Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance

This study empirically investigates an important question in the coopetition literature: to what extent does coopetition impact a firm's innovation performance? With a focus on the intensity of competition and intensity of cooperation of a focal firm with its alliance partners, our theory proposes that a moderate level of competition with alliance partners is more beneficial than a very high or a very low level of competition. We further develop the concept of “balance” in coopetition and examine how the interplay of competition and cooperation and the balance between the two matter for innovation performance. Results from our empirical study using data from the semiconductor industry show that competition and cooperation intensities have non-monotonic positive relationship with firm's coopetition-based innovation performance. Further, balanced coopetition (i.e., when competition is moderately high and cooperation is high) has a positive effect on innovation performance. A key contribution of this paper is the conceptualization and empirical demonstration of the effects of various aspects of coopetition such as competition dominant, cooperation dominant, and balanced coopetition on innovation performance.     

Interfirm coopetition,interfirm knowledge creation,and collaborative innovation performance: The moderating roles of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition

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.     

“Vertical coopetition”: The key account perspective

Why do key accounts combine opposing types of relationship with their suppliers? The author has chosen to term this new hybrid form of supplier relationship management, which combines cooperation and price-competitive transactions and reflects the tension between value creation and value appropriation, “vertical coopetition.” She investigates the use of this concept in the context of an in-depth qualitative study, involving, firstly, an exploratory field study and, secondly, four case studies involving leading industrial MNCs. The results indicate that “vertical coopetition” occurs in two forms: when the price-competitive approach is predominant but some cooperation features are still to be found; and when cooperation is predominant, but appeals to competition are still made. Mutually opposed aspects of each form are linked and explained by three pivotal mechanisms, which the author calls, “strengthening”, “correction” and “commuting”. Finally, the study reveals that, increasingly, the key account's brands or Business Unit value¹ are explanatory forces of “vertical coopetition”.     

The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels

This article explores the nature of the paradox inherent in coopetition; that is, the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition between firms, and emanating tensions that develop at individual, organizational, and inter-organizational levels. We dissect the anatomy of the coopetition paradox to discover how it materializes by creating an external boundary (i.e., via unifying forces) and internal boundaries (i.e., via divergent forces). After explaining the coopetition paradox, we distinguish tension from paradox and submit that tension comprises both positive and negative emotions simultaneously, also known as emotional ambivalence. Finally, we recognize that emotional ambivalence in coopetition prevails at different levels, and vary in its level of intensity and persistency in relation to different contexts. We employ illustrative cases to ground our propositions empirically. This article provides understanding on concepts, expects to incite fruitful dialogue, and fuels further studies on inter-firm paradoxes.     

Coopetition close to the customer — A case study of a small business network

Coopetition interactions are traditionally divided into competing activities close to the customer, called output activities (e.g., sales and marketing), and cooperating activities far from the customer, known as input activities (e.g., logistics, production and R&D). In many coopetition networks, most of the cooperation has been in input activities, essentially meaning that little research is conducted in coopetition business networks with cooperative activities close to the customer. This article closes the gap by investigating coopetition in an ICT business network comprising small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the B2B sector. The purpose of this paper is to increase understanding of cooperation between competing firms by analyzing the success factors of cooperative activities close to the customer that lead to a positive outcome of coopetition. The results of the study show that some case companies are more competition oriented, whereas the others are more cooperation oriented. At the activity level of analysis, cooperation occurs in branding, marketing, joint customers, and delivery of services; whereas companies compete in local services, marketing campaigns, and pricing. In addition, our study shows that certain success factors for coopetition are highlighted, particularly in output activities such as activeness, geographical distance and personal resources.     

Value co-creation and appropriation of platform-based alliances in cooperative advertising

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.     

Organizational antecedents of cross-functional coopetition: The impact of leadership and organizational structure on cross-functional coopetition

Cross-functional coopetition (the joint occurrence of cooperation and competition between departments) has received increasing interest from academia and practice. However, there is still little evidence on how cross-functional coopetition can be fostered. We investigate in how far leadership styles (consideration and participation) and organizational structures (centralization and formalization) can be employed to enable a firm's management favoring cross-functional coopetition between departments. Analyzing survey data from 234 German companies, we demonstrate that both consideration and participation have a positive effect on cross-functional coopetition. Additionally, we find that formalization has positive effect on cross-functional coopetition, whereas the effect of centralization is negative. We show that our findings are valid for a multitude of organizational cultures. Finally, we derive implications for research and practice as well as avenues for future research.     

Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe

Prior research highlighted the prevalence of coopetition as a strategy for innovation in high-tech industries for several reasons but the link between forms of coopetition and innovation is still understudied. In order to fill this gap in the literature, this study attempts to answer the following question: which form of coopetition favors which type of innovation? The results of an embedded case study approach of five Celtic-Plus projects (European Eureka Program) in the wireless telecommunication sector show that two forms of coopetition exist: multiple and dyadic. While multiple coopetition is successfully pursued for radical innovation, dyadic coopetition is more suitable for incremental innovation. Different innovation objectives lead to different levels of value creation/appropriation tensions between coopetitors. In order for competitors to pursue radical or incremental innovation successfully, different levels of social capital related to different choices of partners are needed. The role of social capital levels as a moderating factor between value creation/appropriation tensions and innovation type is discussed in detail. The study proposes a conceptual model that links coopetition strategy motives to the types of coopetition and their results in terms of radical or incremental innovation. Finally, a framework that helps firms to balance between multiple/dyadic–vertical/horizontal collaboration according to the levels of value creation/appropriation tensions and social capital is proposed.     

The impact of competition and cooperation on the performance of a retail agglomeration and its stores

Stores in retail and other service agglomerations, such as high streets and shopping malls, compete with each other for customers. Yet they may also cooperate with each other in relation to operational and marketing matters within the agglomeration in which they are located. The aim of this paper is to investigate the impact of both competition and cooperation, i.e. coopetition, on agglomeration and store performance. Drawing on the network debate, this paper develops a conceptual model and tests it in three distinctive agglomerations, each in an urban setting, namely first- and second-order high streets as well as an inner-city retail and service cluster. A total of 277 store managers served as key informants in our survey. Variance-based structural equation modelling reveals that both competition and cooperation improve agglomeration performance directly. Despite competition having a negative direct effect on stores' performance, the overall effect is insignificant. Cooperation affects store performance positively but only indirectly. The contribution of this paper is to reveal and substantiate the complex nature and benefits of the effects of the coopetition of stores located within agglomerations. More widely it underlines the importance of managers of agglomerations understanding the differing effects of competition and cooperation and using this understanding in their management decision making.     

Creation and appropriation of socio-environmental value in coopetition

Although much has been written about value in coopetition initiatives, the dynamics of value creation and appropriation remain poorly articulated. This paper explores the types of value and the dynamics of value creation and appropriation when competitors cooperate.The research provides some suggestions towards semantic clarity and introduces new dimensions to the existing value creation and appropriation literature. We also present the Coopetition Value Matrix (CVM), an expanded typology that aids in the understanding of value dynamics in coopetition. Constructing the CVM required the incorporation of stakeholder theory and the concept of socio-environmental value, two aspects that are under-explored in coopetition research.We applied the CVM to a case of environmental coopetition in the South African wine industry, which provided us with empirical illustrations of the dynamic interaction of different types of value.     

Coopetition and COVID-19: Collaborative business-to-business marketing strategies in a pandemic crisis

Although coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition) should positively affect company performance, it is unclear how implementation of these business-to-business marketing strategies can take place during large-scale emergencies. Therefore, guided by resource-based theory and the relational view, this investigation examines how organisations have used coopetition to cope with the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Key examples include retailers sharing information about stock levels, pharmaceutical organisations working together to develop a vaccine, technological giants collaborating for the greater good, and charities forming alliances for a joint cause. This paper strengthens the extant literature by highlighting the heterogeneity of coopetition strategies that firms can use within a global crisis. Practitioners must balance the risks and rewards of coopetition activities. In turn, they should decide whether to continue to cooperate with their competitors once the pandemic has ended, or resume operating under individualistic business models. This article ends with some future research directions.     

Always play against par? The effect of inter-team coopetition on individual team productivity

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.     

Managing tensions in coopetition

Tensions are natural in coopetitive business relationships that simultaneously involve cooperation and competition. The purpose of this study is to investigate how tensions are managed in coopetitive business relationships and examine the potential outcomes of the management of such tensions. The study will focus on various kinds of coopetitive relationships and how the management of the different tensions produces specific outcomes. The empirical study is based on comparative case study research on coopetitive business networks that features two different kinds of cases. The findings of the study contribute to coopetition research by identifying several new perspectives on tensions. Different levels of cooperation and competition in a coopetitive relationship as well as other underlying issues cannot alone determine tensions, but aspects such as the management of tensions are crucial. Most tensions are managed by using styles of competition and avoidance and result in mixed outcomes, which implies both positive and negative perceptions.     

Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry

The Finnish forest industry is sustainable, well-established, internationally oriented and successful. For companies in such a basic industry, an industry that features mainly bulk products and relatively small domestic markets, sustainability in business may hinge on long-term strategic choices. It is proposed in this paper that it is not only strong domestic competition, but also—and especially—coopetition traditions (simultaneous cooperation and coopetition) that are the crucial factors contributing to the success of the industry. This article contributes to the literature by providing industry-level tools, namely a coopetition framework and combined coopetition typology. The findings indicate that coopetition traditions have been present throughout the activities of the Finnish forest industry, enabling sustainability of the industry to a significant extent. Managerial and theoretical implications are also discussed.     

Rising up to the challenge of our rivals: Unpacking the drivers and outcomes of coopetition activities

Although a body of work surrounds the notion of coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition), the complexities of these inter-firm networks remain relatively under-researched. Consequently, this current study infuses resource-based theory and the relational view (alongside drawing upon the outside-in marketing perspective) to evaluate the drivers and outcomes of coopetition activities. The core method involved collecting survey data from a national-level sample of 323 American wine producers. After assessing this information for all major robustness checks, ordinary least squares regression analysis was used in the model-testing stage. The results showed that while a coopetition-oriented mindset, a competitor orientation, inter-firm trust, and competitive intensity positively impact coopetition activities (in a linear manner), there are certain moderating effects that influence these paths. Additionally, coopetition activities yielded a quadratic association with company performance. Business experience negatively affected this link, whereas, there was a positive interaction effect from industry experience. These findings, offer new evidence regarding the risks and potential rewards of coopetition, including mechanisms that decision-makers can utilize to manage these inter-firm relationships.     

企业内部市场定价:基于行为的理论模型

本文从行为的视角探讨内部市场定价问题。根据内部市场主体之间的合作、竞争行为提出并界定了内部市场结构的概念，将内部市场划分为简单型、合作主导型、竞争主导型、复合型四种结构类型；通过分析企业战略、内部定价对内部市场主体之间合作、竞争行为的影响，得出了企业战略决定内部市场结构应然、内部定价调节内部市场结构实然的结论：以内部市场结构的实然与应然相一致为原则．构建了企业内部市场定价的理论模型，阐述了在各种内部市场结构应然要求下的内部定价方法、决策权安排、绩效考核标准和激励机制等。     

Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges

Research on coopetition has been conducted for more than two decades. However, several concepts remain that require elaboration. A study on the literature shows that there is a lack of unified definitions, as various definitions have been employed in previous accomplished research. In this article we suggest that the early definition of coopetition, as a dual relationship between firms that simultaneously cooperate and compete needs to be refined. Our new definition suggests that coopetition is a paradoxical relationship between two or more actors, regardless of whether they are in horizontal or vertical relationships, simultaneously involved in cooperative and competitive interactions. We also highlight important contributions to the field, and some shortcomings that point to future challenges for coopetition research. Finally, we put forward five directions for future research: (1) understand the balancing of cooperation and competition, (2) understand the coopetition paradox and engendered tension, (3) apply a multilevel perspective on coopetition (4) understand the dynamics of coopetitive interaction, and (5) understand how coopetition impacts business models and strategy.     

Critical success factors in coopetition: Evidence on a business network

Coopetition in the literature of business networks has been discussed as a base strategy to potentiate competitiveness. This research investigates the main inter-relationship factors among the companies that are part of a network involving cooperation and competition, as well as their relationship in coopetition. This research discusses these questions through a review of the literature on coopetition and its application in business networks, basing the analysis on the critical success factors (CSF). Our analysis is conducted in the gastronomic industry, obtaining results through an exploratory investigation, conducted by applying the model suggested by Petter (2014) in a business network, attesting the means of the critical success factors and their correlations on the suggested dimensions and on coopetition. The main results for the critical success factors in coopetition indicate the importance of governance to maintain business networks, of cooperation to leverage innovative competencies, and that companies that have lower competencies regarding financial resources are more engaged in cooperation.     

The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability

In this study, we apply a paradox perspective on coopetition to investigate the effects of coopetition paradox on managers' experience and perception of coopetitive tensions, and the role of coopetition capability in managing such tensions. We propose a theoretical model to posit that the intensity of coopetition paradox positively associates with managers' experience of external tension, which in turn lead them to perceive internal tension. Further, coopetition capability plays a dual role—moderates the relation between coopetition paradox and external tension, and reduces internal tension. We tested hypotheses on a representative multi-industry sample of 1532 firms in Sweden and the results confirm them. Our study contributes to understanding the critical role of coopetition capability that enables firms to maintain a moderate level of tension regardless of the intensity of coopetition paradox.     

Value-creation-capture-equilibrium in new product development alliances: A matter of coopetition,expert power,and alliance importance

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.