Tangiora, HirainaLucock, XiaomengDean, DavidMatunga, Hirini2025-07-212025-07-212025-07-232025-06-23https://hdl.handle.net/10182/19245In the highly competitive global market for agribusiness products, it is imperative that organisations and brands differentiate themselves, particularly in ways that benefit their product or service offerings and make sense to consumers. This is particularly true for Indigenous organisations and brands who have historically maintained extensive trading networks, and stand to realise significant economic development opportunities from participating today (Carlos et al., 2024). Cooperatives continue to provide a pathway for collaboration and competitive advantage in agribusiness, which has mostly allowed for increased sharing of resources, marketing and education efforts, and gaining market access. But exactly how this is achieved, and the rate of its success, often differs by factors such as the key market(s), home country, and specific industry structure. Māori Kiwifruit Growers Inc (MKGI) is an example of a Māori kiwifruit grower collective trying to increase its visibility in the global marketplace, through a collaborative marketing partnership with the global kiwifruit corporate, Zespri International Ltd (Zespri). Established through wānanga (group meetings) in 2016, MKGI originally sought to increase the flow of information from its marketer, Zespri, to the Māori kiwifruit growers throughout Aotearoa (New Zealand). Eight years on, the reverse is also true—MKGI is now able to feed information back to its marketer. Since 2023, MKGI has grown the number of containers of kiwifruit exported to Hawaii each year. This market is particularly significant for MKGI because Aotearoa and Hawaii share historical, ancestral, and migration ties. Hawaii is firmly part of MKGI’s new phase of growth. A partnership of this nature, that is, between a global brand and an Indigenous organisation, is undoubtedly unique in nature. So too is the structure of the New Zealand kiwifruit industry, which is at present time the only one of its kind in the southern hemisphere. In 1999 New Zealand Kiwifruit Export Regulations (Regulations) established Zespri as the single exporter of kiwifruit grown in New Zealand to all markets beyond New Zealand and Australia. Australia was not included due to the Australia–New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement at the time, which remains regulated under the Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987. Included in these Regulations, however, is a clause for the export of New Zealand grown kiwifruit by others through collaborative marketing arrangements approved by the regulator, Kiwifruit New Zealand (KNZ). While not a true cooperative, the corporate structure of Zespri shows many similarities. In the literature, collaborative marketing is defined as a group that have organised themselves to collectively market their product or service (Murray-Prior, 2007). In the Regulations, collaborative marketing is “an arrangement by which a person may export New Zealand grown kiwifruit in collaboration with Zespri Group Limited…[with] the purpose of increasing the overall wealth of New Zealand kiwifruit producers” (Kiwifruit New Zealand, n.d.). These arrangements provide opportunities for smaller organisations, like MKGI, to gain a footing on the global stage. With this highly specific situation occurring domestically, but equally with an eye on global applicability for Indigenous agribusiness groups and trade partners, our research was guided by the following questions: • How might branding and marketing facilitate more visibility in global value chains for Indigenous organisations and brands? • How can Indigenous/non-Indigenous partnerships be better promoted? • Does the fact that the products are biological in nature have any implications on the overall partnership? • What challenges to growth exist in partnerships of this nature? • Is Indigenous-to-Indigenous trade an opportunity worth further pursuit? First, a comprehensive scoping review of relevant peer-reviewed literature was undertaken on Indigenous/non-Indigenous partnerships to understand the work already completed in this space, and to identify any possible gaps. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) protocol by Moher et al. (2009). This scan identified a significant lack of literature on commercial agribusiness partnerships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous organisations, and justified the need to do more research in this area. Then, guided by the literature, several semi-structured interviews with key actors from MKGI, Zespri, and other value chain partners involved in their export programme to Hawaii were also conducted. These interviews sought to better understand how the collaborative marketing partnership worked at both an operational and governance level, as well as the lessons that could be applied to future partnerships of a similar nature to that of MKGI and Zespri. The addition of primary data allowed us to better understand the impact of collaborative marketing, agribusiness, and indigeneity on the overall partnership. Interview scripts were then transcribed and analysed for common themes and findings. A number of key findings were identified through qualitative analysis, in turn, providing answers to our research questions, and areas for further inquiry. Namely, branding and marketing partnerships play a significant role in realising future opportunities for Indigenous agribusiness organisations. The story matters. Collaborative marketing, while regulated in the case of New Zealand’s kiwifruit industry, may have wider applicability to other partnerships of this nature. This is particularly true for smaller entities that may otherwise struggle to gain consumer attention and shelf space. One participant noted that it “helps to be focused on concrete outcomes”, as is the case for MKGI. However, there might be challenges with Indigenous branding, especially (though not exclusively) for brands that are not Indigenous, as well as well established brands. But, as one participant noted, success is more likely if one can “marry strong outcomes, with tikanga (Māori protocol), and branding.” And at the end of the day, “the story matters”. It is up to the individual organisations themselves to not only ask the question, What does it mean for communities that need more opportunities? but to tell the right story with it. Work together to be visible. Several participants agreed that there are opportunities for Māori to move closer to the market, “to work with other Indigenous cultures around the world…as well as with other Māori”. Visibility is also key, with one participant noting they were “seeing an increase of Māori in corporate spaces, and at all levels.” Being small and having shared values. Size was a factor that was not explicitly explored, yet arose in the findings organically. Unsurprisingly, the smaller businesses in the value chain found it easier to work with each other. “Being part of a small team … allows you to connect with people along the whole value chain”. In the same way that organisational culture plays an important role in partnership success or otherwise, Māori businesses found it easier to work with other Māori, or Indigenous, businesses. One participant noted that it was “easy to ‘be Māori’ given they are Māori as well.” Deep connection to the land. When investigating the impact of biological products on partnerships generally, a couple of participants thought that it would not affect the partnership itself, but the possibly the operationalisation of the partnership (for example, the perishability and seasonality of these products and the impacts these have both upstream and downstream). The main insight was related to the connection to land, and to those who care deeply about it, like Māori and other Indigenous groups. One participant noted an added benefit that “you get to work with growers throughout the whole journey”, which is not something that all other products or industries could say, but was something that they deemed important to them. Working towards a common goal. Growth challenges, in this partnership and others, are inevitable but as one participant noted, “staying engaged with growers is key”, before also adding, “don’t [sic] let the politics get in the way of the overall kaupapa (purpose).” Another challenge is satisfying the needs of different collectives with slightly different, though likely aligned, goals. One participant stated, “the challenge is to get everyone on board when it comes to making commercial decisions with diverse stakeholders.” Something that is more difficult for collectivist societies, like Māori. MKGI knows this well as this process of wānanga dates to its inception. Overall, participants agreed that there were further opportunities to unlock when it comes to Indigenous-to-Indigenous trade. This is something MKGI plans to investigate further, and an area that is currently under-researched. Findings from this research may be useful for managers in Indigenous, and non-Indigenous, organisations alike, particularly those in agribusiness industries. They may enable better partnerships and more inclusive, and accessible, opportunities realised from participating in the global trade environment. The importance of, yet also challenges with, branding in these partnerships are also outlined. For Indigenous firms specifically, this work provides a potential pathway which may be suitably adapted to help them realise their agribusiness export ambitions. For non-Indigenous firms, it offers an example of a successful Indigenous/non-Indigenous partnership. The present research concludes that while there are challenges within the increasingly competitive global trading environment, there lies an opportunity to increase Indigenous brand visibility, and participation, through partnership; either through Indigenous/Indigenous partnership, or Indigenous/non-Indigenous partnership. Branding and marketing, including collaborative marketing, plays a significant role in this, and is worth further exploration for brands wishing to facilitate partnerships and supply chain channels similar to that of MKGI and Zespri. But the importance of telling the right story, to the right people, cannot be overstated. It also concludes there is more work to be done to fully understand the challenges, opportunities, and practical realities of Indigenous-to-Indigenous trade, particularly in agribusiness industries.© The AuthorsConference Contribution - unpublishedANZSRC::451118 Te whakamākete o te Māori (Māori marketing)ANZSRC::300208 Farm management, rural management and agribusinessANZSRC::451104 Ngā mahi tauhokohoko o te Māori (Māori commerce)ANZSRC::350706 International business