Search results

Many firms engage in co-opetitive projects during which they have simultaneously competitive and collaborative relationships with many rivals in a complex network. A co-opetitive network offers them access to a large volume of resources and knowledge, for example, to support new markets and/or territories. So, does the network grow with the scope of the co-opetition project? The paper aims to discuss this issue.

An empirical study of 106 French boating intermediate-sized enterprises (ETIs) and small and medium enterprises provides a descriptive and explanatory analysis of co-opetitive networks.

The results support this definition of a complex co-opetitive network only when the objectives of a firm are part of the geographical expansion of its activities. In contrast, these relations remain simple (dyadic) when a firm favours a strategy of diversifying its activities while maintaining its unique local geographical market.

First, the work is based on a quantitative methodology, so is static. It would be interesting to analyze the process of the building of co-opetitive relationships and opportunism between rival firms, for example, through a qualitative study. Second, this work focusses on boating companies in France. It may be appropriate to consider the sanctions placed on the opportunism of foreign firms in co-opetition. Third, future work could increase understanding, not only of the nature of reprisals inflicted on individualistic co-opetitors, but also on the structure, objectives and results of these reprisals.

The study deepens our knowledge of the definition, composition and determinants of co-opetitive networks.

Over the past few decades, many initiatives have been proposed in response to critical environmental challenges. However, in most cases, progress has been inadequate, raising questions as to why so few organisations have been successful in adopting effective sustainability measures. To address this dilemma, this paper aims to propose a range of sustainability-related co-opetitive strategies that are likely to be beneficial for organisations and society. The research findings provide support for co-opetitive approaches to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability by providing evidence within an Australian context.

Research methods comprised 14 interviews with senior executives/managers from private and public sector organisations in Australia. Thematic content analysis indicates the presence of three types of drivers (commonality-driven, competition-driven and collaboration-driven) and three critical success factors (governance, public policy and relationship principles) related to co-opetition, CSR and sustainability.

Findings indicate that inter-firm co-opetition could be considered a viable strategy to improve performance across the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Limitations concern the number of interviews conducted.

Based on the research findings, a typology was created that depicts different forms of co-opetition in CSR/sustainability and their relationships with firm performance. Moreover, the typology illustrates the importance of co‐opetitive partnerships in supporting effective responses to sustainability challenges and opportunities.

The purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop the understanding of co‐opetition dynamics and to enhance the conceptual clarity of co‐opetition by developing a definition based on previous research efforts.

This conceptual paper integrates various approaches to the concept co‐opetition into a definition that holds for co‐opetitive interactions across multiple levels. Different co‐opetitive interactions and the resulting dynamics are discussed by drawing upon competition and cooperation theories. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research on co‐opetition dynamics.

The paper outlines how different types of co‐opetitive interactions result in archetypical situations where the dynamics of co‐opetition are present as well as where the dynamics of co‐opetition are missing due to a lack of balance between cooperation and competition. It notes four co‐opetitive forces: over‐embedding, distancing, confronting, and colluding. These four forces drive development towards situations without dynamics.

This paper provides a conceptual understanding of co‐opetition dynamics and will reveal that in order to adequately account for co‐opetition dynamics, a definition of co‐opetition must analytically separate the cooperative and the competitive interaction inherent in co‐opetition.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze important theoretical work conducted in the research streams of co-opetition and value creation. While innovation is acknowledged as a desirable and empirically verified outcome of co-opetition between firms, academic research has not systematically examined value creation outcomes of intra-firm co-opetition. This study aims to explore the nature of co-opetitive relationships within the firm. Processes of knowledge creation, differentiation and evolution are presented in the paper.

The paper examines and compares co-opetitive dynamics in different contexts, by adopting a multi-level approach to help understand and analyze the complex phenomenon of intra-organizational co-opetition. Value creation in an ecology perspective is discussed to enhance the conceptualization of the Quintuple Helix.

This paper highlights the role of knowledge differentiation as a driver of value creation. In particular, intra-firm co-opetition dynamics are investigated in relationship with knowledge evolution. A theoretical model is proposed via the Dynamics of Ultra-Organizational Co-opetition and Circuits of Knowledge (DUCCK) framework.

This paper attempts to provide new perspectives on the growing academic field of co-opetition and knowledge creation. It complements previous research in intra-organizational settings and offers an alternative knowledge-based view of organizational value creation.

The paper contributes to develop managers’ practices in understanding potential benefits of intra-organizational co-opetition. The paper also brings additional insights for knowledge management (KM) practitioners, by considering the impact of co-opetition on knowledge dynamics.

This paper explores, adds to the existing theoretical knowledge and contributes to the under-researched topic of intra-organizational co-opetition. This is the first attempt to link internal co-opetition to firm’s KM practices.

This paper aims to contribute towards a better understanding of the partner selection process, which anticipates a successful co-opetition partnership. Co-opetition partnerships refer to developing cooperation efforts between competitors. The scarcity of studies conducted in this field to date provides limited contribution for the understanding of the partner selection process in this, particularly, paradoxical concept.

This study follows a methodology based on systematic combining for the qualitative analysis of four cases of domestic co-opetition in Portugal. A sample range of eight companies was selected for a series of semi-structured interviews. Testimonials were transcribed and data coded for content analysis.

Results indicate that prior personal relationships between decision-makers are facilitators for the implementation of cooperation partnerships with competitors. Based on these findings, this paper proposes a three-step model to explain the process of partner selection for co-opetition partnerships. According to this model, after opting to commence a new coopetitive business alliance, the manager undergoes a first unconscious selection based on his/her own prior personal relationships, followed by a conscious and judicious selection based on specific criteria related to partner’s operational skills, resources, effectiveness and trust.

Given that the sample is entirely formed by companies from one single country, further research would benefit from the inclusion of other countries expressing different business contexts and cultural environments.

The value of paper derives from the comprehensive realization of partner selection for domestic co-opetition as fundamentally a network-related process.

This study aims to set out to develop and validate a new instrument to measure the multi-dimensional nature of co-opetition in corporate responsibility and sustainability (CRS). It is anticipated that this instrument will prove useful to firms wanting to adopt measures that support relevant sustainability strategies.

The scale development concerns three separate components, namely, item generation through expert interviews; a pilot study conducted for scale purification; and a final study for scale confirmation and validation, respectively. The final study comprises 215 firms across 11 sectors in Australia that engage in co-opetitive alliances for CRS activities.

This study empirically validates the distinctiveness of three dimensions (commonality-driven, competition-driven and collaboration-driven) of co-opetition in relation to CRS resulting in a 15-item multi-dimensional scale. The three dimensions were found to be important aspects both in terms of scale validity and organisational consideration.

This study proposes a new research area regarding the proposed framework, as well as practical strategies for practitioners when considering co-opetition and their firm’s engagement in CRS activities.

Prior studies in similar areas have mainly comprised conceptual or qualitative approaches and do not tend to focus on all three aspects of co-opetition, corporate social responsibility and sustainability.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between prior experience of organisations and their “co‐opetitive” behaviours in forming research networks when a R&D programme is launched in order to fund future research projects.

Drawing on both resource‐based writings and social embeddedness studies, the paper posits that two types of co‐opetition – namely the intra‐network and inter‐network co‐opetition – should be clearly distinguished in order to understand co‐opetitive behaviours of organisations. These two types of co‐opetition arise as a consequence of the different levels of firms' prior experience in forming successful co‐opetitive networks with their competitors.

A reverse U‐shape trade‐off between the two types of co‐opetition is hypothesised: the maximum level of intra‐network co‐opetition and the lowest of inter‐network co‐opetition are expected for low and highlevels of prior experience; the minimum level of intra‐network co‐opetition and the highest of inter‐network co‐opetition are expected for moderate levels of prior experience.

This paper sheds light on how co‐opetitive relationships emerge in R&D networks and under which circumstances competition prevails on cooperation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the introduction of the concept of co-opetition in an MBA classroom through the use of a live case study competition. As part of a capstone course at the University of Guelph, teams of three to four MBA students were required to work with a corporate partner in the food industry during a five-day intensive workshop. After spending one week analyzing and working on a plan, students were asked to compete in the MBA Boardroom Challenge, which is held on the last day of the course at the corporate partner’s headquarters. During the course of the week, while developing their plans, teams could choose to interact and met on two occasions with the corporate partner as a class to ask questions. This meant that teams operated in both a cooperative and competitive context during the course. While presentations were academically evaluated by the instructor, scholarships were offered to the winning team by the company using another set of criteria. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of blending cooperation and competition in a graduate business classroom and finds that the introduction of co-opetition enhanced outcomes for both students and partners. The limitations of this process are considered, and future research directions are suggested.

This project, the focus of this paper, was in partial fulfillment of a capstone strategic management course for the University of Glebe’s MBA program in Spring 2013. For this iteration, Longo’s Brothers, a well-established food distribution company, was brought in as the case study. The mandate of the course was to set a strategic view of Longo’s and Grocery Gateway (a division of Longo’s), a Canadian-based food e-distributor owned and operated by Longo’s Brothers. The concept of co-opetition and its application was introduced as part of the course.

Longo’s Brothers provided an ideal environment for a live case study. It was open, available end engaged at all levels. Its status as a family-owned business offered a unique perspective on the food industry as well. Students benefited from the company’s openness to share sensitive information with the group, and were able to ask information on finances, marketing, human resources and the organizational structure of the company. The level of cooperation was more than adequate for a MBA-level course. But students faced a few challenges.

The unpredictable nature of the entire process did not allow for measurement of knowledge acquirement and skill development. This is something such a course should address in future iterations. Future research could usefully explore a number of research questions around this area; namely, how live case studies might enable MBA students to better understand the element of co-opetition in their industry, while going through the interplay between theory and the practical application of theory over time. Also to be assessed is the choice of an incentive for the winning team and the overall effectiveness of doing so. The impact of this crucial elements on the course needs to be measured over a greater length of time.

Live case studies may be integrated into multiple courses, however, they require a lot of work on the part of the instructor, particularly when dealing with a company to negotiate an incentive and leverage the competitive environment. Setting up and maintaining relationships with collaborative corporate partners for the program takes significant time and effort, and the schedule of inputs into the students’ learning may not synchronize with the normal pattern of teaching. Whether this type of course can be sustained within a normal university environment is a moot point.

While presentations were evaluated academically by the instructor, scholarships were offered to the winning team by the company using another set of criteria. Criteria for grading are readily available to students at the start of the course, as per the University Senate bylaws. However, criteria used by the corporate partner are not disclosed, not even to the instructor. In fact, for the Longo’s Brothers project, the winning team failed to receive the highest grade. The winning team received the third highest grade of all seven teams competing.

The element of co-opetition in a MBA classroom seems to elevate the quality of projects, but more evidence need to be gathered to reinforce this hypothesis. It is believed that university courses cannot fully negotiate the emotional turmoil or complexity that live case studies encompass with conventional models of evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical evidence on the influence of co-opetition on food exporting in different distribution channels, taking as reference the vegetable farming-marketing sector in southeast Spain.

The study analyses the data collected from vegetable exporters’ associations and the firms’ individual financial reports. A multivariate empirical model is developed to measure the impact of cooperation and competition relationships (both horizontal and vertical ones) on exporting. This model includes the influence of main buyers distinguishing basically between retailers and wholesalers.

The results obtained show that diverse forms of collaboration with competitors, in both horizontal (such as logistics and research projects) and vertical dimensions (such as promotion and quality certifications) have positive effects on vegetable export propensity. These influences become more apparent when large retailers are the main buyers.

The analysed farming-marketing sector features certain singular characteristics, for example the type of products and firms, which should be taken into account when extrapolating the results to other agrifood industries.

For farming-marketing firms with little bargaining power in the supply chain of fresh produce, horizontal and vertical collaboration is a key factor in improving their exporting activity. A greater balance in co-opetition relationships is required to reduce the traditionally negative effect of competition among Spanish firms in the vegetable marketing sector.

These findings should be of value to researchers into co-opetition policies and to managers responsible for strategy formation in international agrifood firm environment.