Purpose This paper aims to examine the appropriation of Te Reo (Māori language) by Manuka honey producers to support a billion-dollar industry. It critiques the failure of New Zealand and Australian producers – and successive governments – to acknowledge the cultural significance of the word “Manuka,” despite recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal. Through an Indigenous Māori lens, it challenges the ongoing colonial agenda that disempowers Māori (Indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand) mana and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) over language and culture. Design/methodology/approach Using a Kaupapa Māori approach focused on purakau (Māori narrative, akin to narrative inquiry) and reflexivity, the paper presents the Mānuka honey pūrākāū from a Māori perspective. Findings Applying Kaupapa Māori ethics (Whakapapa, Tika, Manaakitanga, Mana) to the Manuka purakau reveals the unauthorised and misuse of kupu (term) Maori by marketers. While the term “Manuka” can enhance product value, a lack of consultation and kaitiakitanga (guardianship) with Māori communities undermines whakapapa (relationships) and reflects cultural insensitivity (not tika or manaakitanga). This appropriation disrespects Māori heritage and limits economic benefits from cultural taonga (treasures). Social implications The paper recommends strengthening cultural competency, fostering genuine co-production and advocating for structural change. It calls on social marketing practitioners, educators, policymakers and researchers to uphold Maori rights, respect taonga and actively support tino rangatiratanga (self-determination). Originality/value This paper introduces purakau as a decolonial methodology and ethical tool in social marketing. It presents a definition of Indigenous Social Marketing and provides an indigenous-led counter-narrative to dominant social marketing logics. It contributes a rights-based, culturally accountable ethical framework for social marketers working in Indigenous social marketing contexts, particularly with Maori.
Phillips et al. (Thu,) studied this question.