Abstract
This special issue is an outcome of the 2017 Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy (GIKA) Conference, which took place at ISEG School of Economics and Management, Lisbon, Portugal, between June 28th and 30th, 2017. As the seventh of its kind, the 2017 GIKA Conference continued to attract the attention of scholars from around the world, receiving more than 600 submissions, only 300 of which were accepted for presentation at the conference. The topic of this special issue—the relation between coopetition and innovation/entrepreneurship—had an own track at the GIKA Conference, which served as a first round review for some of the submissions to the journal. The special issue was also open for external submissions.
1 Introduction
Scholarly interest in coopetition has grown over the last two decades. Although there is no standard definition of coopetition (Gast et al. 2015), coopetition is more than just a mix of cooperation and competition (Morris et al. 2007), two concepts that, individually, have been studied extensively. Coopetition refers to merging cooperation and competition to form a new type of strategic relationship between firms (Dagnino and Padula 2002; Kraus et al. 2017). Today, cooperation between competitors represents a strategic competitiveness factor.
Gast et al. (2015) and Bouncken et al. (2015) conducted extensive reviews of the coopetition literature, grouping studies and proposing ideas for future research. Coopetition studies have primarily focused on large or multinational companies (Dagnino and Padula 2002; Dussauge et al. 2000; Kanter 1994). In contrast, SMEs and start-ups have received less attention in the coopetition literature. SMEs’ characteristics differ from those of large firms. SMEs normally have fewer resources, smaller market shares (often targeting niche markets), and greater vulnerability to environmental factors.
Morris et al. (2007) report that small firms have less to contribute in a coopetitive strategy than large firms do because small firms’ core competencies are still under development and the learning in these organizations is less systematic and organized than it is in large firms. Another issue is that entrepreneurs, who must focus on the increasing need to grow and develop their firms, are unable to dedicate attention to coopetition or invest the resources that it requires.
Crucially, however, coopetition offers small firms an opportunity to enter certain markets that start-ups would otherwise be unable to access on their own. Therefore, a strategy of cooperating with competitors allows small firms to access markets where large firms dominate (Morris et al. 2007) and where innovation is a requirement to be competitive. As mentioned, some studies have focused on SMEs (Thomason et al. 2013; Bengtsson and Johansson 2014; Ribeiro-Soriano et al. 2016), but few have addressed family firms or start-ups, as Gast et al. (2015) note.
Coopetition offers firms certain advantages that stem from the synergies of sharing costs, risks, economies of scale (Luo 2007; Gnyawali and Park 2009, 2011; Osarenkhoe 2010), R&D operations (Walley 2007), and access to knowledge and external resources (Bengtsson and Kock 2000; Akdoğan and Cingšz 2012). Rodrigues et al. (2011) report that coopetition can boost sales, market share, and international brand recognition and successfully enable market penetration strategies.
Today’s turbulent competitive environments, coupled with intense competition, mean that innovation provides a source of competitive advantage. Yet, to ensure sustainability nowadays, it is not enough for many firms to have outstanding, novel, innovative products or advantages in resources and capabilities. For these firms, the ability to compete depends on their capacity to coopete (Morris et al. 2007). In such cases, a cooperation strategy allows firms to utilize organizational resources, and it may be useful to protect the firm’s competitive status in the market (Dyer and Singh 1998).
Despite the importance of coopetition and innovation, the literature lacks a thorough exploration of the link between coopetition and innovation. However, because coopetition and innovation capabilities are more important in complex, dynamic environments, it is crucial to study the conditions under which firms are capable of cooperating to yield benefits, which constitutes an essential part of regional development (Quintana-Garcia and Benavides-Velasco 2004; Mention 2011). In light of the above, studies that explore the relationship between coopetition and entrepreneurship would be of interest.
Accordingly, some studies have begun to link coopetition to innovation (Ritala 2012; Bouncken and Fredrich 2012; Ritala and Sainio 2014; West and Bogers 2014; Yami and Nemeh 2014; Bouncken et al. 2016). As innovation becomes further rooted in the organization’s capacity to access external knowledge sources, coopetition increasingly shares a positive relationship with innovation, which offers a mechanism for organizational learning (Bengtsson and Kock 2000; Mas-Tur and Soriano 2014). Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the mechanisms that firms employ to protect their core competencies, skills, and knowledge (Gast et al. 2015).
Scholars have shown that coopetition can contribute to different types of innovation: incremental and radical innovation (Bouncken and Fredrich 2012; Yami and Nemeh 2014), open innovation (Enkel et al. 2009; Chesbrough and Bogers 2014), and technological innovation (Ritala and Sainio 2014).
Bengtsson and Kock (2000) and Osarenkhoe (2010) have found that cooperation is more important during the early phases of the innovation process, whereas competition is more important in the latter stages, namely when the firm has launched the product. In many cases, coopetition offers an attractive strategy to improve the firm’s competitive performance and ensure the success of radical innovations (Bouncken and Fredrich 2012). Accordingly, coopetition potentially offers competitive advantages that derive from the firm’s ability to develop products or services that the same firm on its own could never develop or would take too long to do so (Ganguli 2007; Walley 2007).
Nevertheless, certain scholars affirm that coopetition can hinder or delay the innovation process and curb investment in new technologies (Amaldoss et al. 2000; Gomes-Casseres 1997; Jorde and Teece 1989). For example, Robson and Bennett (2000) argue that collaboration in a horizontal relationship has no positive influence on firm performance. The articles in this special issue tackle numerous issues surrounding the relationships between coopetition, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
2 Contributions
Out of the 25 submissions received on the relation between coopetition and innovation/entrepreneurship for consideration in this special issue, only seven manuscripts were accepted. Submission was possible either via the conference, or independently submitted directly to the journal. For those submissions which were submitted via the GIKA 2017, the two reviews for the conference track served as a first review round. Regardless of how they were submitted, all 25 contributions to this special issue had to go through an additional review process of two or three rounds following the conference. This process required approval from at least two anonymous reviewers in order to be selected for publication in the journal.
In the first article, “Coopetition in coworking-spaces: value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space,” Bouncken, Laudien, Görmar, and Fredrich primarily use interview data to explain four prototype institutions of coworking-spaces: the corporate coworking-space, the open corporate coworking-space, the consultancy coworking-space, and the independent coworking-space. Hora, Gast, Kailer, Rey-Marti and Mas-Tur present “David and Goliath: causes and effects of coopetition between start-ups and corporates.” The authors use multiple case studies to explore the motives of coopeting start-ups and corporates, their management of coopetitive relationships, and the implications regarding potential benefits and risks.
The next contribution, “New MNE subsidiaries in old clusters: when, why, and how,” by Belso-Martínez, López-Sánchez, and Mateu-García presents a case study to explore how the creation and activity of a specialized subsidiary and the evolution of the industrial system interweave. The findings confirm that subsidiary embeddedness and autonomy are at the heart of successful creation and performance. “Organizational innovativeness and coopetition: a study of video game developers,” by Klimas and Czakon, explores the interdependency between organizational innovativeness and coopetition using correlation and regression analyses. They report a significant positive relationship between organizational innovativeness and direct and indirect coopetition.
In the next contribution, “Developing green innovation performance by fostering of organizational knowledge and coopetitive relations,” Albort-Morant, Leal-Millán, Cepeda-Carrion, and Henseler use PLS path-modeling to explore the links between firms’ knowledge base, relationship learning, and green innovation performance under a coopetitive framework. In the contribution titled “Paving the way for coopetition: drivers for work-life balance policy implementation,” Adame-Sánchez, Caplliure, and Miquel-Romero apply fsQCA to data for 132 Spanish SMEs to analyze the role of external financial assistance and specific laws together with budgetary provision for work-life balance policies and managers’ perceptions regarding work-life conflict.
Finally, Vanyushyn, Bengtsson, Näsholm, and Boter present “International coopetition for innovation: are the benefits worth the challenges?”, a contribution which has been awarded with the Best Paper award of the “Coopetition and Innovation/Entrepreneurship” track at the GIKA 2017 conference. Building on survey data, the authors confirm that companies that participate in international cooperation with competitors have a higher propensity to introduce radical innovations.
References
Akdoğan AA, Cingšz A (2012) An empirical study on determining the attitudes of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) related to coopetition. Procedia—Soc. Behav Sci 58:252–258
Amaldoss W, Meyer RJ, Raju JS, Rapoport A (2000) Collaborating to compete. Mark Sci 19(2):105–126
Bengtsson M, Johansson M (2014) Managing coopetition to create opportunities for small firms. Int Small Bus J 32(4):401–427
Bengtsson M, Kock S (2000) Coopetition in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Ind Mark Manag 29(5):411–426
Bouncken RB, Fredrich V (2012) Coopetition: performance implications and management antecedents. Int J Innov Manag 16(5):1–28
Bouncken RB, Gast J, Kraus S, Bogers M (2015) Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Rev Manag Sci 9(3):577–601
Bouncken R, Fredrich V, Ritala P, Kraus S (2016) Coopetition in new product development alliances—advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. Br J Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12213 (in press)
Chesbrough H, Bogers M (2014) Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In: Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (eds) New frontiers in open innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dagnino GB, Padula G (2002) Coopetition strategy: a new kind of interfirm dynamics for value creation. In: Innovative research in management, second annual conference, vol 9. European Academy of Management (EURAM), Stockholm
Dussauge P, Garrette B, Mitchell W (2000) Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strateg Manag J 21(2):99–126
Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(4):660–679
Enkel E, Gassmann O, Chesbrough H (2009) Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Manag 39(4):311–316
Ganguli S (2007) Coopetition models in the context of modern business. ICFAI J Mark Manag 6(4):6–16
Gast J, Filser M, Gundolf K, Kraus S (2015) Coopetition research: towards a better understanding of past trends and future directions. Int J Entrepr Small Bus 24(4):492–521
Gnyawali DR, Park BJR (2009) Co-opetition and technological innovation in small and medium- sized enterprises: a multilevel conceptual model. J Small Bus Manag 47(3):308–330
Gnyawali DR, Park BJR (2011) Co-opetition between giants: collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Res Policy 40(5):650–663
Gomes-Casseres B (1997) Alliance strategies of small firms. Small Bus Econ 9(1):33–44
Jorde TM, Teece DJ (1989) Competition and cooperation: striking the right balance. Calif Manag Rev 31(3):25–37
Kanter RM (1994) Collaborative advantage. Harv Bus Rev 72(4):96–108
Kraus S, Meier F, Niemand T, Bouncken RB, Ritala P (2017) In search for the ideal coopetition partner: an experimental study. Rev Manag Sci 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0237-0
Luo Y (2007) A coopetition perspective of global competition. J World Bus 42(2):129–144
Mas-Tur A, Soriano DR (2014) The level of innovation among young innovative companies: the impacts of knowledge-intensive services use, firm characteristics and the entrepreneur attributes. Serv Bus 8(1):51–63
Mention AL (2011) Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation 31(1):44–53
Morris MH, Koçak A, Özer A (2007) Coopetition as a small business strategy: implications for performance. J Small Bus Strategy 18(1):35–36
Osarenkhoe A (2010) A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation–a coopetition strategy. J Database Mark Cust Strategy Manag 17(3–4):201–221
Quintana-Garcia C, Benavides-Velasco CA (2004) Cooperation, competition, and innovative capability: a panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation 24(12):927–938
Ribeiro-Soriano DE, Roig-Tierno N, Mas-Tur A (2016) Governance models of coopetition and innovation: the case of Spanish firms. Int J Technol Manag 71(1–2):38–57
Ritala P (2012) Coopetition strategy–when is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. Br J Manag 23(3):307–324
Ritala P, Sainio LM (2014) Coopetition for radical innovation: technology, market and business-model perspectives. Technol Anal Strategy Manag 26(2):155–169
Robson PJ, Bennett RJ (2000) SME growth: the relationship with business advice and external collaboration. Small Bus Econ 15(3):193–208
Rodrigues F, Souza V, Leitão J (2011) Strategic coopetition of global brands: a game theory approach to ‘Nike+ iPod Sport Kit’ co-branding. Int J Entrep Ventur 3(4):435–455
Thomason SJ, Simendinger E, Kiernan D (2013) Several determinants of successful coopetition in small business. J Small Bus Entrep 26(1):15–28
Walley K (2007) Coopetition: an introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. Int Stud Manag Organ 37(2):11–31
West J, Bogers M (2014) Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 31(4):814–831
Yami S, Nemeh A (2014) Organizing coopetition for innovation: the case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe. Ind Mark Manag 43(2):250–260
Acknowledgements
The guest editors of this special issue thank the participants of the 2017 Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy (GIKA) Conference, held at ISEG School of Economics and Management, Lisbon, Portugal, from June 28 to 30, 2017. We are especially grateful to Professors Ralf Ewert and Wolfgang Kürsten, Editors-in-Chief of the “Review of Managerial Science”, for offering this special issue titled “The relation between coopetition and innovation/entrepreneurship.” We also thank all reviewers for providing constructive comments and suggestions to help the authors improve their papers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roig‐Tierno, N., Kraus, S. & Cruz, S. The relation between coopetition and innovation/entrepreneurship. Rev Manag Sci 12, 379–383 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0266-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0266-8