He PÄ pori Hinonga Whakamoe: Exploring Contributions to the Indigenous Social Enterprise Network in New Zealand

There is a misalignment between MÄ ori Social Entrepreneurs believe social enterprise to be and the interpretation of MÄ ori values from the support services perspective. Without the knowledge of why MÄ ori choose social enterprise, and the inherent values system that operates within these models support services will continue to only partially understand the core motivations. For MÄ ori, social enterprise is not explicitly phrased, it is implicit and a lived experience. The social values of their organisation has multiple layers beyond the direct social impact of their core activity. It generates income for their whanÄ u, improving the oranga of the wider community (at hapu or Iwi level), creates a positive self-determination movement, and reinforces cultural survival. This report explores contributions to the indigenous social enterprise network in New Zealand. It provides valuable information for MÄ ori Social Entrepreneurs and the support services. Phase One focused on the value systems and motivations behind why MÄ ori choose a social enterprise model. The second phase which interviewed employees from MÄ ori Women’s Development Inc, Ä€kina Foundation, Te Puni KÅ kiri, and Nga Tai O Te Awa whose organisations support social enterprise endeavours and challenged their perspective of MÄ ori social enterprise. This marriage of the two groups highlighted several discrepancies in their understanding and knowledge of MÄ ori social enterprise. The research leads to four key findings recommendations for the sector. It also presents opportunities to broaden the reach of current research, and extend the knowledge on the topic with quantifiable data methods. MÄ ori Social Entrepreneurs biggest internal struggle is a trade-off between social and economic value. There is a complete comprehension of the weighted currency of a for profit model over a social enterprise or non-profit model. Economic drivers are strong but conceptually, and often in practice, energy is invested in the social merit of their individual endeavours. Phase One participants placed emphasis on generating income as a core driver, but not for it’s pure economicvalue; to enable them to fund their purpose and increase the wellbeing of their community, as opposed to creating profit. Their organisations are legitimised at a moral level, and their operating models reflect this. Urban MÄ ori Social Entrepreneurs are being underrepresented in current support service capacity. They feel isolated despite the physical access to support services involved in this research and other mainstream services. Mainstream services operate in urban areas, but for accessibility and cultural incompatibility reasons, these services are failing MÄ ori Social Entrepreneurs. Effort by Phase Two participants highlighted a concerted focus on regional areas. This has created a gap, where urban, MÄ ori Social Entrepreneurs have been overlooked. This is especially relevant to the male participants of Phase One, who have also been challenged by traditional support networks such as the Iwi and their concept of what role tech start-ups have in the cultural survival and wellbeing of their people. There is an opportunity for support services to develop cultural models and mentorship to enable capabilities further within urban centres. Developing the language must be a core focus for the sector, and is not a mutually exclusive task. The ambiguity of definition and scope presents an opportunity for MÄ ori to contribute to the shaping of the language. They can develop a culturally specific model, and language on their own terms. Social enterprise has an undeniable positive impact on both the New Zealand economy and welfare of the population. This has the potential of building cultural tenacity in a new hybrid sector, post Treaty settlement New Zealand.