Maintaining accountability between levels of governance in Indigenous economic development: Examples from British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

Many Indigenous communities in Canada have established economic development corporations (EDCs) to support economic development that meets community goals. Indigenous EDCs, like social enterprises, typically prioritize multiple socio‐economic goals and may be used to limit political influence on business operations; however, complete separation can be detrimental to success. This article explores formal mechanisms used by Indigenous EDCs to maintain accountability between levels of governance and ensure Indigenous community‐owned businesses remain focused on community objectives. A literature review, interviews and document analysis were used to identify formal mechanisms to maintain accountability in the context of Indigenous community‐owned forestry businesses in British Columbia, Canada.

Reconciling Institutional Logics Within First Nations Forestry-Based Social Enterprises

“…FNCSEs are predominantly band-owned businesses or First Nations economic development corporation (EDC)–owned, though the distinction is not often clear-cut and there does tend to exist a blurriness between the two. The organizational tensions surrounding FNCSEs can primarily be attributed to this blurriness and to dominant institutional prescriptions (also business principles) which emphasize the depoliticization (structural separation) of community and economic processes in First Nation communities as a contingent factor for economic success (Eggertsson, 2013; Grant & Taylor, 2007; Hotte et al, 2018; Trosper et al, 2008). The influence of such prescriptions on First Nations is demonstrated as follows:Most of the time its band owned.…”

“…This includes finding the right balance of utilizing commercial revenue to advance social value creation, and by using the social mission as a force for strategic direction, including using the social mission as a source of legitimacy in order to secure financial support to make the enterprise more financially viable (Doherty et al, 2014). Hotte et al (2018), working within the First Nations context, also highlight different formal communication and reporting mechanisms utilized to maintain accountability between First Nations economic development corporations (EDCs) and their community constituents. Smith and Besharov (2019) similarly point toward the utilization of "guardrails" to ensure that social and business missions never drift too far in one direction.…”

Routledge Handbook of Community Forestry

“…Firstly, the separation of political and operational decisions provides transparency and insulates both managers and political leaders from decision-making that could reduce profitability or have a political cost. However, Meadow Lake also has to balance this against the risk of too much separation, whereby the forestry businesses may be seen as no longer working to benefit the community, which can create community conflict (Hotte et al, 2018), as happened with the Canoe Lake crisis. Secondly, as a forest management company, Mistik has benefited from flexibility in developing their own operational practices that balance community expectations, provincial regulations, and financial viability.…”

Editor’s introduction/Introduction du rédacteur

“…The first (Brock and Migone ) analyzes data on the state of First Nations finances across Canada, correcting impressions in media reporting, while the second article (Poucette ) reports on empirical work guided by grounded theory to better understand the interest of First Nations community members in better governance and the barriers holding back progress (for a complementary exploration, see Morden ). The next two articles (Hotte et al ; White ) explore the emergence and challenges of overseeing arm’s length entities created by Indigenous communities to further economic development and further other community priorities, and by comprehensive land claim agreements to further co‐management of resources. Peach () previously explored in Canadian Public Administration the new expectations and meaning of the “duty to consult” with First Nations flowing from Supreme Court decisions, and here Boyd and Lorefice () explore how the different frames that Indigenous and non‐Indigenous peoples bring to engagement.…”

“…Les deux articles suivants (Hotte et coll. ; White ) étudient l’émergence et les défis posés pour superviser les entités indépendantes créées par les collectivités autochtones afin de promouvoir le développement économique et d’autres priorités communautaires, et par des ententes sur les revendications territoriales globales pour promouvoir la cogestion des ressources. Alors que Peach () avait auparavant étudié, dans Administration publique du Canada, les nouvelles attentes et la signification du « devoir de consulter » avec les Premières nations qui découle des décisions prises par la Cour suprême, ici, ce sont Boyd et Lorefice () qui se penchent sur les différents types d’encadrement apportés aux processus d’engagement par les personnes autochtones et non autochtones.…”