Search results

Although earlier research suggests a positive relationship exists between engaging in entrepreneurial marketing activities and firm performance, there may be contingent issues that impact the association. This investigation unpacks the relationship between entrepreneurial marketing behaviour and firm performance under the moderating role of coopetition, in an immediate post-COVID-19 period.

A resource-based theoretical lens, alongside an outside-in perspective, underpins this study. Following 20 field interviews, survey responses via an online survey were obtained from 306 small, passive exporting wine producers with a domestic market focus in the United States. The data passed all major robustness checks.

The statistical findings indicated that entrepreneurial marketing activities positively and significantly influenced firm performance, while coopetition provided a non-significant moderation effect. Field interviews suggested that entrepreneurs’ attemps to scale up from passive to more active export activities in an immediate post-pandemic period helped explain the findings. Owner-managers rejoined trustworthy and complementary pre-pandemic coopetition partners in the immediate aftermath of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for domestic market activities. In contrast, they had to minimise risks from dark-side/opportunistic behaviour when joining coopetition networks with partners while attempting to scale up export market activities.

Unique insights emerge to unpack the entrepreneurial marketing–performance relationship via the moderation effect of coopetition, namely, with the temporal setting of an immediate post-COVID-19 period. Firstly, new support arises regarding the likely performance-enhancing impact of owner-managers’ engagement in entrepreneurial marketing practices. Secondly, novel findings emerge in respect of the contrasting role of coopetition in both domestic and export market activities. Thirdly, new evidence arises in relation to a resource-based theoretical lens alongside an outside-in perspective, whereby, strategic flexibility in pivoting facets of a firm’s business model needs effective management following a crisis.

This study aimed to understand coopetition in the context of Brazilian specialty coffee grower Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), based on the need to differentiate the beans in and outside the farm level, taking into account the stakeholders’ influence.

In this study twenty semistructured interviews were carried out with coffee growers and managers of cooperatives, associations and supporting institutions involving two Brazilian coffee geographical indications. Data were analyzed using a mixed grid composed of qualitative, semantic and categorical factors.

Strategic moves undertaken by coffee growers and stakeholders have shaped the pathway of coopetition among coffee growers, as determinants to frame it as a deliberate or emergent pattern (intentional or unplanned, respectively). Our findings provide evidence that coopetition development among firms is deliberate when influenced by firms’ or stakeholders’ cooperative moves and emergent when influenced by firms’ or stakeholders’ competitive moves.

Although the firm/stakeholder relationship is often approached as a joint wealth creation effort, stakes are not always fairly distributed, so one of the parties may be negatively affected, with consequences for the development of coopetition. Underpinned by a stakeholder-oriented resource-based theoretical lens, this investigation of the development patterns of coopetition linked to the strategic actions undertaken by firms and stakeholders has resonance on competitive advantages.

Coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition of actors) is still a relatively new concept in business, management, and tourism. However, several coopetition studies have focused on tourism and tourism destinations. Also, compilation literature reviews of tourism and tourism destinations have been published (Rusko, 2018). This chapter focuses on underlying coopetition networks of tourism and specifically of tourism destinations. Because of the typical features of tourism destinations, multifaceted connections in competition and cooperation – and coopetition – are present in everyday business and activities among actors of the destination. These coopetitive relationships cover several levels, they are present in micro, meso, macro, and meta level interplay of tourism destination. Furthermore, the analysis shows that several studies about coopetitive networks in tourism destinations do not use terms “macro” or “meta” though these seem to be the main levels of the studies. This only reveals the fertile dimensions of coopetitive networks in tourism. These various relationships form coopetitive networks that represent several dimensions and levels of actors, competition, cooperation, and coopetition. This chapter introduces these multifaceted perspectives of coopetition networks, which have been described in the contemporary literature about tourism and tourism destination.

The purpose of this study is to explore the coopetition relationships between platform owners and complementors in complementary product markets. Drawing on the coopetition theory, the authors examined the evolutionary trends of the coopetition relationships between platform owners and complementors and explore the main influence factors.

The authors used Lotka–Volterra model to analyze the coopetition relationship between platform owners and complementors, including the evolutionary trends as well as the results. Considering the feasibility of sample data collection, simulation is used to verify the effects of different factors on the evolution of coopetition relationships.

The results show that there are four possible results of the competition in the complementary products market. That comprises “winner-take-all for platform owners,” “winner-take-all for complementors,” “stable competitive coexistence” and “unstable competitive coexistence,” where “stable competitive coexistence” is the optimal evolutionary state. Moreover, the results of competitive evolution are determined by innovation subjects’ interaction parameters. However, the natural growth rate, the initial market benefits of the two innovators and the overall benefits of the complementary product markets influence the time to reach a steady state.

The study provides new insights into the entry of platform owners into complementary markets, and the findings highlight the fact that in complementary product markets, platform owners and complementors should seek “competitive coexistence” rather than “winner-takes-all.” Moreover, the authors also enrich the coopetition theory by revealing the core factors that influence the evolution of coopetition relationships, which further enhance the analysis of the evolutionary process of coopetition relationships.

Corporate responsibility and sustainability (CRS) have emerged as an important topic today. At the same time, alliances and coopetition arrangements, as vehicles for inter-firm collaboration have been shown to support firm performance. Still, there has been a lack of research into how coopetition (collaboration with competing firms) in this area may support firm performance.

This study aims to untangle the relationship between coopetition arrangements including CRS and firm performance. The model permits garnering social performance, which is a key to CRS, and to move beyond the traditional view of the coopetition–firm–economic–performance relationship. This study is based on a survey and primary data from 215 firms in Australia. This study uses multiple indicators for the concepts. Relationships are estimated by multiple regression analyses.

Using survey data from 215 firms in Australia, the research findings confirm that coopetition in CRS can lead to improved firm performance, both in relation to financial and social performances. However, the association between coopetition in CRS and financial performance loses its significance when social performances is introduced as an additional control variable. Further, stakeholder attributes (i.e., effective power and legitimate stake) moderate the relationship between coopetition in CRS and firm financial performance. However, there was no evidence of moderation for the coopetition in CRS – firm social performance relationship.

This study contributes to both coopetition and corporate social responsibility research. This study demonstrates that improved firm performance may be achieved through the promotion of CRS initiatives when a coopetitive approach is adopted, particularly where an understanding of stakeholder attributes is also evident. Firms do not need to shoulder corporate social responsibility alone. They need to find well-fitting partners. There are new ways to improve sustainability in terms of nature and human relationships.

Firms do not need to shoulder Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) alone. They need to find well-fitting partners.

This study provides very novel insights by having integrated the literature on coopetition, corporate social responsibility and sustainability resulting in a new conceptual framework that combines coopetition in CRS and performance. The new conceptual framework has both practical and research implications for coopetition in CRS and firm performance.

Innovativeness is crucial for industrial cluster firms to gain sustained competitive advantage. This study aims to investigate the effects of inter-firm coopetition on firm innovativeness within a cluster and examines the moderating role of institutional support.

This research adopts an empirical survey method using multi-source data from 181 industrial cluster firms. Regression is used to test the hypotheses of this study.

The results show that cooperation and constructive conflict promote firm innovativeness, while destructive conflict is detrimental to firm innovativeness. Moreover, the study also finds that cooperation interacts with both types of conflict to affect firm innovativeness, where cooperation and constructive conflict interact negatively on firm innovativeness, while cooperation and destructive conflict interact positively on firm innovativeness. In addition, institutional support weakens the effects of cooperation and destructive conflict on innovativeness, respectively, but has no significant moderating effect on the relationship between constructive conflict and innovativeness.

These findings enrich the current research on coopetition. The interaction effects of cooperation and both types of conflict on innovativeness deepen the concept of coopetition and responds to the call to further explore the interaction effects within coopetition. The moderating role of institutional support fills a gap in the empirical research on the role of institutional factors affecting coopetition on innovation and also provides valuable suggestions for firm managers and governments in industrial clusters.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion on how multinational company (MNC) headquarters (HQs) can manage the existing coopetition paradox to ensure innovation within the MNC. In contrast to the rather scarce previous research, the authors argue that HQ needs to solve the coopetition paradox under the sway of a parenting paradox. Hence, HQ faces a dual paradox.

Drawing on the literature on HQ’s role during MNCs’ innovation processes, this conceptual paper revisits the previously suggested HQ measures to enable coopetition among subsidiaries. By applying a sheer ignorance perspective, the authors contribute with a more nuanced understanding of the HQ’s role in innovation activities.

The article identifies four challenges as the HQ faces a parenting paradox that hinders its ability to solve the coopetition paradox: context specificity of subsidiaries’ innovation work, normative expectations of subsidiary managers, potential opportunistic behavior of HQ manager and HQ underestimation of needed resources. The article suggests that HQ needs to become more informed and preferably even embedded in the local innovation networks of its most important subsidiaries and that coopetition should not be managed solely on an HQ level.

Advocating a sheer ignorance perspective, the article pioneers in discussing the role that HQ plays in managing coopetition among subsidiaries in innovation activities.

Coopetition is ubiquitous in the economy, but managing effectively this type of relationship between firms remains a challenge for many organizations. This paper investigates the coopetition within corporate groups and focus on factors that determine the simultaneous competition and cooperation between subsidiaries therein.

Drawing on a dataset of 121 corporate groups listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (WSE), this paper theoretically advances and empirically validates the impact of 18 factors which determine the coopetition relationship.

This study's findings confirm the importance of an organizational design among external and internal drivers of intrafirm coopetition. However, the role of an environmental uncertainty as a driver of intrafirm coopetition is not proven. Furthermore, the paper finds that internal determinants explain the phenomenon of coopetition between subsidiaries within a corporate group more than determinants related to the environment.

The paper contributes to the coopetition theory by empirical identification of drivers of intrafirm coopetition and advances the corporate groups studies by exploring internal relationships (cooperation and competition) and the determinants therein.

This study investigates how a competitor orientation (knowledge of and acting on competitors' strengths and weaknesses) facilitates coopetition activities (collaboration with competitors), within networks of competing micro-sized, independent, family restaurants, owned by entrepreneurs from ethnic minority backgrounds.

An instrumental case study features data collected from interviews with 30 owners (as key informants) of micro-sized, independent, family-owned restaurants, in two urban clusters within the Midlands (UK). Specifically, the context involves restaurants offering South Asian cuisine and where the owner originated from the Indian sub-continent (Bangladesh, India or Pakistan). Secondary data were collected wherever possible. These two clusters (not named for ethics reasons) are highly populated by members of these respective ethnic communities; also, they contain a relatively large number of restaurants offering South Asian cuisine.

A competitor orientation facilitated strong coopetition-oriented partnerships comprised of extended family and intra-community members that helped enhance individual firms' performance, maintained family employment and sustained their cluster. It also helped owners develop subtle counter strategies where weak ties existed, such as via inter-community networks. For example, strategies attracted customers that were not loyal to a particular restaurant, or indeed, sub-ethnic cuisine (within Bangladesh, India or Pakistan, like the Punjab region). Subtle as opposed to outright counter strategies minimised retaliation, since restaurant owners wanted to avoid price wars, or spreading misinformation where the reputation of a cluster may suffer alongside the likely survival of individual businesses within that regional cluster.

Mixed evidence exists in earlier studies regarding the competitive rivalry in certain sectors where ethnic minority ownership is prominent; not least, restaurants located in regional clusters. However, this investigation considers the notion – what if some of these earlier studies are wrong? More specifically, does certain prior research under-represent the extent that rival entrepreneurs of an ethnic minority origin collaborate rather than compete for mutually beneficial purposes? New evidence emerges regarding ways in which a competitor orientation can influence the performance-enhancing nature of coopetition activities among business owners originating from both intra and inter-ethnic communities.

Supplier–supplier coopetition is vital to buyer innovation in reality. However, it has not received enough attention in prior research. Integrating the ability-motivation-opportunity framework of organizational learning perspective and the awareness-motivation-capability framework of competitive dynamics theory, this paper investigates the effect of supplier–supplier coopetition within supplier network on buyer innovation, as well as the contingent role of the relational attributes -- duration and tie strength dispersion of buyer–suppliers relationship at the supplier network level.

Testing this model on the secondary data of supply networks formed by 204 US listed buyer firms in SIC code 28, 35, 36 during 2008–2019, the authors utilize a fixed-effect regression model to investigate the relationship between supplier–supplier coopetition and the focal buyer's innovation.

The authors provide support for the positive influence of supplier–supplier cooperation on buyer innovation and an inverted U-shaped relationship between supplier–supplier competition and the focal buyer's innovation. The buyer–suppliers tie strength dispersion amplified the above two effects, and supplier–supplier cooperation mitigates the effect of supplier–supplier competition on the focal buyer's innovation.

Extending the traditional dyadic view to a network-level view via linking the supplier–supplier dyad and the buyer–suppliers dyad, this paper contributes to a better understanding of supplier–supplier coopetition and its impact on buyer innovation with learning and competitive tension as the underlying explanations, and validates the contingent role of buyer–suppliers relational attributes.