Search results

The concept of coopetition is founded on the complementarity‐based nature of this strategy. However, coopetition research has devoted relatively little attention to complementarity issues and their impact on coopetition results. By bridging the coopetition and economics of complementarities research fields, we develop a model representing a classical optimization problem in complementarities as applied to coopetition in order to evaluate potential risks deriving at an operational level from implementing a coopetition strategy. The model we develop is a situated one and is based on empirical data from a longitudinal case study of coopetition in the mineral water and soft drinks industry. The results highlight a potential risk of coopetition strategies – namely, thresholds effects – as well as the associated risks a wrong understanding of complementarities in a coopetition setting may entail.

Members in the international joint ventures (IJVs) for high-speed rail (HSR) projects usually engage in coopetition interactions to create common benefits (CB) and simultaneously safeguard private benefits (PB). Previous studies of coopetition and performance using variance-based methods usually ignore the combinational influence of diverse coopetition constructs on performance, which can be effectively compensated by adopting a configuration perspective. Therefore, this research aims to ascertain various combinations of three coopetition constructs (coopetition relationship, coopetition capability and coopetition strategy) that lead to high IJVs’ performance through a configuration approach.

First, the research framework of coopetition configuration was established, and the key constructs were operationalized, which were validated by expert interviews. Then the information on 12 HSR IJVs was collected and quantified through nine rounds of interviews and a questionnaire survey. Later, the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was applied to explore what coopetition configurations benefit the CB or PB achievement.

Configuration results indicate that six coopetition configurations lead to CB outcome and seven configurations lead to PB outcome. Based on the results, coopetition contexts are divided into four categories: firm-based coopetition, project-based coopetition, firm-project-based coopetition and none-based coopetition. Then, a selection scheme for coopetition strategies in various contexts has been developed. The results also show that the core conditions mostly appear in the coopetition relationships and coopetition strategies dimensions, and the optimal coopetition strategies vary in different contexts.

This study enhances the theoretical understanding of coopetition in HSR IJVs and assists relative HSR industrialists, as well as the mega infrastructure project managers, in IJVs’ implementation. The configuration perspective of this paper also contributes to a systemic and holistic view of coopetition in HSR IJVs.

Coopetition is a well-studied phenomenon in traditional enterprises. However, it lacks deepening in the social sphere, specifically on hybrid organizations (social and commercial goals). This paper analyzes the configuration of coopetition strategies in social enterprises and how these strategies can improve social value devolution.

The authors conducted a multicase study with Brazilian social enterprises and a social incubator. Semistructured interviews with founders of the social enterprises and the president of the incubator were the primary sources of evidence, supported by observations and secondary data.

The authors identified four main findings: (1) the social incubator induces coopetition among social enterprises; (2) coopetition is necessary to improve market performance; (3) coopetition is a natural strategy resulting from the activity of the social enterprise; (4) the behavior and context of social enterprises generate a new framework for coopetition formation. This framework comprises three stages of value: a social cooperation level to co-creation of value; second, a social competition level to the appropriation of value; and the third coopetition-balanced level to social value devolution.

The authors advance knowledge on coopetition in an exciting, underexplored context, social entrepreneurship. The authors highlight that the coopetition nature and outcome in social enterprises have specificities compared to traditional businesses. The authors also improve the understanding of social value devolution based on simultaneous cooperation and competition among small social enterprises, allowing theoretical and practical implications. Thus, they advance the recurring discussion in coopetition literature beyond the generation and appropriation of value.

Coopetition is a revolutionary mindset that combines competition and cooperation. This paper aims to determine and to examine success factors critical to coopetition strategy management and to explore the identified factors in Hong Kong manufacturing.

Based on a literature review and expert interviews following the analytic hierarchy process, this paper identifies and prioritizes seven critical success factors and 17 critical success sub‐factors comprising three success factor categories: management commitment, relationship development, and communication management.

The results show that management leadership and development of trust are the most important success factors. Based on the factors identified, the authors propose a hierarchical model for coopetition strategy management, which has been validated in Hong Kong industry to facilitate the formulation of action plans for better coopetition management.

The prioritization of critical success factors and sub‐factors can help practitioners understand their relative importance and develop improvement plans in cases where they lack sufficient resources to deal with all factors simultaneously.

This paper identifies the critical factors for implementing coopetition and also validates and prioritizes them in Hong Kong manufacturing industry. It provides valuable information that can help manufacturers accomplish coopetition.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the intellectual structure of coopetition through utilizing a citation and co-citation analysis of scholarly articles focusing on coopetition.

The authors conducted bibliometric analyses of citation and co-citation analysis. The units of analysis were original research articles and research notes retrieved from journals indexed by well-known databases. Keywords used in the search were “co-opet, co-opet, coopetition, coopetition, simultaneous cooperation and competition, simultaneously cooperate and compete, coexistence of cooperation and competition, coexistence of cooperation and competition, cooperate and compete simultaneously, coopetitive relationships, coopetitive relationships, coopetitive networks, horizontal alliances, cooperate with competitors, cooperation with competitors, cooperative relationships with competitors, cooperative competition and competitive cooperation.” Regarding the time period for publication of the sample articles, the authors did not place any restrictions.

The research findings provide evidence that coopetition demonstrates multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary characteristics. Subfields of the coopetition field were identified based on the components of coopetition, which are relation, process and strategy. The component dealing with relationship management and innovation as strategy become prominent. Although coopetition literature has emerged as a relation view of strategy, it is still fragmented and diverse. Additionally, the robust subfields generated from the analysis were super-positioned with low degrees.

This is one of the few studies offering a critical review of coopetition research via quantitative research approach.

The reality of today’s business world is based both on cooperation and competition, or coopetition. There is, however, a lot of diversity within the field of coopetition research, and the research within this field is moreover only at an emerging stage. The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of coopetition by recognizing actor and operational levels of coopetition. The nature of the paper is conceptual. The findings of the paper show that most of the previous research about coopetition has been on an interfirm level – that is, related to cooperation between companies. Further, it is possible to argue that the studies have mostly focused on cooperation between competitors. In the majority of the existing studies, coopetition is treated as a strategy, and not as something natural. The theoretical contribution of this paper is that it gives scholars within the area of coopetition a broad theoretical background, which is useful for future research. From a managerial perspective, the findings demonstrate the multifaceted nature of coopetition.

The purpose of this study is to understand the role institutions play in driving the internationalization of firms in an emerging country through promotion of coopetition. Investigating the relationships between coopetition, institutions and internationalization, especially among firms in emerging countries, is an important approach that has received little attention.

This study has used a single case study interviewing managers of Brazilian wineries and representatives of formal institutions in an emerging economy. A research framework taking an institutions-based view of strategy and applying it to study coopetition and internationalization is proposed.

Formal institutions are the most important players in the promotion of coopetition between firms in the Brazilian wine industry. Coopetition enables firms to access new resources and capabilities, promoting and facilitating internationalization, while also increasing firms’ competitiveness in the domestic market. The study also found evidence of certain limiting factors within these relationships, caused by the heterogeneous nature of the firms involved and by the asymmetries in their perceptions of the gains achieved.

As a consequence of the methodology adopted, the results of this study are limited to the Brazilian wine industry. Future research should extend the approach to data collected in different countries and industries. Another promising avenue for research is to explore how decisions of a political nature influence the institutions that coordinate an industry, which would provide a new perspective on the internationalization of the firms involved.

The results offer governments and institutions an opportunity to better understand, and therefore to better manage, their actions in relation to their role in the promotion of the competitiveness of firms and industries, both in international and domestic markets. For firms, the results offer insights into the possible gains and the limitations of coopetition strategies, contributing to their decision-making on involvement. The study also contributes to understanding the competitiveness of the industry investigated.

This study approaches coopetition from the institutional perspective. It also focuses on internationalization of firms from an emerging country, which is characterized by a lack of firm-specific resources. The proposed framework seems promising for future research investigating coopetition and institutions within an integrated analytical framework.

This chapter develops an on-going theory of coopetition management in knowledge-based industries. Coopetition is a strategy which combines simultaneously competitive and collaborative relationships. This combination permits companies to benefit from both the advantages of the competition and the advantage of collaboration. However, this strategy is also risky in case of unintended spillovers and technology plunders. Companies have to manage the coopetitive risk by implementing three principles of coopetition management: the separation principle, the integration principle, and the co-management principle.

The purpose of this paper is to explore interactional and procedural practices in managing tensions of coopetition (simultaneous collaboration and competition between firms).

Through an in-depth literature review of prior research within coopetition and strategy-as-practice fields, and by using two illustrative empirical examples, the authors develop a framework for preventing and managing coopetitive tensions through combinations of procedural and interactional practices.

The authors identify tensions related to strategizing, task and resource allocation, as well as knowledge sharing. Furthermore, they demonstrate potential ways of how these tensions can be prevented, resolved and managed.

The findings show that the analysis of tensions in coopetition would benefit from a holistic, multilevel approach that recognizes practices that are interactional (i.e. face-to-face interactions) as well as procedural (i.e. organizational routines). Coopetitive tensions and their resolution are related to the use or neglect of both types of practices. Furthermore, interactional and procedural practices are mutually interdependent and can complement each other in tension management in various ways.

The findings of this study shed light on the roles and activities of actual practitioners involved in coopetition, and shows how their work and practices in-use contribute to coopetition, related tensions and their resolution.

By adopting the strategy-as-practice approach, this study generates valuable insights into the practices and tensions in coopetition, as well as illuminates the roles of the practitioners involved in managing coopetition relationships.

This study aims to examine the strategic implications and managerial outcomes of the concurrent use of cooperation and competition in vertical channel relationships.

This study employs a structured questionnaire to gather data regarding vertical channel relationships in China.

Whereas the academic literature has emphasized cooperation between channel members because of the interdependence between them, in reality, retailers may accept competition as just another part of doing business with suppliers.

The outcome variables used may not be comprehensive. In particular, the authors choose the flexibility of channel resources to stand for private benefits and joint benefits to represent common benefits, and though these variables certainly represent the intended benefits of the ambidextrous strategy, it remains to be seen whether other benefits may emerge for the exchange parties in vertical relationships.

Using an ambidextrous strategy does not damage relationship quality, though it certainly does not enhance it. This view is based on the notion that an ambidextrous strategy at least does not harm either common or private benefits. Therefore, exchange parties using the ambidextrous strategy should not experience a relationship that is worse than that which results when they use cooperation or competition alone. The results of the current study indicate that this view reflects reality more accurately.

The value of the current study centers on the application of a conceptual framework regarding ambidextrous strategy to vertical channel relationships in a developing economy.