Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Vol. 6, No 1
Spring / Printemps 2015
pp. 104 – 123
Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research
Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OBSL et l’économie sociale
Indigenous Communities and Social Enterprise in Canada
Ushnish Sengupta & Marcelo Vieta
University of Toronto
J. J. McMurtry
York University
ABSTRACT
This article seeks to understand Indigenous social enterprise in a “current state snapshot” and in a complex
historical context. Specifically, the authors begin by placing into theoretical context social enterprises serving
Indigenous communities. The framework for Indigenous social enterprise is related to theories of Indigenous
entrepreneurship and “quadruple bottom line” organizations. The authors explain the role of culture as an underresearched element and as a critical component of Indigenous social enterprise. The article also highlights
gender leadership of social enterprise in Indigenous communities. Finally, the article provides three case studies
that exemplify Indigenous social enterprise in Canada.
RÉSUMÉ
Dans cet article, les auteurs cherchent à comprendre les entreprises sociales autochtones dans leur état actuel
ainsi que dans la complexité de leur contexte historique. Plus précisément, les auteurs commencent leur article
en situant dans un contexte théorique particulier les entreprises sociales desservant les communautés
autochtones. Le cadre utilisé pour décrire ces entreprises a des liens avec des théories sur l’entreprenariat
autochtone et sur les organisations à quadruple résultat. Ensuite, les auteurs représentent la culture comme
étant à la fois un élément insuffisamment étudié et une composante critique de l’entreprise sociale dans un
milieu autochtone. D’autre part, ils rendent compte de la prédominance des leaders féminins dans ces
entreprises. Finalement, ils présentent trois études de cas illustrant l’entreprise sociale autochtone au Canada.
KEYWORDS / MOTS CLÉS : Indigenous; Aboriginal; First Nations; Entrepreneurship; Culture; Social
enterprise; Canada / Autochtone; Aborigène; Premières Nations; Entreprenariat; Culture; Entreprise sociale; Canada
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
104
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
INTRODUCTION
Indigenous communities in Canada include First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities. Social enterprise in
Indigenous1 communities in Canada is shaped by population and geographic distribution, history of colonization,
and local and global economic factors. The Indigenous population of Canada consists of 4.3 percent of the total
population and, according to the most recent national census, is the fastest growing population group in Canada
(Turner, Crompton, & Langlois, 2011). There are more than 600 Indigenous communities spread geographically
across the country, each with unique relationships to three components: the land; municipal, provincial, and
federal governments; and non-Indigenous communities. Some communities exist across provincial and
international boundaries, having relationships with multiple state and national governments. Many Indigenous
communities dispute jurisdiction over traditional land by all three levels of government and, therefore, can often
have an oppositional relationship with those governments. The diversity of Indigenous communities has led to
the formation of a wide range of social enterprise interactions; this has substantially influenced the development
of social enterprise and the broader social economy across Canada.
The Indigenous social economy in Canada plays a significant role in local economies. It includes multi-tiered
cooperatives such as Arctic Cooperatives Limited (ACL) (Quarter, Mook, & Armstrong, 2009); communityowned organizations such as the Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation (Anderson, Dana, & Dana,
2006); the corporate division of the Membertou Band (Johnstone, 2008); and numerous forms of Indigenousbased social-purpose businesses (Quarter, Mook, & Armstrong, 2009). The leadership of social enterprise
intersecting with Indigenous communities can take different forms. A number of social enterprises, which were
started by non-Indigenous individuals, are now led by Indigenous individuals, such as ACL. Indigenous
community members have also started and continue to manage a broad range of social enterprises throughout
Canada. At the same time, there is a significant proportion of social enterprise in Canada that serves Indigenous
populations but that is not led or managed by Indigenous individuals.
Although there is a substantial volume of research on Indigenous populations, the relationship between
Indigenous communities and social enterprise within the broader social economy is an under-researched area
(Wuttunee, 2009). The purpose of this article is to contribute to this nascent body of research.
Indigenous population and geographic distribution
The geographical distribution of Indigenous communities in Canada is relevant to the understanding of
Indigenous social enterprise. Although the province of Ontario has the highest Indigenous population in absolute
numbers, the Indigenous population forms only 2 percent of Ontario’s total population. Indigenous populations
form a higher percentage of the territories of Nunavut (86%), Northwest Territories (52%), and the Yukon (23%),
as listed in Table 1 (Turner, Crompton, & Langlois Canada, 2011).
The variety of Indigenous people’s experiences with colonization has deeply affected the subsequent
development of Indigenous social enterprise throughout Canada. This development has been different for each
province and territory. In southern First Nations communities, European farmer–based cooperatives were
utilized as a tool of colonization by solidifying European settlement over traditional First Nations land,
simultaneously excluding First Nations people from involvement in these cooperatives. As described by
Fairbairn (2004), initial cooperative development in Canada and all of North America was not inclusive of, or
intended for, the benefit of Indigenous communities. In contrast, cooperatives in northern Inuit communities
were not established as bottom-up European settler–based organizations, but were top-down, governmentTo be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
105
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
initiated structures utilized for creating dependent classes and effectively limiting the movement of traditionally
nomadic communities (Mitchell, 1996). As a result, Canadian formal cooperative business structures were
incorporated in the northern territories several years after cooperative structures were established in the
southern provinces. In contrast, the current establishment of cooperatives in Canada’s northern territories within
Inuit communities (per capita) is the highest among the country’s Indigenous communities (Belhadji, 2001). The
growing population of Indigenous communities, as well as the increasing proportions of Indigenous populations
in many provinces, is likely to have a profound effect on the number and diversity of social enterprises in
Canada.
Table 1: Population and percentage of Indigenous people by province
and territory in Canada, 2011
Population count (in thousands)
Percentage
Newfoundland and Labrador
36
7.1
Prince Edward Island
2
1.6
Nova Scotia
34
3.7
New Brunswick
23
3.1
Quebec
142
1.8
Ontario
301
2.4
Manitoba
196
16.7
Saskatchewan
158
15.6
Alberta
221
6.2
British Columbia
Province or territory
232
5.4
Yukon
8
23.1
Northwest Territories
21
51.9
Nunavut
27
86.3
Canada
1,401
4.3
Social enterprise surveys and Indigenous social enterprise
Recently, a number of broad provincially based social enterprise surveys have been utilized toward the
development of the British Columbia and Alberta Social Economy Research Alliance project (BALTA). The
project’s purpose is to highlight the importance of interactions between social enterprise and Indigenous
communities in Canada. In surveys, Hall, Elson, and Wamucii (2013) indicate that 37 percent of Alberta’s and
33 percent of British Columbia’s social enterprises served Indigenous clients (2014a). Related reports indicate
the following percentages of surveyed social enterprises that served Indigenous communities in other provinces:
29 percent in Manitoba (O’Connor, Elson, Hall, & Reimer, 2012); 28 percent in New Brunswick (Hall, Elson, &
Wamucii, 2014b); 16 percent in Nova Scotia (Tarr & Karaphylis, 2010); and 22 percent in Ontario (Flat, Daly,
Elson, Hall, Thompson, & Chamberlain, 2013). Table 2 summarizes the findings of each provincial survey in
comparison to the previously reported Indigenous population (Turner, Crompton, & Langlois, 2011), indicating a
pattern of engagement between Indigenous communities and social enterprise in Canada that is proportionally
much greater than the Indigenous population.
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
106
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Indigenous communities in other provinces: 29 percent in Manitoba (O’Connor, Elson, Hall, & Reimer, 2012); 28
percent in New Brunswick (Hall, Elson, & Wamucii, 2014b); 16 percent in Nova Scotia (Tarr & Karaphylis,
2010); and 22 percent in Ontario (Flat, Daly, Elson, Hall, Thompson, & Chamberlain, 2013). Table 2
summarizes the findings of each provincial survey in comparison to the previously reported Indigenous
population (Turner, Crompton, & Langlois, 2011), indicating a pattern of engagement between Indigenous
communities and social enterprise in Canada that is proportionally much greater than the Indigenous population.
Table 2: Indigenous population and social enterprise serving Indigenous
communities, select provinces in Canada
Province or Territory
Indigenous
population, 2011
(in thousands)
Indigenous
population, 2011
(percentage)
Social enterprise
serving Indigenous
communities*
(percentage)
Year of social
enterprise survey
Nova Scotia
34
3.7
16
2010
New Brunswick
23
3.1
28
2014
Ontario
301
2.4
22
2013
Manitoba
196
16.7
29
2012
Alberta
221
6.2
37
2013
British Columbia
232
5.4
33
2014
* Note that given the exclusion of band-owned organizations from the provincial social enterprise surveys, the reported numbers for
social enterprise are likely to under-represent the percentage of social enterprises serving Indigenous populations.
One explanation for this strong relationship between social enterprise and Indigenous communities is that social
enterprises serve marginalized populations, and Indigenous populations do face multiple forms of
marginalization in Canada. Ornstein (2006) analyzed the “vertical mosaic” or socio-economic profile of various
ethno-racial groups in Toronto, Canada’s largest city. Toronto is also the city with the largest Indigenous
population, and Ornstein found that the Indigenous community experienced the greatest level of socio-economic
marginalization. This finding is confirmed by more recent and detailed research provided by the Toronto
Aboriginal Research Project (Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council, 2011). For example, the Toronto
Aboriginal Support Services Council (2011) reported that Indigenous individuals constitute 29 percent of the
homeless population in Toronto, but only 2.5 percent of the general population in the city. Further, Fleury (2002)
found that Indigenous people living off-reserve are one of the groups at highest risk of social exclusion in
Canada. More broadly, Indigenous communities across Canada face a number of socio-economic issues
related to poverty, deeply rooted in colonialism, which ultimately results in a reduced average lifespan compared
to non-Indigenous populations (Palmater, 2011). The Indigenous community is diverse, not only in terms of
demographics, but also in terms of socio-economic conditions. The First Nations communities of Membertou in
Nova Scotia (Johnstone, 2008) and Osoyoos in British Columbia (Anderson, Dana, & Dana, 2006), for instance,
are relatively economically successful (in part due to their community-owned social enterprise strategies),
whereas many other communities face persistent socio-economic issues.
Given this range of issues, a clear distinction needs to be made between the different types of social enterprises
within Indigenous communities. There are five basic types of Indigenous social enterprise organizations, based
on leadership and clientele:
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
107
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Social enterprise led by Indigenous individuals exclusively serving Indigenous clients.
Social enterprise led by Indigenous individuals serving Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients.
Social enterprise led by non-Indigenous individuals exclusively serving Indigenous clients.
Social enterprise led by non-Indigenous individuals serving Indigenous and non-Indigenous
clients.
5. Social enterprise led by non-Indigenous individuals exclusively serving non-Indigenous clients
(these are ethno-specific organizations, such as a Ukrainian credit union).
The fourth type of social enterprise is the most prevalent type interacting with Indigenous communities in
Canada, as demonstrated by provincial social enterprise surveys. There are two significant issues with nonIndigenous origins of social enterprise affecting Indigenous communities. The first, rooted in colonial ideology
and practice, is a “deficit”-based viewpoint, where Indigenous communities are perceived as requiring external
“help.” The strengths of Indigenous communities are undervalued, and solutions from non-Indigenous origins
are overvalued. Second, this view of social enterprise is based on a market failure or “heterogeneity” theory
(Salamon, Sokolowski, & Anheier, 2000), which positions social enterprise as a response to market failures and
fills gaps where a purely market-based system was ineffective. Given this, Salamon, Sokolowski, and Anheier
(2000) suggest that a more appropriate model for understanding the development of social enterprise is a
“social origins” theory of the civil sector (p. 15), which we find relevant, but ultimately inadequate, for reconceptualizing appropriate forms of social enterprise in Indigenous communities.
A “social origins” theory of social enterprise assumes that development in social enterprise in broader Canadian
society is mirrored by development in Indigenous communities. This theory does not adequately account for
racial or ethnic differences. In the book The Revolution Will Not be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial
Complex (Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, 2007), the authors make the case that the mainstream civil
sector often acts against Indigenous interests and requirements for fluid organizational coalitions needed to
move toward the goals of Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty. While having a significant presence in
Indigenous communities, the development of social enterprise in these communities has not necessarily
paralleled the trajectory of the growth of social enterprise or the broader social economy in non-Indigenous
communities in Canada. In conjunction with what is increasingly viewed as population genocide and the
historical suppression of Indigenous culture, different types of long-established Indigenous entrepreneurship,
including socially oriented Indigenous enterprises, were historically suppressed, limiting the formation of
traditional Indigenous organizations for a long period of Canadian history (Carter, 1990). Rather than a “social
origins” theory, then, more appropriate models for describing Indigenous social enterprise include “Indigenous
entrepreneurship” and “quadruple bottom line organizations,” which will be explained in detail in the conceptual
analysis section.
Quantifying Indigenous social enterprise
Statistics indicate the significant differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities based on the
following factors: race, education, child care, food security, health, housing, emergency services, employment,
environmental pollution, access to financial services (Palmater, 2011), and other types of services that typically
involve social enterprise. As such, statistics of the Indigenous community in Canada should be interpreted with
caution; the collection of Indigenous population statistics has not generally benefited Indigenous communities.
Indeed, as highlighted by Walter and Anderson (2013), all statistics have value systems embedded in the
collection and use interpretation that is entrenched within them. With these caveats in mind, in this section we
review the few attempts at quantifying Indigenous social enterprise in Canada.
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
108
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
In terms of quantifying social enterprises in Indigenous communities, it is important to recognize the legal
organizational structures followed by different Canadian governments and researchers. These have proven to
be a source of weakness in accounting for the environment of Indigenous social enterprise. First, there is no
nationally recognized status for social enterprise, making the measurement of social enterprise numbers
particularly difficult. Social enterprise organizations can be incorporated as nonprofit or for-profit entities, and
simultaneously can be incorporated as cooperatives. Second, the type of business that can be considered an
Indigenous social enterprise is contested. Quarter, Mook, and Armstrong (2009), for instance, included
cooperatives such as Arctic Cooperatives Limited (ACL) and Indigenous band–owned businesses, such as
Makivik Corporation, in the definition of social economy organizations. Hammond-Ketilson and MacPherson
(2001) completed a survey and research-based study of formally incorporated Indigenous cooperatives, which
can be considered social economy businesses and social enterprises (Quarter et al., 2009). However, there are
a large number of Indigenous organizations that exhibit characteristics of cooperatives but are not formally
registered as cooperatives. For example, Indigenous drumming groups as described by Tulk (2007), singing
groups, and artist collectives exhibit collective ownership and operation principles similar to cooperatives but are
not typically incorporated.
The primary objective of Indigenous drumming, singing, and other cultural groups is the maintenance of culture,
and revenues are typically earned as a secondary objective to cover costs. Many of these groups are not
formally incorporated with federal or provincial governments and earn revenues in the grey market, thus making
qualification of these groups more difficult. The broad BALTA project surveys of social enterprise in Canada
reviewed in section 1.2 did not include Indigenous band–owned organizations, although these organizations
also provide goods and services similar to other social enterprises across Canada (Quarter et al., 2009).
Indeed, Anderson, Dana, and Dana (2006) argue that the majority of Indigenous economic activity should be
considered to be social enterprise. Anderson et al. (2006) argue that Indigenous businesses employ Indigenous
individuals who are marginalized, and therefore would fit the definition of social enterprises that employ
marginalized groups. Anderson et al. (2006) further contend that the fact that many Indigenous businesses are
owned by the band rather than an individual strengthens the case that these organizations are community
owned and operate for the benefit of the community. Different subsectors of Indigenous economic activity have
also been studied. For example, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business surveys Indigenous business,
but does not include many types of nonprofit organizations (CCAB, 2011). Other than the study on Indigenous
cooperatives by Hammond-Ketilson & MacPherson (2001), which is specific to cooperatives, there exists no
comprehensive inventory of Indigenous social enterprise in Canada, due to the issues outlined in this section.
A further wrinkle in attempting to account for Indigenous social enterprise—especially using non-Indigenous
concepts, models, and taxonomies—rests with the issue that social economy organizations started and
developed by Indigenous communities are qualitatively different from other social economy organizations across
Canada (Diamantopoulos & Findlay, 2007). Moreover, qualitative differences from non-Indigenous social
enterprise can teach us much about broader possibilities for the model. An initial literature review of social
enterprise in Indigenous communities reveals innovative combinations of social, environmental, and cultural
goals, which can be instructive for social enterprise models used elsewhere. For example, the integration of
culture into organizational and socio-economic goals has been described by Findlay and Wuttunee (2007), and
the use of “quadruple bottom line” indicators (economic, social, environmental, and cultural) has been described
by Orr, Weir, and the Atlantic Aboriginal Economic Development Integrated Research Program (2013), a topic
addressed in this article. Corntassel (2008) described Indigenous communities’ “sustainable self determination”
as holistic integration of cultural and environmental values and that described how economic, social, cultural,
and environmental values are not separable for Indigenous communities.
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
109
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Social economy leadership in Indigenous communities is also markedly different in terms of leadership by
gender, with a greater percentage of social economy organizations in Indigenous communities being led by
women (National Association of Friendship Centres, 2013a) (see “Leadership of Indigenous social enterprise
through the lens of gender” below for more details on this unique feature of Indigenous social enterprises).
“Wicked problems,” by their very nature, cannot be resolved by a single individual or by one a singular solution
that fits all contexts (Buchanan, 1992). Thus, the solutions to many wicked problems may be found in
understanding the qualitatively different set of values used as a basis for Indigenous knowledge and applied to
the development of Indigenous social economy organizations.
HISTORICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND COLONIAL CONTEXTS OF INDIGENOUS SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE IN CANADA
The history of Indigenous communities over the past few centuries is inseparable from their relationships to the
land and to non-Indigenous settlers. The history of social enterprise in Canada is also inseparable from the
history of Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities have always practised communal forms of
organization, where the entire community shares resources and production requirements. As described in a
comparative review of the Canadian nonprofit and voluntary sector: “The earliest voluntary activity in Canada
occurred among the Aboriginal peoples who inhabited the land for thousands of years prior to European
settlement” (Hall, Barr, Easwaramoorthy, Sokolowski, & Salamon, 2005, p. 21). This conclusion is supported
within the context of cooperatives by Curl (2012): “The first North Americans to practice collectivity, cooperation,
and communalism were, of course, Indigenous” (p. 15). Originating in nineteenth-century France, one of the
earliest twentieth-century applications of the term “social economy” was by the Swedish anthropologist Kalervo
Oberg in 1931. While researching Tlingit communities in Alaska, Oberg described an economy that integrated
social values into daily production and consumption activities. The communitarian value system that sustained
Indigenous communities for a long period of time can be seen reflected in Indigenous organizations, including
social enterprise.
Social enterprise in Canada though the lens of race
The social economy in Canada is often described through a framework of issues arising from income inequality
and class relations; social enterprise is positioned as one possible solution to these issues. The development of
the social economy is rarely analyzed through a framework of race, ethnicity, and nationality. As the social
economy (or civil sector) was developed in Canada in settler communities, there was a simultaneous
suppression of Indigenous community populations, economies, organizations, and culture—through outright
warfare, social dislocation to reserves, and residential schools. The development of cooperatives illustrates this
intersection of class and race in the development of the social economy in Canada. In an extensively
researched book, Empire and Cooperation: How the British Empire Used Cooperatives in Its Development
Strategies, 1900–1970, Rhodes (2012) describes how cooperatives were a more socialist, labour-oriented form
of organization and were instrumental in establishing trade across the British Empire. Just as cooperatives were
integral to the British Empire and global colonization, they were important to Canada’s federal and provincial
governments in local colonization of Indigenous communities.
As Fairbairn (2004) has also shown, cooperatives were an integral part of the process of colonization in North
America. Cooperatives in North America were based on the experience of European immigrants and were an
economic response to monopolies, established by the ruling class and political elites, which did not serve the
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
110
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
needs and aspirations of lower-class European immigrants. However, initial cooperative development in Canada
and in most of North America was not inclusive of, or intended for, the benefit of Indigenous communities
(Fairbairn 2004). The first organizations with cooperative characteristics were established in English Canada in
the late 1800s and early 1900s (Macpherson, 1979). While Indigenous communities had been practising
cooperative forms of organization for centuries before European contact, the first incorporated Indigenous
cooperative in Canada was in the province of Saskatchewan in 1945, as part of post-war development by settler
communities. This was one of several top-down government-driven initiatives. Another example is the Kinoosao
cooperative organization of Saskatchewan (see Quiring, 2006, 2007 for details), which, from the beginning, was
set up without any substantial consultation with the local Indigenous communities.
Mitchell (1996) describes the top-down government-led establishment of cooperatives across northern Canada
as an instrument for settling semi-nomadic Indigenous populations and creating economic dependency. The
development of social enterprise including cooperatives exhibited ethnicity-based dynamics within European
settler society itself. For instance, there are important differences between organizations originating from
English, Irish, Scottish, and French communities, and organizations formed by eastern and northern European
immigrants. In most cases the same organizational forms such as cooperatives, which enabled establishment of
collective worker or consumer power within settler societies, also consolidated settlement of traditional
Indigenous land and restriction of Indigenous economic activity. An analysis of the history of social enterprise in
Canada solely based on class dynamics, without an analysis of the simultaneous intersection of race dynamics,
is therefore insufficient for explaining the development of Indigenous social enterprise.
Leadership of Indigenous social enterprise through the lens of gender
The effects of colonization and poverty have varied depending on gender and age. Women and youth face
additional socio-economic disadvantages within the Indigenous community (Kuokkanen, 2011). Kuokkanen
(2011) suggests that the social economy, and specifically the role of women in the social economy, is an
integral part of revitalizing Indigenous communities. Therefore, a second intersectional framework for
understanding Indigenous social enterprise involves understanding the critical importance of Indigenous women
in the development of social enterprise in Indigenous communities in Canada. This importance can be
effectively explained using the example of Friendship Centres.
There are 117 Friendship Centres across Canada, acting as social and cultural hubs for Indigenous
communities. The majority of Friendship Centres are registered as charities and nonprofit organizations under
federal and provincial legislation, having explicit social, cultural, and community mandates. Friendship Centres
also provide income generation activities, including sales of products and services by the local Indigenous
community. The final section of this article presents a case study of the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto,
where goods and services are also provided by the Friendship Centre to the broader non-Indigenous
community. Moreover, Friendship Centres are often the first formally incorporated Indigenous social enterprises
in most Canadian cities, and have been the incubator for additional Indigenous social enterprises. A deeper
understanding of Friendship Centres, therefore, is useful for understanding Indigenous social enterprise.2
Friendship Centres are different in origin and function from other ethnocultural centres developed by immigrant
communities in Canada. Urban centres in Canada are typically located in places that were meeting points or
sites of established Indigenous communities before colonial settlement. Although the non-Indigenous settlerdesigned urban environment may be different from the original Indigenous community setting, urban centres in
Canada are the geographical and historical home for many Indigenous persons. For Indigenous individuals,
migrating to a city is thus part of an established pattern of movement through traditional land. As described by
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
111
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Howard-Bobiwash (2004), urban Indigenous migration in Canada was a form of resistance to oppression and
surveillance, which was occurring on Indian reserves. Today, Friendship Centres provide social, cultural, and
economic connections for new Indigenous migrants and established urban Indigenous residents, and they
provide different services required by families and individuals. Individual Friendship Centres across Canada
focus on different programs that support local community needs. These programs have evolved over time,
including health, youth, family, community, employment, education, culture, justice, housing, economic
development, sports and recreation, and language programs (National Association of Friendship Centres,
2013b). Friendship Centre health programs are usually allocated the majority of funding. However, the mix of
funding allocation varies based on demand, and other programs play a critical role in the basket of services
provided by Friendship Centres (National Association of Friendship Centres, 2013b). Economic development
programs, in turn, receive one of the highest points of contact per program, including bingo halls, hostels, and
cafeterias (National Association of Friendship Centres, 2011). Importantly, economic development programs
often provide critical revenue required for other programs, a model practised by other social enterprises in
Canada.
The experience of Indigenous women through colonization, followed by the subsequent building of foundational
structures for Friendship Centres in urban areas, have been central forms of resistance to race- and genderbased oppression (Howard-Bobiwash, 2004). Undoubtedly, Indigenous women have experienced the most
negative aspects of colonialism, and have been very active in resisting the effects of colonialism through formal
and informal social organizations, such as via the establishment and participation in Friendship Centres. The
current leadership and staffing of Friendship Centres reflects the underpinning of women’s leadership, as 66
percent of executive directors and 72 percent of the staff are women (National Association of Friendship
Centres, 2013b). Although Indigenous women built Friendship Centres, these centres serve the entire
community, including men, youth, and families. In many cases programs are also open to non-Indigenous
individuals of any race or background. Thus, the history of colonialism and its antagonistic relationship with
Indigenous women’s leadership has had a substantial influence on the formation and development of Friendship
Centres and other Indigenous social enterprises.
The important role of Indigenous women in social enterprise has a long history. Pre-colonization Indigenous
societies included a broad range of economic and leadership roles for women based on gender, clan, and family
position. An integral part of the colonization process was to dismantle the conventional strengths of Indigenous
society through physical and political violence inflicted to a great degree on Indigenous women through different
forms of dispossession, including physical violence, economic dispossession, and social dislocation.
Furthermore, the migration of Indigenous people from rural to urban centres has been led by women and is
rooted in the intersection of resistance to colonization and patriarchy (Howard-Bobiwash, 2004).
It must also be emphasized here that Indigenous communities cannot be limited to the two socio-economic
alternatives discussed or assumed most often in the neoclassical or liberal literature, i.e., a full-scale integration
of Indigenous communities within the dominant neoliberal paradigm or a return to pre-colonial societies. In fact,
Indigenous women in urban centres can be seen as central players in the development of a third alternative
through Friendship Centres. These centres offer community service provisioning by and for the affected
community, and even result in spinoff social enterprises and associated organizational structures that have
Indigenous values as primary goals, with economic development and revenue-generating activities supporting
the social goals by providing independent funding to fill gaps left from other sources. Additional examples of
social economy organizations developed by Indigenous women include cooperatives (Findlay & Wuttunee,
2007; Hammond-Ketilson & MacPherson, 2001). The social economy and its social enterprise organizations,
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
112
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
therefore, can be seen as having enabling characteristics that can override the false binary of neoliberal
economic integration vs. pre-colonized society to provide a third and viable alternative for community-based
socio-economic structures.
CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF INDIGENOUS SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
Indigenous entrepreneurship
Anderson, Dana, & Dana (2006) have argued that the broad majority of Indigenous community business
activities should be considered to be an instance of social entrepreneurship, since they involve social goals (and
often include environmental and cultural goals) in addition to financial aims. Although there is no standardized
definition of social enterprise (see introductory essay to this special issue), there are more convergent
definitions of “Indigenous entrepreneurship.”
The conceptual framework of Indigenous entrepreneurship is useful in understanding Indigenous social
enterprise (Anderson, 2011). Anderson states that Indigenous entrepreneurship has multiple goals in addition to
economic self-sufficiency, including protecting land ownership and use, strengthening socio-economic
circumstances, and revitalizing traditional culture. Anderson et al. (2006) are careful to point out, then, that an
Indigenous individual who is simply a business entrepreneur with a singular goal of maximizing economic profits
does not fit the definition of Indigenous entrepreneurship. To reiterate Indigenous entrepreneurship, therefore, is
inclusive of economic, environmental, social, and cultural goals, with similarities to other forms of social
entrepreneurship but with the important difference of including culture as an integral dimension. Moreover,
Steyaert and Hjorth (2008) argue that social entrepreneurship has to be a force for social change rather than
maintenance of current power relations. As such, Indigenous entrepreneurship can also be described as a
process of changing the power dynamics between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and as a form of
decolonization.
One form of economic decolonization in Canada has been to utilize the changing environment for Indigenous
rights and self-determination to enable rapid economic development, which includes subsequent social benefits
to Indigenous communities. However, Kuokkanen (2011) has argued against implementing purely capitalistbased economic development for Indigenous communities, since it is a perpetuation of the system that was the
economic driving force behind colonialism. According to Kuokkanen, economic development that is not based
on social and cultural values has not had a substantially positive or lasting effect on the greatest issues affecting
Indigenous communities and, disproportionately, Indigenous women, including domestic violence and lack of
adequate housing and social services. For example, in the neoliberal form of economic development geared to
or intersecting with Indigenous people or Indigenous land, the majority of resource development jobs have
employed Indigenous men rather than Indigenous women. Additionally, development projects with primarily
resource-based incentives and aims have provided gains to only a few people (mostly to non-Indigenous
stakeholders) rather than establishing broader benefits to the Indigenous communities that are directly affected
by these projects. While some Indigenous communities have themselves implemented these forms of resourcebased economic development initiatives, these initiatives have not provided consistently expected social
dividends, particularly for Indigenous women.
Another form of decolonization would be an attempt to return to pre-colonization subsistence economies. But readoption of Indigenous culture also involves a temporal element. Indigenous concepts of culture do change over
time, as we have already pinpointed. Culture evolves within the system it lives in, and is never a “static” or
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
113
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
“finished” entity. Although Indigenous cultures have been damaged under colonialism, attempts at revival of
Indigenous culture and social structure have not, on the whole, aspired to simply replicate pre-colonial systems.
Instead, practices that are more akin to pre-colonial subsistence economies have been combined with
contemporary technology and management practices to enable sustainable Indigenous economic practices.
Corntassel (2008), as was already cited, described sustainable Indigenous self-determination as holistic
integration of cultural, environmental, social, and economic values and practices, cannot be separated
according to Indigenous ways of thinking. With most Indigenous communities, transmission of cultural traditions
and practices to future generations also involves shared goals of providing sustainable activities that protect the
natural environment. Social issues are a component of self-determination. For example, the Indigenous
Zapatista movement in Mexico, which has garnered wide interest among Indigenous peoples in Canada,
involved explicit development of rights of Indigenous women before taking over town governments. In short,
decolonization does not involve a return to a static version of Indigenous culture that reflects or attempts to
revive wholesale a particular past time period, but rather tends to include modifications of Indigenous culture
that reflect current contexts of time and space.
Quadruple bottom line organizations
In the social enterprise sector, the prominence of non-financial goals is often described in terms of multiple
bottom lines. For example, double bottom line organizations involve and account for specific social and
economic goals, inputs, and outputs. Triple bottom line organizations formally incorporate social, economic, and
environmental goals into strategic and operational processes and accounting. Indigenous social enterprises will
tend to also incorporate a fourth bottom line, culture, into organizational goals. Moreover, Indigenous
organizations consider the social, economic, environmental, and cultural goals as integral to each other, rather
than being separable items. Since a substantial component of the colonial project was destruction of Indigenous
culture, the organizational response from Indigenous communities has been to bring culture to the forefront as a
critical component of organizational strategy and operations. Research in Canada on a range of community
economic development measures defined by Indigenous communities in a bottom-up rather than top-down
process indicates the importance of culture (Orr & Weir, 2013).
The cultural dimension of Indigenous social enterprise has tended to be obscured by Western-based research
on social enterprise, particularly because there is a tendency in the social enterprise literature to, at times,
consider each separate business unit within the broader organization as a distinct social enterprise. Moreover,
this taxonomic approach has obscured the interdependencies and connections between related social
enterprises, including Indigenous ones. As described in the case studies of Membertou and the Osoyoos Indian
Band in Canada that follow, the different lines of business need to be considered in a holistic manner to
understand the multiple organizational dimensions and the interrelationships and interdependencies of the
Indigenous social enterprise experience. A quadruple bottom line approach represents one method of achieving
this goal.
As colonialism and settler colonialism (Veracini, 2011; Wolfe, 2006) were imposed as structures throughout the
British Empire, in conjunction with a separation of Indigenous people from their land, a “specialization lens” of
enterprises emerged. This lens has tended to categorize the evolution of Indigenous enterprises into two
groups: those organizations that pursued strictly economic goals, and those organizations that primarily pursued
social, environmental, or cultural goals or managed to achieve them as a secondary gain. Historically,
Indigenous community economic development responses, however, have included more holistic and innovative
combinations of social goals with environmental and cultural goals (Orr & Weir, 2013). Scrimgeour and
Iremonger (2004), for instance, articulate the use of quadruple bottom lines for Maori social enterprise in New
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
114
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Zealand, involving integrated economic, social, environmental, and cultural goals, while Corntassel’s (2008)
notion of “sustainable self-determination” (i.e., enmeshed economic, social, cultural, and environmental values)
underscores how the holistic worldview for Indigenous communities can be espoused in entrepreneurial activity.
Dalziel, Matunga, and Saunders (2006) explain that since 2002, the quadruple bottom line approach has been
adopted in the formal devolution of responsibility to local authorities in New Zealand.
The key differentiating factor between Indigenous social enterprise and other forms of social enterprise, then, is
the integral and prominent role of culture that underscores a fourth dimension—a quadruple bottom line—for
Indigenous social enterprise. In the volume Hidden in Plain Sight: Contributions of Aboriginal Peoples to
Canadian Identity and Culture, researchers Beavon, Voyageur, and Newhouse (2005) detail how Indigenous
individuals and values have shaped a number of Canadian movements and institutions. The Indigenous
philosophies and knowledge developed over time that enable societies to function for multiple generations have,
the authors point out, influenced the development of current Indigenous organizations and governance
structures, and they continue to be utilized as the basis for the operation of Indigenous organizations (Beavon,
Voyageur, & Newhouse, 2005). However, the impact of Indigenous values on Canada’s social economy and,
conversely, the impact of Canada’s social economy on Indigenous communities have not yet been researched
in a systematic or holistic way. Understanding Indigenous values—especially cultural and environmental ones—
that have been the basis of other, non-Indigenous social economy organizations will, we believe, enable an
improved understanding of the broad diversity of the social economy in Canada and provide possible direction
for some of the most difficult issues facing Canadian society. The case studies on Membertou and Osoyoos at
the end of this article, for instance, demonstrate practices of quadruple bottom line organizations in Canada,
which add rich texture to our understanding of the broader social economy today.
In short, the importance of culture as a distinct dimension from social and environmental indicators is important
for a more complete understanding of Indigenous social enterprise, as our case studies will demonstrate. The
effects of dominant culture on Indigenous peoples are often invisible to non-Indigenous individuals who are part
of that dominant culture. Simultaneously, maintaining Indigenous culture in the context of the dominant culture is
a daily struggle for Indigenous people. Indigenous social enterprise thus necessitates revitalization of
Indigenous culture. At the same time, cultural knowledge and practice are intertwined with environmental and
social knowledge and practice in Indigenous social enterprise. This intertwining underscores how cultural goals
can be combined with social, environmental, and economic ones.
FRAMEWORK FOR CLASSIFYING INDIGENOUS SOCIAL ENTERPRISES IN CANADA
To recap, the intersection of race, class, and gender have been experienced most acutely by Indigenous
communities in Canada through colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy (Palmater, 2011). Although there is a
significant quantity of research on the issues that have affected Indigenous communities, there is limited
research on solutions to these issues provided by Indigenous organizations, particularly social enterprises,
which are, in our view, a critical component of developing solutions based on community assets.
Conceptualizing Indigenous social enterprises in Canada as positive social change, led by Indigenous peoples
themselves, we must now focus on the existing assets of their communities and traditional knowledge as
Indigenous-centred social economy organizations, rather than in a neocolonial deficit-based approach to
community development. The development of organizations in Indigenous communities are explained through
the basis of Indigenous entrepreneurship, which is qualitatively different from mainstream entrepreneurship
(Dana & Anderson, 2007), as was previously outlined. In summary, Indigenous entrepreneurship is not simply
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
115
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
identifying Indigenous individuals who are entrepreneurs. Dana and Anderson (2007) propose that Indigenous
entrepreneurship has multiple goals in addition to economic self-sufficiency, including protecting land ownership
and use, strengthening socio-economic circumstances, and revitalizing traditional culture. These characteristics
of Indigenous entrepreneurship differentiate it from mainstream entrepreneurship and are mirrored in the
Indigenous community economic development literature through the identification of culture as a salient
measure of community well-being (Orr & Weir, 2013). The characteristics of Indigenous social enterprise can
thus be identified by the presence of the four interrelated dimensions of quadruple bottom line businesses,
namely economic, social, environmental (incorporating land), and cultural dimensions.
Three illustrative examples of Indigenous entrepreneurship and quadruple bottom line businesses from across
Canada are highlighted in the case studies that follow.
CASE STUDIES
The need for Indigenous social enterprise case studies
Just as the social economy is not reflected in formal educational curriculum in proportion to its size and
importance in the economy (McMurtry, 2009), Indigenous enterprise is not reflected in educational resources in
proportion to its importance. Battiste and Henderson (2000) describe the lack of Indigenous knowledge in
education and convincingly argue that there is a high level of “benefit the Western world can derive from
[Indigenous] knowledge and heritage” (p. 86). Battiste and Henderson (2000) further explain how important
Indigenous knowledge is to the survival of our world, in terms of our relationship with nature as well as
community well-being. The simultaneous under-representation of the social economy and Indigenous
knowledge in education is related.
The minimization of different types of alternative and Indigenous organizational structures, value systems, and
knowledge functions to maximize the importance of a single hegemonic and monocultural neoliberal economic
value system. The most effective method of countering hegemonic education practices is to provide evidence of
real alternatives. The alternatives provided must have multiple dimensions of diversity. Hence, there is a need
for social economy and Indigenous social enterprise examples as case studies, so they can be incorporated into
educational curricula and add further nuance to the broader landscape of social enterprise in Canada. In this
spirit, in the remaining pages of this article we offer three brief case studies of prominent Indigenous social
enterprise in Canada.
Membertou Band
The Mi’kmaw community of Membertou is named after Grand Chief Membertou (1510–1611). Membertou is
located adjacent to the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia. Sydney is a coastal port city on Cape Breton Island and
was previously dependent on the coal and steel industries. The legacy of the coal and steel industries include
the Sydney Tar Ponds (which have required an ongoing multi-million-dollar cleanup effort) and high levels of
unemployment after the decline of these same industries. Membertou is an urban First Nations community
consisting of 1,400 people, which had experienced issues of high unemployment associated with the decline of
local industries. Membertou’s leadership has developed and implemented economic development plans that
have led to nearly complete employment for band members. Membertou’s long-term strategy involves not only
developing the local economy, but also connecting to businesses in Nova Scotia’s capital, Halifax.
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
116
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Membertou was restricted to a small area of reserve land as compared to its much larger traditional territories,
and then forcibly moved from its original location at Kings Road Reserve in 1926 by the Exchequer Court of
Canada (Membertou, 2015) to its current location. Membertou has used the current location to its advantage,
due to its proximity to the centre of the city of Sydney, which provides access to a customer base of urban
consumers. The Membertou First Nation has been successful in diversifying its economy to include a gaming
centre, gas bar, business centre, convention centre, and hotel. One of the first businesses established on
reserve land was the gaming centre, which generated revenues that provided capital to promote other
businesses. Membertou’s new business projects involve the purchase of land outside of the reserve.
Membertou’s approach to social enterprise involves employment of a marginalized population, Membertou band
members, in a diverse group of businesses. In addition to nearly complete employment, band members receive
a dividend from the profits of Membertou’s businesses.
The Membertou Heritage Park is an important component in the portfolio of Membertou’s businesses.
Membertou Heritage Park provides a history of Membertou in the form of a museum and relates the history to
current developments for Membertou, including evolving establishment of treaty rights through Canadian courts
(Membertou Heritage Park, 2015). Maintaining the cultural heritage of Membertou has enabled the community
to overcome adversity and develop economic strength from a strong cultural core. Membertou Heritage Park is
one of the prominent tourist attractions on Cape Breton Island; it has inspired other First Nations in the region to
develop cultural interpretation centres and local tourism industries. The facility provides a permanent location for
the community to tell its story and highlight its culture from Membertou’s own point of view, and also
underscores the importance of Indigenous knowledge. As such, maintenance of culture has been an integral
part of Membertou’s social and economic development process.
Membertou has developed a financially successful portfolio of businesses that is appropriate to local ecology,
and also provides employment and leadership development opportunities to its band members. Collectively, the
portfolio of businesses exhibits quadruple bottom line characteristics.
Osoyoos Indian Band
The Osoyoos Indian Band is part of the Okanagan First Nation. It is located on a reserve in the Okanagan
Valley adjacent to the town of Osoyoos, British Columbia, which is close to the border between Canada and the
US. The Okanagan Valley has been inhabited by First Nations communities for centuries and is currently the
main wine- and fruit-growing region of British Columbia. The region is a tourist destination with a number of
wineries and other outdoor recreational amenities. The southern geographical location and mountainous terrain
make the region ideal for wineries; one of the first businesses developed by the Osoyoos Indian Band was a
winery.
The Osoyoos Indian Band has developed a diversified portfolio of businesses, including a winery, wine cellar,
cultural centre, gas and convenience store, resort, spa, RV park, golf course, and business park. The band has
purposefully become integrated into local and global economies, exporting its winery products and welcoming
international visitors to its resort facilities. As Chief Clarence Louis explains, describing Osoyoos’ social
enterprise strategy, “The best social program is a job.”. Osoyoos’ approach to social enterprise involves
employment of a marginalized population, Osoyoos band members, in a diverse group of businesses. The
band’s strategy of increasing the number of businesses has provided employment for band members and
diversified career possibilities that were previously assumed to be out of reach. Although similar jobs may have
been available at other local businesses, band members were often excluded from jobs at non-Indigenous
businesses due to structural racism issues, including lack of experience. At the band-owned businesses, band
members can develop experience in a variety of positions. Revenues from the diverse portfolio of businesses
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
117
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
have also been utilized to build school buildings and community facilities. Having its own school enables the
Osoyoos Indian Band to provide identity, building cultural knowledge in young band members. Band ownership
and operation of a number of businesses enables young band members to see themselves in future careers as
teachers, managers, and scientists through exposure to role models and employment opportunities in their own
community. Having its own school building and community centre has also enabled the band to provide cultural
education and opportunities for participation in cultural activities by young band members. Maintenance of
culture has been an integral part of Osoyoos’ social and economic development process.
The Nk’mip Desert Cultural Centre is a prominent component of the portfolio of businesses. The cultural centre
provides tours, self-guided nature trails, interpretive exhibits, visitor programs, a gift shop, and cultural events.
The cultural centre has a favourable location beside the flagship resort, and Indigenous art is prominently
displayed in front of all band businesses. The cultural centre is important not only in maintaining cultural
continuity, but also in maintaining the local ecosystem with ongoing rattlesnake tagging programs. The entire
portfolio of businesses has local eco-appropriate environmental elements, such as organic wine- and fruitgrowing practices. Osoyoos has developed a financially successful portfolio of businesses that is appropriate to
cultural history and local ecology, and which also provides employment and leadership development
opportunities to its band members. Collectively, the portfolio of businesses exhibits quadruple bottom line
characteristics.
Native Canadian Centre of Toronto
As discussed earlier in this article, Friendship Centres are often the first formally incorporated Indigenous social
enterprises in most Canadian cities, and they have been the incubator for additional Indigenous social
enterprises. The majority of Friendship Centres are registered charities or nonprofit organizations generating
independent market-based revenues by offering goods and services to the public, and they have social and
cultural purposes. Therefore, Friendship Centres are examples of Indigenous social enterprises. This case
study describes the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto (NCCT), one of the first Friendship Centres established
in Canada.
Indigenous populations in Canadian cities such as Toronto have doubled over 25 years (1981 to 2006),
whereas Indigenous populations in cities like Ottawa have increased by 40 percent over the same time period
(Fitzmaurice, 2012). Toronto has always been a meeting place for different Indigenous communities, resulting in
the establishment of the NCCT as one of the first Friendship Centres in an urban community in Canada. The
NCCT provides a central meeting place for the Indigenous community in Toronto and a variety of cultural
programs, including language classes that are key to continuation of culture. The NCCT also employs a number
of full-time and part-time Indigenous individuals in its various programs, providing an employment-related social
purpose.
A close examination of the historical establishment of Friendship Centres by Indigenous women provides
examples of fundraising activities that would be described as mission-related revenue-generating projects in
current terminology. For instance, the chapter by Anderson (2011) on grandmothers and elders in the book Life
Stages and Native Women: Memory, Teachings, and Story Medicine describes Indigenous grandmothers who
made baskets they could sell to support other activities. In The Strength of Women, Sayese (2011) indicates
that Indigenous “ladies groups” mutually acquired skills in sewing, beading, and cooking to make money.
Howard-Bobiwash (2004) details the pioneering efforts of Indigenous women such as Vera Johnston, Hettie
Sylvester, and Lillian McGregor, who established the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto (NCCT), including an
urban market for Native arts and crafts, which provided financial and cultural support to the NCCT and the
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
118
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Indigenous community in Toronto. The NCCT continues to operate the Cedar Basket Gift Shop, which
generates revenue through the sale of handicrafts, CDs, and books. The NCCT is considering replicating the
model of the Cedar Basket shop in high tourist areas such as the Toronto airport. Additional revenue-generating
activities include rental of facilities and provision of meals for seniors at a low cost. The youth group at NCCT is
starting up a new social enterprise to provide education, events, and skilled worker services. Through its
economic activities, the NCCT has been able to generate sufficient revenues to purchase the building it
operates in, thereby solidifying the relationship to land. In summary, NCCT is an example of a quadruple bottom
line Indigenous social enterprise.
CONCLUSION
As described by McMurtry, Brouard, Elson, Hall, Lionais, and Vieta) throughout this issue, Indigenous
businesses form a distinct type of social enterprise in Canada, led and managed by Indigenous communities.
This article first explored the complex historical context of Indigenous social enterprise, where the precursors of
social enterprise implemented by non-Indigenous settlers did not have a benign or positive effect on Indigenous
communities. The economic motivations for colonization included dispossession of land and development of a
compliant workforce; these motivations were behind the policies of physical violence, economic dispossession,
and social dislocation, specifically imposed on Indigenous women. The gendered leadership of Indigenous
social enterprise, mainly by women, was also described as a reaction to the intersection of patriarchy and
colonization. A framework for identifying Indigenous social enterprise was then proposed through related
theories of “Indigenous entrepreneurship” and “quadruple bottom line” organizations. The role of culture as it
relates to Indigenous organizations as the fourth bottom line was then explained. The final section of this article
then laid out three contemporary and illustrative cases studies of Indigenous social enterprise to provide an
understanding of Indigenous social enterprise in a “current state snapshot.”
The factors influencing development of social enterprise in the context of Indigenous communities in Canada
include the ability to convert different types of capital—including land, human, social, environmental, cultural,
and financial capital—to meet holistic requirements of diverse Indigenous communities. Some Indigenous
communities have taken the path of focusing on economic development first, and leveraging economic
development to increase other forms of capital. Other Indigenous communities have taken the route of
strengthening cultural foundations first and then building economic and other forms of capital from a place of
strength of cultural identity. The future development of Indigenous social enterprise in Canada will ultimately
depend on the ability of Indigenous communities to control their own resources, primarily related to land, but
also including economic resources to develop businesses, human resources through education rooted in
community-led and Indigenous methodologies, and applying cultural resources, including Indigenous
knowledge. Moreover, Indigenous social enterprise rooted in Indigenous knowledge we believe will continue to
demonstrate alternative organizational forms and alternative futures as positive examples that the broader
social enterprise sector in Canada and beyond can learn from.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our sincere thanks to the following individuals and organizations for providing their knowledge and valuable
input to the case studies: Jennifer Deleskie, Membertou Corporate Division; Larry Frost, Executive Director,
Native Canadian Centre of Toronto; Chief Clarence Louie, Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation.
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
119
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
NOTES
1. The internationally prevalent term “Indigenous” is utilized in the place of literature references to Aboriginal,
Indian, and Native, unless a verbatim reference is required.
2. Friendship Centres may not explicitly consider themselves to be social enterprises. However, the majority
of Friendship Centres are registered charities or nonprofit organizations, generate independent marketbased revenues by offering goods and services to the public, and have social and cultural purposes, and
therefore Friendship Centres would be considered to be social enterprises under most classifications.
WEBSITES
Native Canadian Centre of Toronto. http://www.ncct.on.ca
Membertou, http://Indigenous.membertou.ca
Membertou Heritage Park, http://www.membertouheritagepark.com/index.asp
REFERENCES
Anderson, K. (2011). Life stages and Native women: Memory, teachings, and story medicine. Winnipeg, MB:
University of Manitoba Press.
Anderson, R.B., Dana, L.-P., & Dana, T. E. (2006). Indigenous land rights, entrepreneurship, and economic
development in Canada: “Opting-in” to the global economy. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 45–55.
Battiste, M. & Henderson, J.Y (2000). Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge.
Saskatoon, SK: Purich
Beavon, D.R., Voyageur, C.J., & Newhouse, D. (2005). Hidden in plain sight: Contributions of Aboriginal
peoples to Canadian identity and culture. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Belhadji, B. (2001) Socio-economic profile of aboriginal co-operatives in Canada. Co-operatives Secretariat,
Government of Canada. URL: https://ccednet-rcdec.ca/en/node/4487 [June 18, 2015].
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (CCAB). (2011). Promise and prosperity, the Aboriginal business
survey. Toronto, ON. URL: http://www.ccab.com [June 18, 2015].
Carter, S. (1990). Lost harvests: Prairie Indian reserve farmers and government policy. Montreal, QC: McGillQueen’s University Press.
Corntassel, J. (2008). Toward sustainable self-determination: Rethinking the contemporary Indigenous-rights
discourse. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 33(1), 105–132.
Curl, J. (2012). For all the people: Uncovering the hidden history of cooperation, cooperative movements, and
communalism in America. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Dalziel, P., Matunga, H., & Saunders, C. (2006). Cultural well-being and local government: Lessons from New
Zealand. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 12(3), 267.
Dana, L.-P., & Anderson, R.B. (Eds.). (2007). International handbook of research on indigenous
entrepreneurship. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Diamantopoulos, M., & Findlay, I.M. (2007). Growing pains: Social enterprise in Saskatoon’s core
neighbourhoods. Linking, Learning, Leveraging Social enterprises knowledgeable economies, and
sustainable communities. University of Saskatchewan: Northern Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan
Regional Node of the Social Economy Suite.
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
120
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Fairbairn, B. (2004). History of cooperatives. In C. D. Merrett & N. Walzer (Eds.), Cooperatives and local
development: Theory and applications for the 21st century (pp. 23–51). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Findlay, I., & Wuttunee, W. (Eds.). (2007). Aboriginal women’s community economic development: Measuring
and promoting success. IRPP Choices, 13(4) [Special Issue].
Fitzmaurice, K. (2012). The state of urban Aboriginal communities: Final draft submitted to the urban Aboriginal
Knowledge Network. URL: http://epub.sub.unihamburg.de/epub/volltexte/2014/
32132/pdf/The_State_of_Urban_Aboriginal_Communities_Fitzmaurice.pdf [June 14].
Flat, J., Daly, K., Elson, P., Hall, P., Thompson, M., & Chamberlain, P. (2013). Inspiring innovation: The size,
scope and socioeconomic impact of nonprofit social enterprise in Ontario. Canadian Community
Economic Development Network, Simon Fraser University, & Institute of Nonprofit Studies, Mount
Royal University.
Fleury, D. (2002). Economic performance of off-reserve Aboriginal Canadians: A study of groups at risk of social
exclusion. Ottawa, ON: Human Resources Development Canada, Service Canada.
Hall, M., Barr, C., Easwaramoorthy, M., Sokolowski, S., & Salamon, S. M. (2005). The Canadian nonprofit and
voluntary sector in comparative perspective. Imagine Canada. URL: http://sectorsource.ca/sites/default/
files/resources/files/jhu_report_en.pdf [June 18, 2015].
Hall, P., Elson, P., & Wamucii, P. (2013). Alberta social enterprise sector 2012 survey report. Mount Royal
University & Simon Fraser University.
Hall, P., Elson, P., & Wamucii, P. (2014a). British Columbia social enterprise sector 2012 survey report. Mount
Royal University & Simon Fraser University.
Hall, P., Elson, P., & Wamucii, P. (2014b). 2014 New Brunswick social enterprise sector survey, final report.
Mount Royal University, Simon Fraser University, & Cooperative Enterprise Council.
Hammond-Ketilson, L., & MacPherson, I. (2001). A report on Aboriginal co-operatives in Canada: Current
situation and potential for growth [Electronic version]. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.
Howard-Bobiwash, H. (2004). Women’s class strategies as activism in Native community building in Toronto,
1950–1975. American Indian Quarterly, 27(3), 566–582.
Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. (2007). The revolution will not be funded: Beyond the non-profit
industrial complex. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Johnstone, H. (2008). Membertou First Nation Indigenous people succeeding as entrepreneurs. Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 2(2), 140–150.
Kuokkanen, R. (2011). Indigenous economies, theories of subsistence, and women: Exploring the social
economy model for Indigenous governance. American Indian Quarterly, 35(2), 215–240.
MacPherson, I. (1979). Each for all: A history of the co-operative movement in English Canada, 1900-1945.
Toronto: Macmillan of Canada in association with the Institute of Canadian Studies, Carleton University.
Maracle, S. (2003). The Eagle has landed: Native women, leadership and community development. In
B. Lawrence & K. Anderson (Eds.), Strong women stories: Native vision and community survival
(pp. 71–81). Toronto, ON: Sumach Press.
McMurtry, J.J. (2009). Living economics. Toronto, ON: Emond Montgomery Publications.
McMurtry, J.J., Brouard, F., Elson, P., Hall, P., Lionais, D., & Vieta. M. (in press). Social enterprises context,
models and institutions in Canada. International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM)
Project.
Mitchell, M. (1996). From talking chiefs to a native corporate élite: The birth of class and nationalism among
Canadian Inuit. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
National Association of Friendship Centres. (2011). 2010 State of the Friendship Centre movement. Ottawa,
ON. URL: http://nafc.ca/annual_reports/Annual%20Report%202010.pdf [June 18, 2015].
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
121
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
National Association of Friendship Centres. (2013a). Aboriginal Friendship Centres: An investment in Canada’s
prosperity. Ottawa, ON. URL: http://epub.sub.unihamburg.de/epub/volltexte/2014/32032/
pdf/NAFC_Report.pdf [June 18, 2015]
National Association of Friendship Centres. (2013b). 2011–2012 State of the Friendship Centre movement.
Ottawa, ON. URL: http://nafc.ca/uploads/annualreports/State_of_the_Friendship_Centre_Movement
_11-12.pdf [June 18, 2015].
O’Connor, R., Elson, P., Hall, P., & Reimer, B. (2012). Measuring the size, scope and scale of the social
enterprise sector in Manitoba. Canadian Community Economic Development Network, Mount Royal
University, & Simon Fraser University.
Ornstein, M.D. (2006). Ethno-racial groups in Toronto, 1971-2001: A demographic and socio-economic profile.
Toronto, ON: York University Institute for Social Research.
Orr, J., Weir, W., & the Atlantic Aboriginal Economic Development Integrated Research Program (Eds.). (2013).
Aboriginal measures for economic development. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood Publishing.
Palmater, P.D. (2011). Stretched beyond human limits: Death by poverty in First Nations. Canadian Review of
Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique sociale, 65–66.
Quarter, J., Mook, L., & Armstrong, A. (2009). Understanding the social economy: A Canadian perspective.
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Quiring, D. (2006). From the bush to the village in northern Saskatchewan: Contrasting CCF community
development projects. Journal of the Canadian Historical Association / Revue de la Société historique
du Canada, 17(1), 151–178.
Quiring, D. (2007). CCF colonialism in northern Saskatchewan: Battling parish priests, bootleggers, and fur
sharks. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Rhodes, R. (2012). Empire and cooperation: How the British Empire used cooperatives in its development
strategies, 1900–1970. Edinburgh, UK: Birlinn.
Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & Anheier, H. K. (2000). Social origins of civil society: An overview. Working
Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project. No. 38. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Sayese, B. (2011). There is nothing worse than complaining but not offering a solution. In Priscilla Settee (Ed.),
The strength of women: Âhkamêyimowak (pp.102–103). Regina, SK: Coteau Books.
Scrimgeour, F., & Iremonger, C. (2004). Maori sustainable economic development in New Zealand: Indigenous
practices for the quadruple bottom line. Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato.
Steyaert, C., & Hjorth, D. (Eds.). (2008). Entrepreneurship as social change: A third new movements in
entrepreneurship book. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Tarr, A., & Karaphylis, G. (2010). Research findings, social enterprise in Nova Scotia. Community Economic
Development (CED) Institute, Cape Breton University.
Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council. (2011). Toronto Aboriginal research project: Final report. Toronto,
ON. Authors: Don McCaskill, Kevin Fitzmaurice, & Jaime Cidro.
Tulk, J. E. (2007). Cultural revitalization and Mi’kmaq music-making: Three Newfoundland drum groups.
Newfoundland and Labrador Studies, 22(1). URL: http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/nflds/
article/view/10105/10367 [June 18, 2015].
Turner, A., Crompton, S., & Langlois, S. (2011). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: First Nations people, Métis and
Inuit. National Household Survey, 2011. Catalogue no. 99-011-X2011001. Ottawa, ON: Statistics
Canada.
Veracini, L. (2011). Introducing: Settler colonial studies. Settler Colonial Studies, 1(1), 1–12.
Walter, M., & Anderson, C. (2013). Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology. Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast Press.
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
122
Sengupta, Vieta, & McMurtry (2015)
Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409.
Wuttunee, W. (2009). Aboriginal perspectives on the social economy. In J.J. McMurtry (Ed.), Living economics:
Canadian perspectives on the social economy, co-operatives, and community economic development.
Toronto, ON: Emond Montgomery Publications.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS / LES AUTEURS
Ushnish Sengupta is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
(OISE), Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education. Email: u.sengupta@utoronto.ca .
Marcelo Vieta is Assistant Professor in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Department of
Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, University of Toronto, Canada. Email: marcelo.vieta@utoronto.ca .
J.J. McMurtry is Chair of the Social Sciences Department, Graduate Program Director, Social and Political
Thought, and Associate Professor in the Business & Society program at York University, Toronto, Canada.
Email: jmcmurtr@yorku.ca .
To be notified about new ANSERJ articles, subscribe here / Afin d'être avisé des nouveaux articles
dans ANSERJ, s’inscrire ici.
123