Search

Companies rely widely on coopetition, that is, cooperation with competitors, to foster their innovation. However, despite its increasing popularity, the impact of coopetition on innovation remains unclear. Different theories predict different results, and empirical evidence suggests that coopetition can either improve or reduce innovation performance, or even make no impact. The lack of consensus makes further exploration of this important relationship essential. Our study attempts to shed new light on the impact of sourcing from competitors on innovation, using a data-driven exploratory model that needs no prior specification of the direction and form of this relationship. We use a recently developed analytical method based on the preference disaggregation approach to analyze data from a sample of 112 firms operating in the petroleum, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. We find that sourcing from competitors fosters the innovation performance of firms with financial constraints (small firms receiving no financial support from the government for innovation). In contrast, our results show that sourcing from competitors has a non-linear negative impact on large and small firms receiving such financial support, and that sourcing from competitors is much riskier for small firms in this category. Our findings contribute to the coopetition for innovation literature by highlighting that the relationship between sourcing from competitors and innovation performance depends on firm characteristics, i.e., size and financial capability. Our use of a preference disaggregation method confirms its value when studying relationships between variables where the conceptual and empirical evidence leaves this relationship unclear.

Coopetition is a business phenomenon that dominates many supply chains. We aim to understand why and how coopetition occurs in supply chains with the presence of process improvement in upstream component production. An original equipment manufacturer (OEM) can purchase the component from either a non-competing supplier (NS) or a competing supplier (CS) that also sells substitutable products in the end consumer market. We demonstrate that without process improvement, coopetition does not exist, because the OEM prefers sourcing from the NS, even though the CS is willing to sell the component to the OEM. Two cases are considered in which process improvement is present: supplier-initiated investment, where the suppliers conduct self-investment, and OEM-initiated investment, where the OEM invests in the supplier's process. We find that with supplier-initiated investment, the CS always prefers coopetition, but the OEM may not. When the investment is efficient, coopetition occurs as an equilibrium outcome; otherwise, competition occurs. The cause of coopetition equilibrium comes from variable process improvement incentives of the CS that derive from two driving forces: the vertical wholesale price effect and the horizontal quantity competition effect. When the degree of product substitution is low, the CS increases its investment and lowers its wholesale price, benefiting the OEM. When the degree of product substitution is high, the CS reduces its investment as well as production quantity, which also benefits the OEM. Interestingly, with OEM-initiated investment, the CS might not always choose to sell the component to the OEM, and as a result, coopetition never occurs.

Technology that develops rapidly has profoundly affected the business field and reshaped some behaviours of corporations, and the discussion on startup risk-taking behaviour in the new era is still insufficient. Based on social network theory and social capital theory, this article studies how social networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems support startup risk-taking behaviour. This article cuts into this issue through the perspective of coopetition. Based on 737 responses, this article employs regression and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to explore the relationships between networks, ecosystem coopetition, and risk-taking behaviour. Results indicate that networks and coopetition may stimulate startup risk-taking behaviour, and coopetition may weaken the impacts of networks. There are replacement effects between different characteristics of networks, and there are several configurations, which may lead to high-level risk-taking. This article may help us understand startup risk-taking behaviour in the digital era and the positive impacts of ecosystems.

Purpose Coopetition includes cooperation and competition, sometimes simultaneously, among firms from a specific industry involved in a merger and acquisition (M&A) operation. However, despite their high number, most mergers end in failure. Therefore, looking at how firms cooperate and compete when planning a merger operation can be a key to better understand post-merger integration, set achievable synergies for both parties and better understand the organizational culture of both companies. Also, external events in a rapidly changing environment can affect the global strategy of organizations and impact the desire for firms to engage in mergers and acquisitions. Design/methodology/approach The author investigates how merger negotiations were conducted and influence coopetition among two firms engaged in such an operation. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data. Findings This in-depth case study provides new insights into coopetition dynamics during merger negotiations and the influence of a global crisis on the overall strategy of two firms. The authors specifically detail how cooperation and competition were present in M&A negotiations and how the rapidly changing environment influenced the planned operation. First, cooperation was privileged as companies enhanced information sharing and communication for their joint strategy. Then, with the evolution of the environment, new opportunities were given to the target company, which decided to quit the merger project. Therefore, both firms engaged in a competitive context as the crisis helped the target company (in difficulty at the beginning of negotiations) to develop new projects and to become a real rival of the acquiring company in its local ecosystem. Research limitations/implications The limitations are those concerning a single case study. Practical implications The study highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by integration stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the merger process. The study questions coopetition issues in regional clusters as both firms operate in the same industry in the same region. For practitioners, the study questions how to balance the risks and rewards of coopetition activities over time. The case addresses information sharing in coopetition projects and the fear that the data and information revealed during negotiations will affect the company’s competitive advantage once the merger plan is abandoned. In the context of the rapidly changing environmental crisis, managers will reflect on continuing to cooperate with their competitors or pursuing their activities on their own. Social implications Despite their high number, M&A failures remain surprisingly high. This study explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations and how external events impact such negotiations and merger projects by raising coopetitive tensions among firms. Originality/value The case provides a vivid illustration of firms’ adaptation to a rapidly evolving context due to a global crisis. The research questions coopetition in business ecosystems and the unexpected in merger processes. The study addresses critical risks in knowledge exchange during merger negotiations and coopetitive dynamics among stakeholders over time. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture.

This paper investigates whether and how interfirm coopetition—the combination of cooperation and competition—affects collaborative innovation performance in competitive environments. We address this issue by introducing interfirm knowledge creation as a mediating mechanism based on knowledge creation theory and by examining the moderating effects of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition. The hypotheses are tested using survey data from a sample of 170 Chinese high-tech firms. The results show that interfirm knowledge creation mediates the impact of interfirm coopetition on collaborative innovation performance. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the positive relationship between interfirm coopetition and interfirm knowledge creation is stronger under higher levels of environmental competitiveness but weaker under higher levels of dysfunctional competition. The positive relationship between interfirm knowledge creation and collaborative innovation performance is more evident under higher levels of environmental competitiveness. These findings enrich the interfirm coopetition literature, contribute to knowledge creation theory by extending it to the interfirm context, and provide a better understanding and useful advice for enterprise managers and government officials.

Developing solutions to sustainability challenges requires cooperation among various firms and actors in different industries and sectors (e.g., regulatory authorities, nonprofit organizations). Prior studies investigate sustainability-related coopetition tensions in bilateral relationships; this article instead considers tensions at a broader, value net level and highlights the dark side of business relationships for firms engaged in coopetition. Qualitative analyses, based on interviews with 31 experts from the automotive industry, highlight how innovative efforts to achieve environmental sustainability can generate detrimental environmental and societal impacts. Specifically, the authors identify four sustainable innovation tensions, at the firm level and the value net level. They outline the aggregate economic, social, and ecological sustainability impacts, as well as the critical need for an exhaustive definition of the value net and which factors influence coopetition in sustainability efforts.

Purpose This paper aims to develop an understanding of cooperation and collaboration in the natural wine industry in Spain as well as a deeper understanding of the challenges facing natural wine producers in the 21st century. Design/methodology/approach Field interviews using a structured questionnaire were conducted with five Spanish producers of natural wine in five different regions during fall 2018 and late spring 2019. Interviewers prompted respondents to expound upon the potential of incorporating cooperative relationships to help producers grow their businesses, share production and marketing techniques and explain how they educate consumers about natural wines. Findings Content analysis among five field-researched case studies reveals common goals and challenges, but Spanish natural wine producers have not reached a consensus on the benefits of cooperative relationships. Respondents acknowledge that their indecisiveness and consumer confusion about natural wines are barriers to working together. Research limitations/implications Generalizations from a sample comprised five companies cannot be made, nor can we claim that respondents were unbiased. Respondents were reluctant to release financial and production data; thus, the outcomes of coopetition strategies were indeterminate. It may be that a coopetition strategy is only positive up to a fixed point, upon which a diminishing-returns effect is manifested. Observations were made during a period when the Spanish wine industry was contracting, as political uncertainty in that country and post-Brexit clouded the future of tourism in and exports from certain Spanish wine regions. Practical implications Collaboration and cooperation would afford Spanish natural wine access to shared resources, networks and farming technology and knowhow to enhance the image and reputation of natural wine in Spain and internationally. Social implications To explore how cooperative and collaborative relationships might be achieved, five case studies of natural wine producers in Spain illuminate their real-life challenges and goals. Cooperative relationships among these producers have the potential to contribute to industry growth and value creation, while creating shared competitive advantages. As these niche producers weigh how to come to a consensus about pooling resources and working together to educate the prospective natural wine consumer, doing so may well lead the next wave of entrepreneurial, innovative activity in an industry that is ripe for change. Originality/value To explore how natural wine producers face the challenge to increase transparency in its production and to help consumer to know what natural wine is. In the Old World, the French Fraud Control Office recognized the category “vin méthode nature” (wine nature method) as a special wine. It was the first step towards helping consumers to reduce the information asymmetries existing between the productive and consumption fields, increasing transparency in natural wines production.

Purpose Coopetition is the simultaneous cooperation and competition among firms operating in a specific market. It is particularly relevant in tourism where many competing suppliers (hotels in this case) contribute to the facilitation and delivery of the tourism product, i.e. the destination. By engaging in cooperative arrangements, firms can increase the attractiveness and competitiveness of the tourism product and subsequently demand for individual firms. This study aims to explore the three types of benefits derived from cooperative relationships in the context of the hotel industry, as well as the link between coopetition and market performance. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts several scales from prior research to survey 475 hotels in the USA. Specifically, respondents were asked to evaluate their performance with regard to the three benefits of coopetition. The responses were used to model the benefits of coopetition as a higher-order construct in a two-stage partial least squares model. In the second stage, the higher-order construct was linked to perceived hotel performance and the respondents’ RevPAR index. Findings The results show that perceived benefits from coopetition are positively associated with hotel performance. Specifically, the model depicts positive links between the coopetition construct and the hotels’ perceived performance, as well as their RevPAR index. Interestingly, the results were not as strong for index performance and may be due to the relative nature of the measure. Research limitations/implications This study supports the notion that coopetition alliances between hotels provide a viable avenue for performance growth. Specifically, managers should consider working together to allocate resources strategically to grow the pie. It is important that managers measure the benefits of cooperative relationships outside of competitive index scores as these metrics may be relative to the cooperative arrangement. Originality/value The study is the first to investigate the three benefits of coopetition in the context of the hotel industry. Specifically, it is the first to establish a positive link between firm coopetition and perceived performance in the hotel industry at the firm level.

The purpose of this investigation, underpinned by resource-based theory, involves unpacking the complexity of coopetition activities (interplay between cooperation and competition) among family-owned firms. The methods involve 20 field interviews and statistical analysis of 302 family-owned wine producers in the United States. Principal findings establish the non-linear (inverted U-shaped) nature of the coopetition-performance relationship within family-owned firms. Furthermore, competitive intensity negatively moderated the non-linear relationship between coopetition and company performance and a positive moderation effect existed from a competitor orientation. Additionally, unique insights illustrate the importance of utilising social capital in building relationships with trustworthy and complementary partners within and across clusters to enhance the performance consequences of firms’ product-market strategies; that is, both in their domestic market and internationally. The non-linear coopetition-performance relationship suggests decision-makers should not engage in too little or too much coopetition and have an exit strategy if things do not work out as planned.

Notwithstanding the increasing interest in coopetition, relevant research is still composed of loosely connected themes with little contextual focus. Little attention has been paid to explain coopetition at multiple stages and levels, in various industries, and between micro-firms. This paper addresses these gaps by proposing a multi-level mechanism, unravelling the relationship between coopetition management, value co-creation, knowledge-enhancement, and superior performance achievement in micro-businesses. Using qualitative methods, we look at the non-high tech alpaca industry. Results reveal that the successful coopetition management in various coopetition stages, at an individual, organizational, and industry level, leads to value co-creation, knowledge-enhancement, and to the VRIO resources development, and thus drive positive outcomes for the individuals and organizations engaged and for the industry as a whole. This mechanism is influenced by industrial, market, and institutional factors.

This study explores the little understood concept of the firm’s coopetition capability with coopetition recognition to in order to provide evidence of the firm’s decisions to effectively execute a coopetition strategy. The analysis of 171 Taiwanese travel agents in an environment of high competition and service innovation creation during the period of 2019 shows that the relationship between competitive intensity and a firm’s service innovation is fully mediated by coopetition strategy. However, partial mediation of coopetition strategy exists for complementary resources. We also discover contingent effects of coopetition recognition on coopetition strategy. The empirical and conceptual findings have important implications for understanding the role of coopetition strategy and recognition. They explain how firms employ strategic activities to service innovation and, thus, reduce uncertainty and complexity in a cooperative relationship between the firm and its competitors. While the literature does focus on how coopetition benefits a firm’s performance despite the risks involved, few studies have examined the coopetition strategy mechanism to reveal how it adjusts a firm’s performance by considering the external environment (competitive intensity) and internal resources (complementary resources).

Coopetitive tensions can arise as strategic decisions are imposed on firms that challenge them to pursue competition and collaboration with other organizations. Regulators—such as the state—can interfere in merger strategies. Using a longitudinal case study, the objective of the study is: (1) to analyze which regulators influence coopetitive tensions in a merger process (including negotiation and integration stages); and (2) to explore how coopetitive tensions are coped with during the process. We found that the state and customers have architectural roles as regulators during the process (negotiation period, deal, and integration process). We explore coopetition paradox management at different levels (interorganizational, organizational, and individual levels) over the merger process. Points for practitioners Our study sheds light on tensions experienced by managers with conflicting identities at the beginning of the integration and on the way they coped with such tensions. Indeed, our study shed lights on the integration principle as managers were able to transcend the paradox in their decisions and actions implemented at the organizational level through reorganizing the organization and favoring tandem teams and joint piloting.

There is limited understanding of whether ‘familiness’ strengthens or hampers the firms’ willingness to engage in coopetition. In this study, based on a sample of entire 79 savings banks in South Korea, we investigated their ownership structure and participation in the project-financing consortium (coopetition among savings banks) for the period between 2013 and 2019. Unlike the predominant idea that family firms are isolated and seek high independence from external parties, the results show that family-owned savings banks are more involved in collaboration with competitors than non-family counterparts. Also, the positive role of ‘familiness’ in the coopetition activity is more pronounced as the ratio of outside directors in the company increased. By directly associating the unique strategic characteristics of family firms with the nature of coopetition, this study provides an insight into how ‘familiness’ can strengthen the firms’ participation in coopetition.

Digital platforms help develop the open value co-creation strategic alliances, reshape traditional B2B relationships, and promote inclusive social innovation. This research explores the nature of coopetition between the digital platform and its participants. The focus is on how the platform-based alliance balances the contradiction between value creation and appropriation. The support evidence derives from a Stackelberg game in the context of cooperative advertising. Either the platform or the participant supporting advertising in the alliance prompts a Pareto improvement for all players. But the increased profit would be mainly occupied by the dominant platform. The incentive mechanism of profit sharing can promote the alliance to co-create value in a sustainable manner. The game illustrates the significance of cooperative relationships to co-create a larger total value and the existence of an unequal win-win relationship in the strategic alliance. The contradictory logic of cooperation and competition can be accommodated in the platform-based alliance. The dynamic coopetition is involved in a partially convergent interest structure and impacted by power asymmetry. The results highlight the balance between the tensions and harmonies through value creation and appropriation.

The importance of cooperation between higher education institutions (HEIs) has increased and allows the development of competitive advantages, particularly through the transfer of knowledge and technology. Establishing well-conceived and well-managed cooperation networks can bring benefits and overcome obstacles. This article assesses the importance of cooperation between HEIs, characterizing the type of partner suitable for the establishment of cooperation and analysing the benefits and barriers that may arise. To achieve this objective, a qualitative approach based on a case study was adopted. Portuguese HEIs cooperating in the Business Simulation (BS) project were analysed. The results obtained reveal that cooperation between HEIs, more specifically in the BS project, is fundamental for the exchange of knowledge, the acquisition of new technology and platforms, and the acquisition of new work practices. However, it will be necessary to overcome barriers, principally of a more technological nature. This study uses a new and innovative structure, employing a model that expands knowledge on the topic by identifying three dimensions that influence cooperation between HEIs. The authors also present implications for theory and practice and propose an agenda for future research.

Over the past few years, academics and practitioners have started paying more attention to analyze and understand value creation and business models from a business ecosystem perspective. Such business ecosystems have been constructed based on the connected networks of people, firms, industries, and countries. Developing strategies to help sustain the firms’ competitive advantage in business ecosystems is a key challenge for businesses and policymakers worldwide. Recent disruptions to global supply chains due to the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed the high risk and challenges of managing sustainable global and intertwined supply chain networks. Using the data mined from financial records, the present study constructs the global supply chain network of the auto manufacturing sector. The data from 32,396 notable first-tier forward and backward supply chain connections were mined to build the global supply chain network in this sector. The global supply chain network structure was analyzed using centrality measures and clustering analysis. We utilized path analysis to explore the effect of various supply chain centrality measures on firms' financial performance, investment risk, and market value volatility. The findings provide new insight into our understanding of the relationship between the firm's location characteristics in the global supply chain ecosystem and various aspects of the asset's performance. Furthermore, discussions are presented about strategies that support sustainable collaborative value creation and sustainable competitiveness of businesses across the global manufacturing ecosystems. The research method used in this study has the potential to be applied to several industries. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42943-021-00026-8.

Firms competing over technologies are often forced to collaborate while pursuing their risky research and development (RD this is called “technological coopetition.” Such coopetition creates complex interfirm technological relationships, which vary according to the technology field wherein the competition and cooperation are occurring. This study proposes a framework by which to map and identify technological coopetition at both the interfirm and industry levels in order to clarify the complex relational state of technological coopetition. The framework distinguishes between coopetition types by considering the relatedness between the technology areas in which competition and cooperation occur, while showing how interfirm relationships change over time. At the industry level, the framework shows the technology fields in which competition, cooperation, and coopetition occur frequently. We illustrate the framework by applying it to the semiconductor industry. This study is expected to contribute to the coopetition literature as well as R&D management practice.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to increase understanding about vertical coopetition from the perspective of interrelated conflict episodes on multiple levels. Design/methodology/approach The empirical part is based on a qualitative single case study of a coopetitive buyer-supplier relationship in the manufacturing sector. Findings Conflicts in vertical coopetition evolve from being merely functional and task-related to becoming dysfunctional and relationship-related, as the level of competition increases. The nature of conflict episodes influences the development of vertical coopetition, and therefore, the interrelatedness of conflict episodes is important to acknowledge. Practical implications Although a conflict is considered functional within a company, it may still be dysfunctional as far as the coopetitive relationship with the buyer or seller is concerned. Competition may trigger conflicts related to protecting own technology and knowledge, which may lead to termination of the cooperation, therefore coopetition should be managed in a way that balance sharing and protecting important knowledge to get advantages of coopetition. Originality/value The findings enhance prior research on vertical coopetition by offering new perspectives on causes of conflicts, their management, outcomes and types. The value of taking a multilevel approach lies in the ability to show how conflicts occur and influence other conflicts through the interrelatedness of conflict elements on different levels.

In this paper, we contribute to the literature on uncertainty and the drivers of social exchange. We explore the 2008 financial crisis and hand-collect unique data on more than 2,700 vessel chartering deals closed in the container shipping industry from 2000 to 2011. Our contribution is twofold. We challenge the literature by finding that low and high status players use different collaborative strategies under uncertainty: the high status players are more prone to coopetition and the low status ones reach out to external buyers. We also extend the literature on social exchange and uncertainty and introduce other constructs: strategic versatility and country-level long-term orientation of the suppliers that we study in our model. Our findings are relevant for policy and managerial decision-makers in the industry.

Although coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition) is likely to enhance financial performance if effectively managed, earlier investigations have overlooked the complexities of this relationship. Most notably, understanding the impact of moderating factors can help unpack the complexity of the association between coopetition and performance. Therefore, grounded in resource-based theory and the relational view, this study focuses on the quadratic relationship between coopetition and financial performance under different degrees of export intensity and export geographical scope. Using survey responses from 101 wine producers in New Zealand, the empirical results show that coopetition has a nonlinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship with financial performance. Furthermore, export intensity and export geographical scope positively moderate this quadratic association. As such, for underresourced firms with overseas market potential, decision makers should consider the merits of combining the benefits of coopetition with those from an internationalized business model. This arrangement can help them navigate these potentially paradoxical forces, assuming they engage with trustworthy and complementary rivals in coopetition partnerships.

The article analyzes the pandemic period results, which can be attributed to the increased need for companies' coopetition. One of the most popular during the COVID–19 pandemic was the marketing strategy, the socalled innovative business model “coopetition”, to overcome the crisis consequences. Coopetition has become the primary marketing strategy of leading high-tech companies to achieve synergy between competitors. This model is used not only for cooperation with competing companies but also for suppliers, customers, and firms that produce additional or related products. Attention is focused on the correlation between the applied marketing innovations and the company's ability to survive in the economic crisis conditions-the relevance of undervalued marketing strategies that can be effective and efficient during the crisis increases. The literature review found that the pre-pandemic crisis management studies focused primarily on internal company reserves. Simultaneously, companies in pandemic collapse use marketing strategies that focus on external communication with competitors to overcome the crisis. The phenomenon of collabour ative competition has much in common with open innovation, where competing companies share their achievements. This strategy is aimed at expanding the market and forming new business relationships during a severe economic crisis.

PurposeWhile the significance of organizational resources and capabilities is widely discussed, little is known about their interrelationships as well as benefits for firms that are involved in coopetitive relationships. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the performance effects of entrepreneurial orientation, strategic intent and potential absorptive capacity as well as their complementarity effects on operational and innovation performance for firms involved in horizontal coopetitive relationships.Design/methodology/approachDrawing upon the resource-based-view, dynamic capabilities and the relational view theories, this study forwards numerous hypotheses between the constructs of interest. The proposed hypotheses are tested utilizing survey data collected from 313 horizontal coopetitive relationships.FindingsThe results clearly suggest that entrepreneurial orientation, strategic intent and potential absorptive capacity could positively impact innovation and operational performance outcomes independently. In addition, the authors also find strategic intent and potential absorptive capacity to have differential moderating effects on the relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and the performance outcomes.Originality/valueThe findings suggest that although strategic intent and potential absorptive capacity could lead to performance benefits independently, when it comes to coopetitive relationships, the use of both these capabilities may not substantially increase the positive impact of entrepreneurial orientation on performance outcomes. Specifically, given that these capabilities could intensify competitiveness as well as hostility between partners, they seem to affect the firm's performance differently.

High-technology firms often partake in coopetitive alliances toward improving their innovation performance. As relational governance contributes significantly to explaining the coopetitive alliance success, this research examines the facilitation of relational governance in coopetitive alliances. Drawing from social contract theory, we propose that alliance’s market orientation (AMO) is a means to establish social and cooperative norms, which in turn, increases the viability of relational governance. The analysis of 246 coopetitive innovation alliances among firms in high-technology industries reveals that alliance competence is an important antecedent to AMO, and AMO plays a key role in facilitating relational governance toward improving alliance performance. Furthermore, environmental turbulence enhances the positive influence of relational governance.

Technological advancements have made it easier for firms to bypass traditional distribution networks and establish subscription-based direct-to-consumer (SBDTC) channels. Despite their growing popularity, little is known about the effectiveness of these channels. However, pursuing these new channels may not be the best decision for firms even though technology allows it and, in some instances, consumers demand it. Results from an event study of SBDTC channel additions in the cable television industry show that they complicate channel relationships and can lead to conflict, which reduce firm value. Further analysis reveals that firm-specific characteristics and strategic execution factors operate to mitigate the loss in firm value. Specifically, the study results show that channel power diminishes the negative impact of channel conflict, suggesting that firms with greater channel power benefit from adding SBDTC channels. The study also finds that firms marketing high-quality, differentiated offerings are rewarded with more favorable firm valuations.

A disruptive technology threat replaces incumbents. While a prior disadvantage of incumbent competing against disruptive technological entrants lacks an effective incumbent’s competitive response. ...

Although it has been widely established that coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition) has a positive association with firms’ performance, researchers have largely overlooked the environmental and firm-level forces potentially affecting that relationship. Under resource-based theory and the relational view, this current study evaluates whether competitive intensity and competitive aggressiveness negatively moderate the coopetition-financial performance relationship. Through a mixed methods approach featuring New Zealand wine producers, a positive relationship existed between coopetition and financial performance supporting earlier research. However, competitive aggressiveness provided a negative moderation effect and competitive intensity had a positive moderation effect. Unique insights emerge regarding underlying issues (potential dark-sides) behind the coopetition-financial performance relationship. Competitive intensity provides an opportunity for owner-managers to select trustworthy rivals targeting complementary product-markets. However, if decision-makers cannot effectively manage competitive aggressiveness across product-market strategies, they are likely to experience certain harmful outcomes, like tensions and diluted competitive advantages.

The aim of this paper is to explore the link between joint value creation and the varying nature of simultaneity. Joint value creation is a central concept in cooperative strategies and more broadly in the strategic management field. When cooperating with competitors firms have value creation intent, but face conflicting logics arising from the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition. This study adopts a two continua approach to analyze coopetition at both the department level and the organizational level. We explore the conjunctural causality based on two multipartner alliances in the pharmaceutical industry. The fsQCA allows detecting multiple causal paths between different intensities of cooperation and competition at both the department and the firm levels (conditions) to joint value creation (outcome). A key contribution of this paper is the conceptualization and empirical demonstration of the relation between the joint value creation and the coopetition intensity. Different types of coopetition engagements generate different outcomes in terms of joint value creation. The results show that high intensity of cooperation combined with high intensity of competition is significant for joint value creation. Unbalanced intensities of both elements, as well as low coopetition intensity, do not lead to joint value creation.

Extant research on strategic alliances has established that contractual controls do not provide a complete safeguard to avert an alliance failure, and that alliance governance needs to be reinforced with relational norms such as trust. However, there is scant research evidence available on whether interfirm trust can be significant under the trying contexts the alliances typically face like rivalry, power conflicts, and cultural or institutional barriers. Employing a relational exchange perspective, we examined whether the espoused positive effect of interfirm trust on alliance performance is moderated by mutual influence and coopetition between partners, and the international dimension of an alliance. Based on the survey and archival data on 223 strategic alliances, we found that interfirm trust was quite significant to alliance performance and that the link between trust and performance was more salient in alliances with high mutual influence and coopetition, whereas it was less salient and weaker in international alliances.

This paper studies the impact of logistics cooperation in two competing companies, one of which is equipped with a self-run logistics system while the other is not. The latter outsources logistics services to a third-party logistics company before logistics cooperation, or to its competitor after logistics cooperation with the client’s service quality being in proportion to and no greater than the service provider’s service quality. We find that when the service provider is a price taker, logistics cooperation is beneficial to both firms only when the service quality after logistics cooperation is moderate. Interestingly, under some circumstances, the client’s profit increases even when its service quality decreases after logistics cooperation because logistics cooperation eases the price competition. We also find that all-win situations in which logistics cooperation increases the firms’ profit, consumer surplus and social welfare can be achieved. Finally, when the service price can be chosen by the service provider, we propose a negotiation process in which agreement on logistics cooperation can be reached; when the firm can invest in service quality, logistics cooperation may lower the equilibrium investment level.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationship between coopetition and organisational innovation in EU countries. As coopetition is usually studied from an inter-company perspective, this work looks in detail at the “ad intra” dynamics of the coopeting companies to understand how they adjust their organisation or implement organisational innovation to successfully adopt this original approach. Design/methodology/approach Using data from the Eurostat (CIS2014), this research offers a quantitative study into coopeting companies, relating coopetition to organisational innovation. The analysis technique used in this study is logistic regression with maximum likelihood estimation, where the dependent variable is the location of the coopeting companies. Findings The findings highlight specific characteristics and differences according to whether a company coopetes domestically or in other more complex geographic environments. It also incorporates variables into the analysis, such as the use of price marketing, employee training and company size. Originality/value This study provides insights into the relationship between coopetition and organisational innovation, in a research field that usually focusses on inter-company analysis. Several little-studied factors are included in the analysis, such as the role of employee qualifications and differences in coopetition in different geographic areas. The authors observe that, in certain locations, coopetition could be related to a “market entry” effect.

Aim. The presented study aims to assess the potential of coopetition as an additional strategy to creating an integrated model for managing strategic entrepreneurship in the tourism sector.Tasks. The authors define the concept of strategic entrepreneurship; determine and analyze the concept of coopetition; formulate the concept of strategic entrepreneurship in tourism; present the results of a qualitative study aimed at determining the most important forms of cooperation between tourism companies.Methods. This conceptual study relies heavily on the examined literature, on theoretical reasons for using strategic entrepreneurship and coopetition in tourism enterprises, and on a qualitative study aimed at identifying meaningful areas of cooperation with competitors. Results. Strategic entrepreneurship is a new field based on the integration of entrepreneurship and strategic management. If used by the management, it can significantly boost the company’s performance. However, in small and medium-sized tourism enterprises, critical resources are usually limited. As a result, they have to cooperate with competitors to gain access to additional assets and opportunities. Coopetition is used as part of the strategic activities of tourism enterprises to provide the missing resources and promote innovations that could help satisfy the needs of tourists. Conclusions. Ccoopetition as an additional strategy will improve the strategic model of entrepreneurship, helping tourism enterprises achieve better performance.

PurposeThis study aims to draw attention to the familiarity effect among international multimarket contact (MMC) firms on coopetition in the global container shipping industry and to better understand the contingency model of structural holes and in-degree centrality on joint price elevation actions and subsequent performance.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on competitive dynamics and the literature on networks, a panel data model is developed from 6,489 competitive and 7,146 cooperative actions of the top 21 shipping firms in 18 global arenas with a structured content analysis method being applied.FindingsStronger MMC by firms requires increased levels of cooperative actions to elevate prices. This coopetition relationship is enhanced or weakened when the focal firm occupies a higher level of structural hole or position of competitive in-degree centrality.Practical implicationsShipping liners seeking to cooperate with joint action in oligopolistic markets are offered guidelines and strategies to increase their performance through their actions.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the literature on coopetition networks by further analyzing interfirm relationships and interactions that enhance performance, while exploring network positioning strategies to mitigate risks.

This study investigates the dynamic evolution of coopetition between giant entrants from different industries and incumbent leaders, and the role of coopetition in industry leadership battles in a ...

Purpose Although coopetition has been studied for decades, most prior studies shed light on interfirm coopetition across firms instead of intrafirm coopetition across functional departments within a firm. To fill the research gaps, this study aims to investigate the differential effects of cross-functional coopetition on both product and service innovations and the moderating roles of environmental turbulence. Design/methodology/approach This study surveyed both senior and middle managers from 149 pharmaceutical firms in China. Findings This study discovers the opposite relationships of cross-functional coopetition on product and service innovations such that cross-functional coopetition enhances product innovation but hurts service innovation. Furthermore, market turbulence attenuates the positive effect on product innovation but strengthens the negative effect on service innovation. However, technological turbulence attenuates the negative impact of cross-functional coopetition on service innovation. Originality/value The effects of cross-functional coopetition have been ignored in the innovation literature. By identifying the double-edged sword of cross-functional coopetition, this study contributes to the literature by providing new insights into the differential effects of cross-functional coopetition on product and service innovations.

PurposeThis conceptual paper uses the resource-based theory (RBT) of the firm to argue that for competitors to improve their innovation through a cooperative relationship – coopetitive relationship – they need to work on building a stable relationship with each other by investing a special type of resources, namely locked-in resources.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on RBT criteria to argue that when the antecedent – the locked-in resources – and the mediator – the relationship stability – are valuable, rare, inimitable and organized (VRIO), they will help the parties involved achieve sustained competitive advantage from the coopetitive relationship.FindingsThis paper argues that locked-in resources lead to higher coopetitive relationship stability by reducing the impact of opportunistic behavior from any of the partners. More stable relationship leads to more innovations especially radical innovations. In addition, the nature of the industry plays a moderating role. The industry's competitive intensity affects the relationship between locked-in resources and relationship stability. The industry's age affects the relationship between stability and innovation quantity and type.Research limitations/implicationsThis conceptual paper anchors its arguments within the RBT related to the firm's strategic resources (VRIO) characteristics and applies the same arguments (VRIO) beyond the firm level to the coopetitive relationship level. The model invites researchers and practitioners to consider two new constructs namely locked-in resources and coopetitive relationship stability in order to build successful coopetitive relationships.Practical implicationsThis paper contributes considerably and in a practical manner to managers as it draws their attention to the importance of investing a special type of resources, namely locked-in resources and ensuring the relationship stability with their coopetitors to achieve the desired outcome. It also draws the managers' attention to the impact industry's competitive intensity and industry's age have on the quality of the relationship and on the innovation outcomes.Originality/valueA distinct contribution of this conceptual paper is the introduction of two new constructs: locked-in resources and coopetitive relationship stability. Locked-in resources are valuable within the coopetitive relationship and they improve the second construct or relationship stability. Relationship stability is different from relationship strength as it leads to more trust between partners over longer periods of time.

A common objective of container liners is to expand to both ends of the supply chain, thereby providing customers seamless access to a wider range of logistics. There are many overlaps between the ...

At present, taxi passenger transport and passenger car rental industries offer passenger transport services with small-sized vehicles in Taiwan. These two industries overlap but have significant differences in their management and business models. Recently, the introduction of online car-hailing platforms (sharing-economy industries like Uber) into Taiwan has intensified the competition and conflicts between these two industries. Thus, the Taiwan government has amended the law to distinguish them from each other more clearly. This study adopted observation and case study methods for the analysis of competition and cooperation between these two industries in Taiwan. Lastly, it offered suggestions on the future development of the two industries, in the hope of providing reference for the fields across academia, industry and government. Â JEL classification numbers: L98, R48.

Alliances are often thought to be longer lasting and lead to better results when they are perceived as equal and fair in terms of how efforts and rewards are distributed. This study conceptualizes the value-creation-capture-equilibrium (VCCE) as the relative inputs and efforts made by alliance partners to create and capture innovation-related value. We seek to better understand the determinants of the VCCE in dyadic new product development (NPD) alliances. We focus on three factors from a focal firm's perspective: (1) the coopetition intensity with the alliance partner (i.e. simultaneous competition and collaboration), (2) the expert power of the alliance partner, and (3) the relative importance of the particular NPD alliance. We hypothesize that coopetition intensity stabilizes the VCCE. Furthermore, we assume that the partner's expert power and the focal firm's relative alliance importance negatively moderate the relationship between coopetition intensity and the VCCE. Based on a dataset of N = 471 NPD alliances of high-tech firms, we find partial support for our hypotheses and contribute towards a better understanding of the factors influencing the VCCE in NPD alliances.

Current research lacks a deeper explanation of inter-team coopetition as a potential source of improved organizational performance on a micro-level. To fill this gap, our paper explores how inter-team coopetition influences individual team productivity. Building on social identity theory, we hypothesize that inter-team competition and inter-team coopetition both have a positive influence on individual team productivity with inter-team competition having a stronger influence. We further argue that organizational identification has a positive moderating effect on the link between inter-team coopetition and individual team productivity. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a laboratory experiment with 240 university students in which we simulated team scenarios using the puzzle board game Ubongo. Our findings confirm a positive effect of inter-team competition and coopetition on individual team productivity. In case of a high organizational identification, inter-team coopetition will boost individual team productivity further. Our paper improves the understanding of coopetition within the boundaries of the firm and the circumstances under which inter-team coopetition enhances individual team productivity and ultimately organizational performance. We also advance the literature on social identity theory by applying it to the organization’s micro-levels in the context of inter-team coopetition.

Purpose Prior studies have demonstrated the important role of coopetition in firms’ innovation. Based on the paradox perspective, this study aims to focus on technology transfer, the pre-innovation stage, to provide a supplementary understanding of the complementarity and contradictoriness of paradoxical coopetition, with the formal and informal governance mechanisms which are suitable with this understanding in coopetition. Design/methodology/approach This study conducted an original, multisource survey of 280 Chinese manufacturing firms. Hypotheses were tested through multiple regressions. Findings Coopetition has a positive impact on technology transfer between firms. Along with the increasing specificity of assets invested ex ante as a kind of formal governance mechanism, the relationship between coopetition and technology transfer becomes stronger. Meanwhile, inter-firm justice as an informal governance mechanism in the technology transfer process can be positively affected by coopetition between partners. Originality/value The study adds to the business-to-business coopetition literature on how to properly treat and use coopetition in technology transfer. Using the paradox perspective in the Chinese context, the findings emphasize the positive role of coopetition in the inter-firm technological exchange process, enriching the understanding of the complementary and contradictory features of paradoxical coopetition. To govern coopetitive relationships, the firms should also implement two fundamental governance mechanisms, that is, specialty asset and inter-firm justice.

Although the existing marketing literature suggests that coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition) drives customer satisfaction performance, it is unclear whether hostile relations bet...

Prior literature has established the benefits of ‘coopetition’ in facilitating product innovation, but has yet to identify the relevant inter-partner learning mechanisms in coopetitive product inno...

Increasingly, firms are forming alliances to engage in cooperative innovation activities with their competitors. Participating firms in an R&D consortium can not only obtain the general benefits from cooperation, but also further promote communication and mutual learning due to the common knowledge base with their competitors in the consortium. However, R&D consortium as a typical cooperative innovation alliance has downsides too - competition in a cooperative consortium provides member firms with not only benefits, but also challenges. The opportunistic nature of competition poses a dilemma for member firms when they decide how much effort should be committed to cooperative R&D activities. This study aims to investigate the benefits and costs of competition for firm innovation in cooperative R&D consortia. The study will also identify the boundary conditions to amplify the advantages of competition in terms of the network properties of consortia. The study employs data from 649 firms in 50 Japanese R&D consortia to analyze the curvilinear relationship between the intensity of competition and firm innovation in a cooperative consortium. It was found that a focal firm with a moderate level of competition will have better innovation performance compared to those with either a low or high level of competition. Moreover, it investigates the moderating roles of the firms’ size disparity of R&D consortia and the consortium-organized interaction. The results indicate that the R&D consortium with a low size disparity amplifies the linear effect of the competition on cooperative innovation, which can help the focal firm achieve more gains from cooperative R&D. The consortium-organized interaction strengthens the curvilinear effect of the competition intensity on innovation. This study, using resource dependence theory and social network lenses, extends our understanding of the role of coopetition in firm innovation performance by filling the gap in when and to what extent the intensity of competition matters in multiparty cooperative R&D consortia. It also provides new evidence on the boundary conditions of R&D consortia managing the tension.

When an innovator outsources the manufacturing of an innovative product to a contract manufacturer (CM) which is also a competitor in the end market, the potential innovation spillover may be a serious concern. We study an innovator’s outsourcing decision under spillover risks with an emphasis on the ex ante uncertain values of innovations, and distinguish between technical innovations which can only spill over through outsourcing and non‐technical innovations which can also spill over in the market. We find that in both cases an innovator may strategically outsource to a competitor‐CM, albeit for distinct motivations: for technical innovations, it is done so that the competitor‐CM would yield market leadership to the innovator; and for non‐technical innovations, it is done so that the competitor‐CM would face innovation uncertainties alongside the innovator.

Collaboration with direct competitors is a valuable, yet risky, strategy that might pave the way for competitive advantages. Thus far, we have lacked a detailed understanding of how competitive relations between firms shape collaborative relations between their managers, and consequently the structural interdependencies at both levels. The primary objective of this study is to understand the multi-level structure underlying the ambiguous relationship of coopetition, a state of simultaneous collaboration and competition. Hence, we investigate the influence of perceived inter-firm competition on interpersonal knowledge flows among managers within three high-tech clusters by applying multi-level exponential random graph models to network data. Our results reveal that the interpersonal exchange of advice and information depends strongly on the inter-firm competitive structure and that competitive structures shape these interpersonal exchanges in different ways. Thereby, our research demonstrates that managers utilize asymmetries by means of perceived competitive relations to seek work-related advice and information from their competitors and that stronger forms of competition are significant, but not insuperable, obstacles to the exchange of knowledge.

Firms increasingly engage in business-to-business cooperation to develop relevant innovations. Scholars have shown that firms can improve service innovation either by cooperating with suppliers or by cooperating with competitors. However, there is a dearth of research examining the relative importance of cooperating with suppliers and competitors to improve service innovation, and how this relative importance depends on embracing product innovation. Based on a cross-industry sample of 16,062 Spanish firms, this article addresses these research gaps, finding that firms can benefit from cooperating with both suppliers and competitors to boost service innovation, without prioritizing either. However, this article also shows that, if firms embrace product innovation, they should prioritize cooperating with competitors to boost service innovation.

PurposeThis research aims to analyze the relations between coopetition and innovation, by comparing two coopetitive tourism SMEs networks in Brazil.Design/methodology/approachThe first network comprises 23 SMEs in Honey Island, a natural reserve, and the second network comprises 21 out of 25 SMEs in the Campos Gerais region, recognized by its strong agribusiness. Innovativeness variables included innovation inputs, capabilities, and outputs; and four types of relations that foster innovation were considered, namely, commercial, informational, knowledge, and partnerships. Social network analysis was employed as well as statistical analyses such as Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Mann–Whitney, Spearman correlation and Fischer's Z transformation.FindingsResults show that coopetition is related to SMEs innovativeness. Commercial relations centralities correlated with many innovation outputs, information and knowledge centralities with some innovation inputs and outputs, and partnerships also with capabilities.Research limitations/implicationsBesides contributing to the literature of innovation in tourism, this paper also contributes to the literature on coopetition and innovation by investigating how different types of coopetition relationships foster innovation inputs, capabilities, and outputs.Practical implicationsManagers may benefit from these findings by fostering specific innovation inputs, capabilities, or outputs by means of different coopetition relations. Similarly, regional tourism policy planners may also improve the innovativeness of tourism small businesses by fostering coopetition networks.Originality/valueThis paper not only compares the innovativeness of two small business coopetition networks in the tourism industry but also analyses quantitively in detail how different types of coopetition relations are related to different innovativeness variables.

National audience; This article provides a formal model of the value creation-appropriation dilemma in coopetition for innovation, that is, alliances among competing firms. The model determines the levels of cooperation that maximize the profit of each firm in an innovative coopetition agree¬ment regardless of the number of firms and their respective budget endowments dedicated to the coopetitive project. We answer the following questions: within an innovative coopetition agreement, will the partners cooperate more or less when their budget endowments change? What is the impact on profit? When is it profitable to accept a new partner into the agreement? What happens to the remaining firms when a partner withdraws from the agreement? We show that when the coopetitive budget of the focal firm increases, the focal firm allocates a larger part of this budget to value creation activities and increases its profit. In contrast, when a partnering firm increases its coopetitive budget, the focal firm reduces its budget for value creation activities to maintain a sufficient budget for value appropriation activities. We also show that the addition of a competitor with a large coopetitive budget to the innovative coopetition agreement decreases the cooperation of the focal firm but increases the profit of the initial partnering firms. In contrast, the exit of a partnering firm with a large coopetitive budget from the agreement intensifies the cooperation among the remaining firms but reduces their profit. competing firms. The model determines the levels of cooperation that maximize the profit of each firm in an innovative coopetition agreementregardless of the number of firms and their respective budget endowments dedicated to the coopetitive project. We answer thefollowing questions: within an innovative coopetition agreement, will the partners cooperate more or less when their budget endowmentschange? What is the impact on profit? When is it profitable to accept a new partner into the agreement? What happens to the remainingfirms when a partner withdraws from the agreement? We show that when the coopetitive budget of the focal firm increases, the focal firmallocates a larger part of this budget to value creation activities and increases its profit. In contrast, when a partnering firm increases itscoopetitive budget, the focal firm reduces its budget for value creation activities to maintain a sufficient budget for value appropriationactivities. We also show that the addition of a competitor with a large coopetitive budget to the innovative coopetition agreementdecreases the cooperation of the focal firm but increases the profit of the initial partnering firms. In contrast, the exit of a partnering firmwith a large coopetitive budget from the agreement intensifies the cooperation among the remaining firms but reduces their profit.

It is widely acknowledged that firms intensely engage in coopetition (i.e., simultaneous cooperation and competition) and obtain unique benefits from such relationships. However, limited knowledge exists about how and when coopetition intensity leads to superior performance. Building on the theoretical work documenting that both trust and distrust are critical for enhancing performance in interfirm relationships, we address the aforementioned gap by looking into the distinct yet beneficial roles of trust and distrust in coopetition. More specifically, we argue that whereas trust likely serves as an intervening mechanism through which coopetition intensity enhances relationship performance, distrust positively influences the association between coopetition intensity and relationship performance. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 225 Swedish firms engaged in coopetition, and provide empirical evidence that trust and distrust play distinct yet important roles in achieving superior performance from coopetition.