agency. To reect Aboriginal own-
ership, the park was renamed Booderee National Park in 1998 and the rst
Management Plan for the park was initiated in 2002 (Hansen & Brown, 2016;
Westpac Group, 2014).
130 RICK COLBOURNE
Booderee National Park attracts large numbers of Australian and interna-
tional visitors. There are about 500,000 day visitors and 75,000 people who
camp overnight each year and located within the park is Booderee Botanic
Gardens, Australia’s only Aboriginal-owned botanic garden (Hansen &
Brown, 2016; Westpac Group, 2014). With Aboriginal ownership and joint
management of the park secured, the Council founded Wreck Bay Enterprises
as a wholly Indigenous-owned venture to provide contracted services to the
park under the provisions of the lease with Parks Australia. The responsi-
bilities of the Council involve planning and management of housing, social
welfare, education, training and the health needs of community members;
protecting and conserving natural and cultural; land use planning; and man-
aging and maintaining Aboriginal land (Fischman, 2011; Hansen & Brown,
2016). Wreck Bay Enterprises was established as an integrated hybrid ven-
ture from day 1 for the socioeconomic benet of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal
Community through the provision of services to the community, the park and
non-Indigenous clients in the region. Revenues generated from these activities
are a platform for investing in additional Aboriginal entrepreneurial ventures
focused on social, economic, environmental and spiritual/cultural value crea-
tion (Hansen & Brown, 2016, p. 30; see Table 12).
Aboriginal title to the land provides the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
with a strong foundation for opting into the regional economy as equal part-
ners. Wreck Bay Enterprises subsequently is a highly embedded and inte-
grated hybrid venture whose value creation activities are focused on servicing
the needs of the park and select non-Indigenous clients in proximity to the
community. The venture’s activities contribute directly to social, environmen-
tal, spiritual/cultural and economic value creation in the community and acts
as a vehicle for asserting inherent rights and title and sovereignty over their
traditional territories. Revenues generated support nation-building activities
through the development of civic institutions that facilitate self- determination
and self-governance (Fischman, 2011; Hansen & Brown, 2016).
Wreck Bay Enterprises makes signicant contributions to social value
creation in the community through providing its members with employment
opportunities; early childhood education facilities and programs; spon-
sored community events; modern housing and through providing targeted
training and development to employees and Council members (Hansen &
Brown, 2016). More specically, the venture supports Wreck Bay Aboriginal
Community’s commitment to the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG) targets for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians through: (i) closing the gap in life expectancy within a genera-
tion; (ii) halving the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under 5
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 131
Table 12. Wreck Bay Hybrid Enterprises.
Activities Description Value Creation
Administration • Employs 33 full-time Indigenous
administrative employees
• Hires casual Indigenous employees
to work on special events (i.e. school
holiday programs, cultural events and
funerals)
• Economic value (wages)
• Social value (employment)
Gudjahgahmiamia
(children
shelter) early
childhood
centre
• Employs up to 10 full-time employees
• Seeks regular funding to employ
additional trainees
• Economic value (day care fees)
• Social value (early childhood
education)
• Spiritual/culture value (early
cultural training)
Contract Services
(fee for service)
• Five-year services rolling contract
• Teams and individuals contracted out
to perform various tasks
• Electrical, plumbing etc.
• For Booderee National Park, Serco
Sodexho, the Territory Administration
and the Naval Air Base
• Economic value (wages)
• Social value (employment)
• Environmental value (park
maintenance)
Service-level
agreements
(Booderee
National Park)
• Five service-level agreements:
• Maintenance and cleaning services
(horticultural, building, other
infrastructure, grounds, roads, re
trails, hiking trails and tracks)
• Entry station management and park
fees collection
• Economic value (wages)
• Social value (employment,
training and development)
• Environmental value
(Indigenous management)
Park leasing • Annual lease payments from the
Department of National Parks
• Economic value (park lease)
• Social value (funds activities,
institution building, housing,
training and development)
• Spiritual/culture value (funds
cultural and spiritual activities)
Revenue sharing • 25%
• Entry fees
• Camping fees
• Economic value (wages)
• Social value (employment,
funds activities, institution
building, housing, training
and development)
• Spiritual/culture value (funds
cultural and spiritual activities)
Housing • Rental income
• For Clinic and Community houses
(approx. 50)
• Economic value (park lease)
• Social value (funds activities,
institution building, housing,
training and development)
Sources: Hansen and Brown (2016, pp. 31–33), Wreck Bay Community Council (2017).
132 RICK COLBOURNE
within a decade; (iii) ensuring all Indigenous 4-year olds in remote communi-
ties have access to early childhood education within 5 years; (iv) halving the
gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Indigenous children
within a decade; (v) halving the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 or
equivalent attainment rates by 2020 and (vi) halving the gap in employment
outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a dec-
ade (Hansen & Brown, 2016; Hunt, 2013).
The Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community has a profound, deep historical
and cultural connection to the park, its landscape, natural environment and
sacred sites. Under the terms of the lease with Parks Australia cultural and
spiritual value creation occurs through recognizing community members’ tra-
ditional practices and conferring them with the right to enter the park and to
use or occupy it in accordance with Aboriginal traditions for ceremonial and
spiritual purposes (Farrier & Adams, 2011, p. 13; Hansen & Brown, 2016).
Wreck Bay Enterprises’ value creation activities enable community members
to exercise their rights to live within and use resources of the park’s pro-
tected areas while engaging in traditional spiritual, cultural as well as sub-
sistence (hunting, shing and foraging) practices (Farrier & Adams, 2011,
p. 9; Hansen & Brown, 2016). The venture’s value creation activities focus on
enhancing and sustaining the natural resources around Jervis Bay. Through
facilitating the practical application of Aboriginal knowledge, it contrib-
utes to the revitalization of culture for future generations of the Wreck Bay
Aboriginal Community and park visitors by using the bush as a natural
classroom for disseminating Aboriginal knowledge and teaching commu-
nity youth (Hansen & Brown, 2016; Westpac Group, 2014). In being a highly
embedded and integrated hybrid venture, Wreck Bay Enterprises has enabled
the community to (i) identify and realize its short- and long-term socioeco-
nomic and environmental objectives; (ii) establish, revitalize and secure the
community’s spiritual/cultural objectives; (iii) contribute to the social well-
being of its members through the provision of housing, employment, edu-
cation and training and development opportunities within the community
and (iv) facilitate additional entrepreneurial venture creation opportunities
(Farrier & Adams, 2011, p. 18; Hansen & Brown, 2016; Westpac Group,
2014). From the perspective of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community, Wreck
Bay Enterprises plays a central role in securing sole management of the park
in the future which is essential for its nation building strategies of asserting
sovereignty and acting on their rights and title over the land and waters of
Booderee. The venture’s value creation activities contribute to the realization
of the community’s social, cultural, economic and environmental objectives
in a manner that is aligned to and protects the community, its values, culture
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 133
and traditions and addresses its socioeconomic needs and objectives (Farrier
& Adams, 2011, pp. 21–22; Hansen & Brown, 2016; Westpac Group, 2014).
Yaru Water. In the Bundjalung language ‘yaru’ means rock and the water
bottled by Australia’s rst 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 sur-
rounding 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. In 2011, however, they decided to establish a boutique Indigenous bot-
tled water brand, Yaru Water, in partnership with local Indigenous entre-
preneurs, Kyle and Josh Slabb, who would hold a majority share of 51% of
the business. Yaru Water was founded as a medium embedded, differenti-
ated hybrid venture with a vision to create a successful business that would
support Indigenous youth programs, leadership and cultural training in the
Bundjalung community (see Table 13; Allen, 2013; Westpac Group, 2014).
As an Indigenous owned company, Yaru Water was eligible to join Supply
Nation1 which helped them secure signicant distribution deals. In early
2012, Sodexo became a strong supporter and advocate of Yaru Water and
Sodexo facilitated introductions to national logistics providers which resulted
in a national distribution and logistics agreement that enabled Yaru Water to
grow its business (Sodexo, 2013). In 2013, the General Manager of Sotel, a
luxury French hotel brand was looking for a unique and distinct Australian
brand that they could provide to their guests as well for opportunities to
engage with Australia’s Indigenous peoples. Senior management believed that
Yaru Water addressed their requirements and in 2013, Yaru Water began sup-
plying the Sotel Hotel at Broadbeach on Australia’s Gold Coast. With 130
Sotel hotels located in 40 different countries worldwide this partnership has
had a signicant impact in ensuring the success of the Yaru Water hybrid ven-
ture and in contributing to the Bundjalung community’s socioeconomic well-
being (Emilie et al., 2013; Westpac Group, 2014). In 2013, Coles supermarkets
began stocking bottles of Yaru Water nationwide (Westpac Group, 2014)
134 RICK COLBOURNE
Table 13. Yaru Water Hybrid Venture Partnership.
Activities Description Value Creation
Partnership • Shaun and Tessa Martin –
Mt Warning Spring Water
• Kyle Slabb – Bundjalung
Nation
• Economic value (wages)
• Social value (employment, training
and development)
• Environmental value (Indigenous
resource management)
• Spiritual/culture value (culturally
important site, Indigenous leadership
and cultural training programs)
Employment • 9 employees • Economic value (wages)
• Social value (employment, subsistence)
Yaru Brand • Yaru is a boutique brand
• Culture as a resource
• Economic value (revenues)
• Social value (positive branding of
community)
• Spiritual/culture value (Indigenous
branding)
Revenue • Coles – 200 stores
• Qantas
• Sodexo
• Sotel Hotel Group
• Economic value (wages)
• Social value (employment, training
and development, Indigenous
leadership and cultural training
programs)
• Environmental value (Indigenous
management)
• Spiritual/culture value (Indigenous
leadership and cultural training
programs)
Community
Development
• >50% of prots directed
back into the local
community
• Yaru Foundation
o Enterprise support for
remote communities
o Social enterprise and
development projects
• Indigenous youth leadership
programs
• Cultural identity and
spirituality sessions
• Certied training programs
• Accommodation and training
centre
• Economic value (wages, program
funding)
• Social value (employment, Indigenous
leadership and cultural training
programs)
• Environmental value (respect for and
sustainable management of water
resource)
• Spiritual/culture value (Indigenous
leadership and cultural training
programs, culture revitalization)
Sources: Allen (2013), Emilie et al. (2013), Sodexo (2013), Westpac Group (2014).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 135
and mounted a promotional campaign that identied Yaru Water as an
Indigenous boutique label and emphasized the venture’s contributions back
to the Bundjalung community. Yaru Water and Qantas have formed a long-
term partnership with Qantas showcasing Yaru Water through executive
meetings and events and the Qantas executive team has referred Yaru Water
to other potential corporate partners (Emilie et al., 2013). As a result of grow-
ing partnerships, plant production of Yaru Water increased from 15,000 to
22,000 litres per week to meet increased demand resulting in the Indigenous
brand accounting for 71% of Mount Warning Spring Water total production
(Allen, 2013; Westpac Group, 2014).
As a medium embedded and differentiated hybrid venture, Yaru Water
has been mutually benecial to the Mount Warning Spring Company, the
Indigenous partners in Yaru Water and the Bundjalung people who have cho-
sen to opt in through supporting the venture. The venture is characterized by
an Indigenous and non-Indigenous partnership driven by an economic mis-
sion rst and social mission second. Yaru Water does not contribute directly
to the community’s nation building activities and is focused primarily on eco-
nomic value creation to sustain operations and to generate revenues which
are separated from operations and targeted according to the venture’s priori-
ties for social, cultural and environmental value creation in the Bundjalung
community. Yaru Water’s economic value creation activities have directly
benetted its partners, Shaun Martin, Kyle Slabb and Josh Slabb as well
as nine Indigenous employees through employment and associated wages.
The venture is driven by a strong mission, and similar to the Wreck Bay
Aboriginal Community, its social value creation activities involve an explicit
commitment to addressing the six COAG targets for closing the gap on dis-
advantages between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Emilie
et al., 2013; Hunt, 2013). Yaru Water’s revenues facilitate social value creation
activities that include (i) employment opportunities for community members;
(ii) employee training and development; (iii) Indigenous youth leadership
development programs; (iv) positive community branding and (v) entre-
preneurship 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 train-
ing programs 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 con-
sumer attention to the Bundjalung community’s connection to Wollumbin or
‘cloud catcher’ (Mount Waring) as a sacred place of cultural law, initiation
136 RICK COLBOURNE
and spiritual education. This informs and contributes to the venture’s environ-
mental value creation activities by which Aboriginal stewardship in manag-
ing the resource (water) on their traditional territories is facilitated garnering
increased consumer respect for and insights into Indigenous worldviews and
perspectives on sustainability. With increased credibility in the market and
success, Yaru Water has become a model for Indigenous entrepreneurs and
communities of a successful Indigenous/non-Indigenous medium embedded,
differentiated hybrid venture focused rst, on economic value creation and
second, on social, cultural and environmental value creation activities that
selectively address the Bundjalung community’s socioeconomic needs.
Japan: Ainu Museums and Heritage Sites
The Ainu are Indigenous peoples of Japan whose traditional territory
encompassed Hokkaido, southern Sakhalin and Kuril islands and the far-
eastern region of Russia (Pennewiss, 2007; Tanabe, 2014). Traditionally,
they were involved in hunting, shing and subsistence farming while also
acting as trade intermediaries among Japanese, Dutch, Chinese, Russian
and Korean traders (Espiritu, 2005). For over a century, the Japanese gov-
ernment denied that the Ainu were an Indigenous peoples and it was only
with the ratication of the UNDRIP and a court ruling of the Sapporo
District Court recognizing and protecting of Ainu culture in 1997 that they
were formally recognized by Japan in 2008 (Okada, 2012; Pennewiss, 2007).
Recognition, however, could not reverse the loss of traditional territory
and the erosion of their language and culture over the past century. While
the Japanese government made concessions through funding teaching, pro-
moting and researching Ainu culture and promoting coexistence with the
Ainu peoples, they have not addressed political, economic and other tradi-
tional rights of the Ainu as Indigenous peoples. Subsequently, Ainu nation
building activities have been constrained due to (i) the history of denial
of Ainu indigeneity by the Japanese government and its citizens (Morris-
Suzuki, 1999); (ii) ofcial references to Ainu as Indigenous ‘persons’ not
‘peoples’ (Maruyama, 2013; Nakamura, 2014); (iii) laws that do not articu-
late or dene the Indigenous rights of the Ainu (Maruyama, 2013); (iv)
legal limitation of Ainu culture to cultural products such as music, dance
and handicraft and not to a peoples’ culture (Maruyama, 2013) and (v) the
lack of an Ainu-controlled land base or traditional territory within which
the Ainu people assert sovereignty and act on their rights to self-governance
and self-determination (Maruyama, 2013; Nakamura, 2014, p. 209). Given
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 137
these conditions, Ainu entrepreneurs developed low embedded, integrated
hybrid ventures whose value creation activities focused on appropriating
local, regional and international tourism as a political instrument to con-
stitute their Indigenous identity (Friedman, 1990) and establish themselves
as Indigenous peoples in Japan. In 1916, for example, the Kawamura Ainu
Memorial Museum in Hokkaido and in 1972 the Nibutani Ainu Culture
Information Centre were established to engage in cultural and economic
value creation activities through the construction of private institutions
dedicated to preserving and promoting Ainu culture to the Ainu and
Japanese peoples. More recently, Ainu entrepreneurs have developed herit-
age sites modelled on traditional Ainu villages at Lake Akan and Shiraoi
and other museums at Shizunai, Obihiro, Abashiri, Hakodate, Kushiro and
Sapporo (see Table 14).
Ainu integrated and low embedded ventures are primarily focused on
(i) facilitating nation building efforts through reinforcing Ainu identi-
ties as Indigenous peoples in the minds and sensibilities of the Japanese;
(ii) strengthening claims to traditional territories and (iii) preserving and revi-
talizing their traditional culture and language for future generations (Savage
& Hindle, 2008). These ventures are seeking to create an Ainu Indigenous
culture within which they can become highly embedded over time and are
working to accomplish this through decentring economic value creation
in favour of social, cultural and environmental value creation activities.
Economic and social value creation focuses on providing employment,
wages and income to Ainu and Japanese persons in the museums and herit-
age sites and through creating a platform (and demand) for Ainu entrepre-
neurs producing traditional carvings, fabrics and cultural teaching materials.
Table 14. Ainu Ventures.
Activities Description Value Creation
Ventures • Kawamura Ainu Memorial Museum
• Shizunai Museum
• Obihiro Museum
• Abashiri Museum
• Hakodate Museum
• Kushiro Museum
• Sapporo Museum
• Nibutani Ainu Culture Information
Centre
• Lake Akan Heritage Site
• Shiraoi Heritage Site
• Economic value (wages)
• Social value (rebuild cultural
identity, assert rights, employment)
• Spiritual/culture value (preserve,
revitalize and promote cultural
identity)
• Environmental value (traditional
practices in heritage sites)
138 RICK COLBOURNE
Cultural/spiritual value creation occurs in and through the museums and her-
itage sites by which venture operations legitimate and share Ainu Indigenous
identities and worldviews, disseminate Ainu history and revitalize Ainu cul-
tural and spiritual practices (traditional music, contemporary plays, tradi-
tional dance, community spiritual practices; Maruyama, 2013; Nakamura,
2014; Savage & Hindle, 2008). While Ainu environmental value creation
activities underlie all venture operations, the heritage sites and to a lesser
degree museum sites are locations for the embodiment and dissemination of
Ainu environmental beliefs and practices. In contrast to the previous cases,
while Ainu hybrid ventures adopted an integrated model for value creation,
the lack of clear rights and title and sovereignty over traditional territories
results in low embedded hybrid ventures. The absence of a clearly dened
traditional territory and an Indigenous peoples with a strong collective con-
nection to territory means that social, cultural, environmental and economic
value creation activities are limited in effectively addressing individual mem-
bers’ socioeconomic needs and objectives in the short-term. In the long-term,
the ventures are constrained in their efforts to facilitate Ainu peoples’ nation
building activities by which they can move to act on their inherent rights
to achieve self-determination, self-governance and sovereignty over the land
and resources of their traditional territories.
As demonstrated by the three cases, Indigenous entrepreneurship is not
just about money, it is about history, tradition, culture and language embed-
ded in time and traditional territory. It is the creation, management and
development of hybrid ventures by Indigenous peoples for the benet of
Indigenous peoples. The Booderee National Park and Yaru Water cases are
examples of successful Indigenous hybrid ventures which contribute to the
social, economic and environmental well-being of their communities. These
hybrid ventures are founded on access to specic resources and capabilities
supported by Indigenous knowledge and experience embodied in the particu-
lar community’s traditional territory. For Japan’s Ainu peoples, entrepreneur-
ship is motivated by the need to reinforce their identities, strengthen their
claims to traditional territories and preserve and revitalize their traditional
culture and language for future generations in Japan, or, in other words,
supports their efforts at reclaiming their right to self-determination and self-
governance. These examples demonstrate that Indigenous hybrid ventures
represent a signicant 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.
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 139
CONCLUSION
Indigenous entrepreneurs worldwide have developed hybrid ventures as vehi-
cles to address community well-being through acting on their sovereignty
and inherent rights to promote self-governance and self-determination over
the social, cultural, economic and environmental resources contained within
their traditional territories. Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid venture
creation facilitate economic development initiatives that reect a communi-
ty’s particular culture, values, traditions and worldview as well as support
struggles for self-determination and self-governance. In order to develop a
more comprehensive understanding of the intersection between Indigenous
entrepreneurship and hybrid ventures, this chapter mapped out a conceptual
model that focused on generating insights into the complex interrelationships
and interdependencies that inuence the formation of Indigenous hybrid
ventures and value creation strategies according to three dimensions: (i) the
overarching dimension of indigeneity and Indigenous rights; (ii) indigenous
community orientations and (iii) indigenous hybrid venture creation consid-
erations (see Table 15).
Indigeneity and Indigenous Rights. This dimension involves gaining
insights into how indigeneity, Indigenous identity and Indigenous rights are
expressed and practiced by a particular Indigenous community and recog-
nized (or not) by a host country. These conditions exert a regulative inu-
ence on Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid venture creation and this
is expressed through how the identities and cultures of Indigenous peoples
are linked to their traditional lands and practices. Many Indigenous peoples
experience a profound connection to their traditional territory and to the
interdependent ecosystem of fauna and ora within which they interact and
live and, as a result, worldviews are founded on beliefs grounded in the inter-
connection, interrelationship and interdependency of people and the natural
and spiritual realms. Indigenous worldviews inform and frame the socioeco-
nomic culture of an Indigenous community through foregrounding certain
values over others (i.e. social, cultural, environmental over economic) and
this particular blend of values exerts an inuence on the nature of Indigenous
entrepreneurial activities and hybrid venture creation.
Indigenous Community Orientations. Indigenous communities worldwide
share in a common struggle to address two central issues: (i) how to create
and foster economic opportunities for their members and (ii) how to fund
and develop Indigenous government and civic institutions. A particular
Indigenous community’s socioeconomic values and objectives and the inter-
connectedness of its social relationships and governing institutions inuence
140 RICK COLBOURNE
entrepreneurship and hybrid venture and value creation strategies. Indigenous
entrepreneurs and ventures embedded in Indigenous communities generally
decentre economic value creation in favour of environmental, social, spiritual
and cultural value creation strategies. Understanding the manner in which
a community’s socioeconomic objectives are nested, balanced and blended,
therefore, generates insights into (i) the types of opportunities available to an
entrepreneur; (ii) culturally appropriate venture structures and activities and
(iii) the particular balance and blend of social, cultural, spiritual and environ-
mental value creation activities of relevance to the community.
A particular Indigenous community’s development strategy, standard
or nation-building, occurs within the context of multiple, overlapping and
often conicting requirements for social, cultural, economic and environmen-
tal value creation. Successful approaches to community development focus
on asserting sovereignty through establishing strong mechanisms that act
on self-governance and self-determination through encouraging culturally
appropriate and community responsive economic development and venture
creation strategies. This enables the community to enact laws, policies and
Table 15. Indigenous Hybrid Venture Creation Conceptual Model.
Indigenous Peoples’ Overarching Conditions
Indigeneity
• Worldviews
• Identity, culture, values and traditions
• Traditional territory
Indigenous rights
• Sovereignty and inherent rights
• Self-governance
• Self-determination
Indigenous community orientations
Community development
• Standard
• Nation-building
Socioeconomic
objectives
• Social, cultural,
environmental and
economic
Economic participation
• Opting in
• Opting out
Indigenous Hybrid Venture Creation Considerations
Community
embeddedness
• High
• Medium
• Low
Value creation
strategies
• Individual
experience,
ambitions and value
creation orientation
• Community
socioeconomic
needs and objectives
Value creation
frameworks
• Quadruple Bottom
Line
• Mauri Model
Decision-Making
Framework
Hybrid venture
structure
• Integrated
• Differentiated
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 141
procedures and make socioeconomic decisions that address their socioeco-
nomic needs and objectives and reect their culture, values and traditions.
Strong Indigenous governance mechanisms facilitate accountability and
transparency in community decision-making and focus on long-term issues
and challenges and these combine to inform community choices to opt out
or opt in of particular entrepreneurial ventures and/or economic develop-
ment initiatives. Gaining insights into Indigenous entrepreneurship and
hybrid venture and value creation strategies involves generating insights into
(i) the community’s particular socioeconomic needs and objectives; (ii) how
Indigenous hybrid venture and value creation activities are facilitated/con-
strained by community development strategies and (iii) the community’s ori-
entation towards opting in or opting out of particular regional, national and
international economic development opportunities.
Indigenous Hybrid Venture Creation Considerations. Indigenous entrepre-
neurship is a process of extracting and contributing value that is anchored
within a particular Indigenous community. For Indigenous entrepreneurs,
value extraction and creation occurs in the context of the community’s social
interrelationships and interdependencies, cultural and spiritual understand-
ings, beliefs and practices embedded in a particular traditional territory or
land base. Through engaging in value creation activities, Indigenous entre-
preneurs 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. It is
important to understand, therefore, the nature of an entrepreneur’s embed-
dedness (high, medium or low) within an Indigenous community as this inu-
ences how hybrid venture and value creation activities will be structured and
practiced within the community. The degree of embeddedness within a com-
munity impacts the entrepreneur’s personal credibility, local knowledge and
access to resources and affects their ability to have a nuanced understanding
of and practical insights into how ventures should be organized as well as
into the community’s formal and informal rules, practices, customs, policies
and procedures.
Balancing and blending highly interwoven and interdependent social,
cultural, environmental and economic value creation activities within the
same venture engenders risk as it can be difcult to align value creation with
the community’s socioeconomic needs, objectives culture, values and tradi-
tions. In order to mitigate risk, Indigenous hybrid ventures have adopted two
structures to facilitate their value creation activities: (i) differentiated hybrids
which separate economic value creation activities from social, cultural and/
or environmental creation activities or (ii) integrated hybrids which prioritize,
142 RICK COLBOURNE
balance and blend social, cultural, economic and environmental value crea-
tion activities. The Quadruple Bottom Line and the Mauri Decision-Making
frameworks can be used to generate insights into community responsive and
culturally appropriate hybrid venture structures and value creation strategies.
Both frameworks emphasize the importance of understanding the intercon-
nectedness of social relationships, governing institutions, values, traditions
and cultures of the Indigenous community within which the individual entre-
preneur or hybrid venture is embedded as central to identifying, blending,
balancing and aligning value creation strategies to the community’s socioeco-
nomic needs and objectives.
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 entrepreneurship and
hybrid venture and value creation strategies are more successful when the
rights of Indigenous peoples are addressed and when these initiatives are led
by or engage Indigenous communities. With increased recognition of rights
comes increased opportunities for Indigenous entrepreneurship and hybrid
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 revitalize 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).
NOTE
1. Supply Nation was established in 2009 to connect Indigenous businesses with
Australia’s leading brands and government agencies (http://www.supplynation.org.au/).
REFERENCES
Aboriginal Business and Investment Council. (2017). Osoyoos Indian Band and Vincor [Online].
Victoria, BC, Canada: Government of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.
bcabic.ca/success-stories/osoyoos-indian-band-and-vincor/. Accessed on February 13,
2017.
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 143
Allen, M. (2013). Indigenous business a culture watershed [Online]. Surry Hills, NSW, Australia:
News Corp Australia. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/
indigenousbusinessaculturewatershed/newsstory/75ae6c966eddcde050422915b6984e5e.
Accessed on January 22, 2017.
Amnesty International Canada. (2016). The United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples [Online]. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Amnesty International. Retrieved from http://
www.amnesty.ca/our-work/issues/indigenous-peoples/the-united-nations- declaration-on-
the-rights-of-indigenous-people. Accessed on April 3, 2016.
Anderson, P. (2011). Free, prior, and informed consent in REDD+: Principles and approaches for
policy and project development. Bangkok, Thailand: RECOFTC – The Center for People
and Forests & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
Anderson, R. (2001). Aboriginal people, economic development and entrepreneurship. Journal
of Aboriginal Economic Development, 2(1), 33–42.
Anderson, R., Camp Ii, R., Dana, L. P., Honig, B., Nkongolo-Bakenda, J.-M., & Peredo, A.
(2005). Indigenous land rights in Canada: The foundation for development? International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(2), 104–133.
Anderson, R., Dana, L. P., & Dana, T. (2006a). Indigenous land rights, entrepreneurship and
economic development in Canada: “Opting-in” to the global economy. Journal of World
Business, 41(1), 45–55.
Anderson, R., Giberson, R., Hindle, K., & Kayseas, B. (2004). Understanding success in indig-
enous entrepreneurship: An exploratory investigation. Proceedings of the AGSE-Babson
Regional Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, 1, 83–100.
Anderson, R., Honig, B., & Peredo, A. (2006b). Communities in the global economy: Where
social and Indigenous entrepreneurship meet. In D. Hjorth & C. Steyaert (Eds.),
Entrepreneurship as social change: A third new movements in entrepreneurship book
(pp. 56–78). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Anderson, R., Macaulay, S. W., Kayseas, B., & Hindle, K. G. (2008). Indigenous communities,
entrepreneurship, and economic development in the new economy. In G. Shockley, P.
Frank & R. Stough (Eds.), Non-market entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary approaches
(pp. 89–123). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Anderson, R., Macaulay, S., Weir, W., & Wuttunee, W. (2007a). Building aboriginal economic
development capacity: The Council for the Advancement of Native Development Ofcers.
In L. P. Dana & R. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education:
Contextual perspectives (pp. 185–196). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Anderson, R., Wingham, D., Giberson, R., & Gibson, B. (2007b). Indigenous economic
development. In G. Campbell & N. Guibert (Eds.), Wine, society and globalization:
Multidisciplinary perspectives on the wine industry (pp. 201–220). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Asian Development Bank. (2015). Policy on indigenous peoples [Online]. Manila, Philippines:
Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/documents/policy-
indigenous-peoples. Accessed on May 27, 2015.
Australian Council of Social Service. (2014). Poverty in Australia 2014. In P. Davidson & R.
Evans (Eds.) (4th ed.). Strawberry Hills, NSW, Australia: Australian Council of Social
Service.
Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 51–55.
Bear, L. L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice
and vision (pp. 75–87). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
144 RICK COLBOURNE
Begay, M., Cornell, S., Jorgensen, M., & Kalt, J. P. (2007). Development, governance, culture:
What are they and what do they have to do with nation building? In M. Jorgensen (Ed.),
Rebuilding native nations: Strategies for governance and development (pp. 34–54). Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Blackstock, C. (2013). Know your rights!: United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples for indigenous adolescents. New York: United Nations Children’s Emergency
Fund (UNICEF).
Braun, K. L., Browne, C. V., Ka‘Opua, L. S., Kim, B. J., & Mokuau, N. (2014). Research on
indigenous elders: From positivistic to decolonizing methodologies. The Gerontologist,
54(1), 117–126.
Brush, C., Monti, D., Ryan, A., & Gannon, A. M. (2007). Building ventures through civic
capitalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 613(1),
155–177.
Coates, K. (2016). First nations engagement in the energy sector in western Canada. Tsuu T’ina
Nation, AB, Canada: Indian Resource Council.
Colbourne, R. (2012). Ch’nook indigenous business education initiative. Journal of Aboriginal
Economic Development, 8(1), 73–80.
Cornell, S. (2006). What makes rst nations enterprises successful? Lessons learned from the
Harvard Project. University of Arizona Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy Joint
Occasional Papers on Native Affairs (01).
Cornell, S. E., & Kalt, J. P. (2006). Two approaches to economic development on American
Indian reservations: One works, the other doesn’t. In M. Jorgensen (Ed.), Rebuilding
native nations: Strategies for governance and development (pp. 3–33). Tucson, AZ: Native
Nations Institute, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona.
Cornell, S., & Kalt, J. P. (2010). American Indian self-determination: The political economy of a
policy that works. Political economy of American Indian self-determination. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University
Corntassel, J. (2008). Toward sustainable self-determination: Rethinking the contemporary
Indigenous-rights discourse. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 33(1), 105–132.
Cradock, G. (1979). First nations’ political economy in British Columbia: A partnership recovered?
Master of Arts, Simon Fraser University
Curry, J., & Donker, H. (2009). Development corporations in aboriginal communities: The
Canadian experience. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 1–19.
Curry, J. A., Donker, H., & Michel, P. (2009). Governance structures to enhance business and
economic development success in rst nations communities. Entrepreneurial Practice
Review, 1(1), 24–39.
Dana, L. P. (2007). Toward a multidisciplinary denition of indigenous entrepreneurship. In
L. P. Dana & R. Anderson, R. (Eds.), International handbook of research on indigenous
entrepreneurship (pp. 3–7). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Dana, L.-P., & Anderson, R. (2011). Indigenous entrepreneurship as a function of cultural
perceptions of opportunity. In L.-P. Dana, (Ed.), World encyclopedia of entrepreneurship
(pp. 249–258). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Dhir, R. K. (2015). Indigenous peoples in the world of work in Asia and the Pacic: A status report.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Ofce.
Donville, C., & Penty, R. (2015). B.C. rst nation rejects $1.15 billion petronas-led LNG deal: ‘This
is not a money issue’ [Online]. Toronto, Canada: Financial Post. Retrieved from http://
business.nancialpost.com/news/energy/b-c-rst-nation-rejects-1-15-billion-petronas-
led-lng-deal-this-is-not-a-money-issue?__lsa4aaa-13a8. Accessed on November 27, 2016.
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 145
Douglas, H. (2010). Divergent orientations of social entrepreneurship organizations. In
K. Hockerts, J. Mair & J. Robinson (Eds.), Values and opportunities in social entrepreneur-
ship (pp. 71–95). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Doyle, C., & Gilbert, J. (2010). Indigenous peoples and globalization: From “development
aggression” to “self-determined development”. European Yearbook of Minority Issues,
7(2008/9), 219–262.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission
drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 34, 81–100.
Emilie, P., Louise, B., Hannah, D., Jack, R., Gargett, A., & Bedford, J. (2013). Social justice and
native title report 2013. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Human Rights Commission.
Espiritu, A. A. (2005). Ainu. In M. Nuttall (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Arctic (pp. 18–19).
New York: Routledge.
Farrier, D., & Adams, M. (2011). Indigenous-government co-management of protected areas:
Booderee National Park and the national framework in Australia. In B. Lausch (Ed.),
Special protected area types (pp. 1–40). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Fischman, E. (2011). Working on working together: Experiences in joint protected area man-
agement in Australia. Legal aspects of sustainable natural resources. Montreal, Quebec,
Canada: Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL).
Frederick, H., & Henry, E. (2004). Innovation and entrepreneurship amongst Pakeha and Maori
in New Zealand. In C. S. Stiles & C. S. Galbraith (Eds.), Ethnic entrepreneurship: structure
and process (pp. 115–140). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Friedman, J. (1990). Being in the world: Globalization and localization. Theory, Culture and
Society, 7(2), 311–328.
Galbraith, C. S., & Stiles, C. S. (2003). Expectations of Indian reservation gaming: Entrepreneurial
activity within a context of traditional land tenure and wealth acquisition. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 93–112.
Gibson, D. (2012). The cultural challenges faced by indigenous-owned small medium tourism
enterprises (SMTEs) in Fiji: Case studies from the Yasawa Islands. The Journal of Pacic
Studies, 32(2), 102–126.
Gladu, J. P. (2016). Economic equality must be part of indigenous reconciliation [Online]. Toronto:
Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/
rob-commentary/economic-equality-must-be-part-of-indigenous-reconciliation/
article31215507/. Accessed on November 23, 2016.
Grande, S., San Pedro, T., & Windchief, S. (2015). Indigenous peoples and identity in the 21st
century: Remembering, reclaiming, and regenerating. In D. Koslow & L. Salett (Eds.),
Multicultural perspectives on race, ethnicity, and identity (pp. 105–122). Washington, DC:
National Association of Social Workers.
Hansen, M., & Brown, A. (2016). Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council corporate plan.
Wreck Bay Village, Jervis Bay, Australia: Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council.
Harper, D. A. (2003). Foundations of entrepreneurship and economic development. London, UK:
Routledge.
Henry, E. (2007). Kaupapa Maori entrepreneurship. In L. P. Dana & R. Anderson (Eds.),
International handbook of research on indigenous entrepreneurship (pp. 536–548).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hindle, K. (2010). How community context affects entrepreneurial process: A diagnostic frame-
work. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(7–8), 599–647.
146 RICK COLBOURNE
Hindle, K., & Lansdowne, M. (2005). Brave spirits on new paths: Toward a globally relevant
paradigm of Indigenous entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 131–141.
Hindle, K., & Moroz, P. (2007). Dening indigenous entrepreneurship as a research eld:
Discovering and critiquing the emerging canaon. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
27(9), 1.
Holder, C. L., & Corntassel, J. (2002). Indigenous peoples and multicultural citizenship: Bridging
collective and individual rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 24(1), 126–151.
Hunt, J. (2013). Closing the gap: Engagement with indigenous communities in key sectors.
Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Hunt, J., & Smith, D. E. (2006). Building Indigenous community governance in Australia:
Preliminary research ndings. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Centre for Aboriginal Economic
Policy Research, Australian National University.
International Labour Organization. (2015). Convention No. 169: Indigenous and tribal peoples
[Online]. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization. Retrieved from http://
www.ilo.org/indigenous/Conventions/no169/lang–en/index.htm. Accessed on May 28, 2015.
Jack, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467–487.
Johnstone, H., & Lionais, D. (2004). Depleted communities and community business entre-
preneurship: Revaluing space through place. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
16(3), 217–233.
Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneur-
ship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and
Stanford. Research Policy, 33(5), 691–707.
Kuokkanen, R. (2011). Indigenous economies, theories of subsistence, and women: Exploring
the social economy model for Indigenous governance. The American Indian Quarterly,
35(2), 215–240.
Lama, M. (2013). Access to health services by indigenous peoples in Asia. In J. Reading (Ed.),
State of the world’s indigenous peoples: Indigenous people’s access to health services
(pp. 33–57). New York: United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs.
Lindsay, N. J. (2005). Toward a cultural model of indigenous entrepreneurial attitude. Academy
of Marketing Science Review, 5, 1.
Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., & Fontenot, K. (2013). Poverty rates for selected detailed race and
hispanic groups by state and place: 2007–2011. American Community Survey Briefs.
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Marquis, C., & Battilana, J. (2009). Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring inuence
of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 283–302.
Maruyama, H. (2013). Japan’s post-war Ainu policy. Why the Japanese government has not rec-
ognised Ainu indigenous rights? Polar Record, 49(2), 204–207.
Mckeever, E., Anderson, A., & Jack, S. (2014). Social embeddedness in entrepreneurship
research: The importance of context and community. In E. Chell & M. Karataş-Özkan
(Eds.), Handbook of research on small business and entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Mckeever, E., Jack, S., & Anderson, A. (2015). Embedded entrepreneurship in the creative re-
construction of place. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 50–65.
Mikkelsen, C. (2015). Australia. In C. Mikkelsen & S. Stidsen (Eds.), The indigenous world 2015
(pp. 218–232). Copenhagen, Denmark: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
(IWGIA).
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 147
Morgan, D. L. (2003). Appropriation, appreciation, accommodation: Indigenous wisdoms and
knowledges in higher education. International Review of Education, 49(1), 35–49.
Morgan, K. (2006). Decision-support tools and the indigenous paradigm. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, 159(4), 169–177.
Morgan, K. (2009). Takarangi, yin and yang, mauri and qi. MAI Review, 3(2009), 1–3.
Morgan, K., & F`Aui, T. N. (2014). Decision support systems and promoting socially just envi-
ronmental management. 11th International Conference on Hydroinformatics. New York,
NY: International Conference on Hydroinformatics.
Morgan, K., F`Aui, T. N., & Bennett, P. (2015). Decision support systems: Just about money
or more than that? 36th IAHR World Congress. The Hague, Netherlands: IAHR World
Congress.
Morris-Suzuki, T. (1999). The Ainu: Beyond the politics of cultural coexistence. Cultural Survival
Quarterly, 23(4), 19–23.
Murphy, P. J., & Coombes, S. M. (2009). A model of social entrepreneurial discovery. Journal of
Business Ethics, 87(3), 325–336.
Nakamura, N. (2014). Realising Ainu indigenous rights: A commentary on Hiroshi Maruyama’s
‘Japan’s post-war Ainu policy. Why the Japanese government has not recognised Ainu
indigenous rights?’. Polar Record, 50(2), 209–211.
Okada, M. V. (2012). The plight of Ainu, indigenous people of Japan. Indigenous Social
Development, 1(1), 1–14.
Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation. (2016). Osoyoos Indian Band Development
Corporation [Online]. Oliver, Canada: OIB. Retrieved from http://oibdc.ca/index.html.
Accessed on January, 24, 2017.
Ovaska, T., Van Der Walt, L., & B. Anderson, R. (2014). The development experiences of two
small African and Northern European communities under globalisation: A regulation
theory analysis. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
Economy, 8(4), 234–260.
Pauls, K. (2015). Manitobah Mukluks: Building success from the ground up [Online]. Winnipeg,
Canada: CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/
manitobah-mukluks-building-success-from-the-ground-up-1.3197893. Accessed on
November 12, 2016.
Pennewiss, S. (2007). The Ainu of Japan and the land given by the river. In L. P. Dana & R.
Anderson (Eds.), International handbook of research on indigenous entrepreneurship
(pp. 175–180). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Peredo, A. M. (2001). Communal enterprises, sustainable development and the alleviation of pov-
erty in rural Andean communities. Calgary, AB, Canada: University of Calgary.
Peredo, A. M., & Anderson, R. (2006). Indigenous entrepreneurship research: Themes and vari-
ations. In C. S. Galbraith (Ed.), Developmental entrepreneurship: Adversity, risk, and isola-
tion (pp. 253–273). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Peredo, A. M., Anderson, R. B., Galbraith, C. S., & Honig, B. (2004). Towards a theory of indig-
enous entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
1(1), 1–20.
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise.
Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328.
Peredo, A. M., & Mclean, M. (2010). Indigenous development and the cultural captivity of
entrepreneurship. Business & Society, 52(4), 592–620.
Rante, Y., & Warokka, A. (2013). The interrelated nexus of indigenous economic growth and
small business development: Do local culture, government role, and entrepreneurial
148 RICK COLBOURNE
behavior play the role? Journal of Innovation Management in Small & Medium Enterprises,
2013, 1–19.
Ritsema, R., Dawson, J., Jorgensen, M., & Macdougall, B. (2015). “Steering our own ship?”
An assessment of self-determination and self-governance for community development in
Nunavut. Northern Review, 41, 157–180.
Russell, G. (2009). The indigenous peoples’ declaration. AGAPE consultation on poverty, wealth
and ecology in Asia and the Pacic. Chiang Mai, Thailand: World Council of Churches.
Russo, M. V., Earle, A. G., Lahneman, B. A., & Tilleman, S. G. (2015). Geography, personal val-
ues, and hybrid companies. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015. Vancouver, BC,
Canada: Academy of Management.
Savage, T., & Hindle, K. (2008). Indigenous entrepreneurs: Ainu museums. Regional frontiers
of entrepreneurship research. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: International Australian
Graduate School of Entrepreneurship (AGSE) Entrepreneurship Research Exchange.
Seelos, C., Ganly, K., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurs directly contribute to global develop-
ment goals. Occasional paper. Barcelona, Spain: IESE Business School – Universidad de
Navarra.
Seelos, C., Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Tina Dacin, M. (2011). The embeddedness of social entrepre-
neurship: Understanding variation across local communities. Communities and organiza-
tions (pp. 333–363). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sengupta, U., Vieta, M., & Mcmurtry, J. J. (2015). Indigenous communities and social enterprise
in Canada. Canadian Journal of Nonprot and Social Economy Research, 6(1), 104–123.
Sisco, A., & Nelson, R. (2008). From vision to venture: An account of ve successful aboriginal
businesses. Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility. Ottawa, ON Canada: The
Conference Board of Canada.
Smith, R. (2015). For aboriginal peoples, entrepreneurship is the path to economic inde-
pendence [Online]. Toronto, Canada: Globe Media Group. Retrieved from http://
www. theglobeandmail.com/opinion/for-aboriginals-entrepreneurship-is-the-path-to-
economic-independence/article24327664/. Accessed on January 27–May 8, 2015.
Sodexo (2013). Sodexo reconciliation action plan 2013–2014. Reconciliation action plan
Melbourne, Australia: Sodexo.
Spiller, C., Pio, E., Erakovic, L., & Henare, M. (2011). Wise up: Creating organizational wisdom
through an ethic of Kaitiakitanga. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 223–235.
Tanabe, Y. (2014). The UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples and the Ainu of
Japan: Development and challenges. Indigenous Policy Journal, 24(4).
Tassell, N. A., Flett, R. A., & Gavala, J. R. (2010). Individualism/collectivism and academic
self-enhancement in New Zealand Mãori university students. Journal of Pacic Rim
Psychology, 4(02), 138–151.
Thornton, P. H., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and entrepre-
neurial activity. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105–118.
Turner, M. K., & Perrurle, B. M. (2010). Iwenhe Tyerrtye: What it means to be an aboriginal
person. Alice Springs, NT, Australia, Institute for Aboriginal Development (IAD) Press.
UNDP (2012). Indigenous voices in the Asia Pacic: Identifying the information and communica-
tion needs of indigenous peoples. Bangkok, Thailand: Asia-Pacic Regional Centre United
Nations Development Programme.
United Nations (2015). Indigenous peoples, indigenous voices: Who are indigenous peoples.
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. New York, NY: United Nations.
United Nations General Assembly (2008). United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples. Washington, DC: United Nations.
Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Hybrid Ventures 149
Vining, A. R., & Richards, J. (2016). Indigenous economic development in Canada: Confronting
principal-agent and principal–principal problems to reduce resource rent dissipation.
Resources Policy, 49, 358–367.
Walters, F., & Takamura, J. (2015). The decolonized quadruple bottom line: A framework for
developing indigenous innovation. Wicazo Sa Review, 30(2), 77–99.
Westpac Group (2014). Enabling prosperity: Success factors for indigenous economic development.
Sydney, NSW, Australia: Westpac Group.
Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2011). Business models for people, planet (& prots): Exploring the
phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small
Business Economics, 40(3), 715–737.
World Bank (2015). Indigenous peoples [Online]. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples/overview#1. Accessed on May
27, 2015.
Wreck Bay Community Council (2017). Wreck Bay community council: About us [Online]. Wreck
Bay Village, Jervis Bay, Australia: Wreck Bay Community Council. Retrieved from http://
www.wbacc.gov.au/. Accessed on January 25, 2017.
Wuttunee, W. (2004). Living rhythms: Lessons in aboriginal economic resilience and vision.
Montreal, QC, Canada, McGill-Queen’s Press.
