Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

David and Goliath: causes and effects of coopetition between start-ups and corporates

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coopetition (collaboration between competitors) among young firms (i.e. start-ups) and larger, more established firms (i.e. corporates) may be beneficial for both partners as each party typically has something to offer that is missing in the other. Start-ups often develop innovative ideas, are flexible and agile, willing to take risks, and aspire to achieve high growth, but they tend to lack the required resources, capabilities, and knowledge due to their newness and smallness. Corporates have resources, routines, and experience that enable them to work efficiently but lack a certain innovation capability. Research has suggested that coopetition represents an opportunity for start-ups facing restrictions in resources, while corporates benefit from start-ups’ innovative ideas. However, it is yet unknown whether start-ups and corporates engage in coopetition with each other and, if so, how and why they do this. This study seeks to fill this void by exploring the motives of coopeting start-ups and corporates, how they manage their coopetitive relationship, and what implications occur including potential benefits and risks. We present a multiple case study based on qualitative data collected through 70 interviews with Austrian-based start-ups and corporates representing 35 coopetitive partnerships. Discussing the findings based on our data, we propose relationships concerning coopetition and its role to enlarge resource- and technology-bases as well as its role in the development of dynamic capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We refer to recently founded, young firms as “start-ups” and to larger, older, and established firms as “corporates”.

References

  • Alvesson M, Sköldberg K (2009) Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17(1):99–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumard P (2009) An asymmetric perspective on coopetitive strategies. Int J Entrep Small Bus 8(1):6–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Johansson M (2014) Managing coopetition to create opportunities for small firms. Int Small Bus J 32(4):401–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Kock S (2000) “Coopetition” in business networks: to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Ind Mark Manage 29(5):411–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Kock S (2014) Coopetition-Quo vadis? past accomplishments and future challenges. Ind Mark Manage 43(2):180–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Eriksson J, Wincent J (2010) Co-opetition dynamics: an outline for further inquiry. Compet Rev 20(2):194–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Raza-Ullah T, Vanyushyn V (2016) The coopetition paradox and tension: the moderating role of coopetition capability. Ind Mark Manage 53:19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken R, Fredrich V (2012) Coopetition: performance implications and management antecedents. Int J Innov Manag 16(05):1250028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken R, Kraus S (2013) Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: the double-edged sword of coopetition. J Bus Res 66(10):2060–2070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken R, Gast J, Kraus S, Bogers M (2015) Coopetition: a review, synthesis, and future research directions. RMS 9(3):577–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken R, Fredrich V, Ritala P, Kraus S (2017) 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger A, Nalebuff B (1996) Co-opetition. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin K, Chan B, Lam P (2008) Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy. Ind Manag Data Syst 108(4):437–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung JE (2012) When and how does supplier opportunism matter for small retailers’ channel relationships with the suppliers? J Small Bus Manage 50(3):389–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2014) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl J (2014) Conceptualizing coopetition as a process: an outline of change in cooperative and competitive interactions. Ind Mark Manage 43(2):272–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Rond M, Bouchikhi H (2004) On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organ Sci 15(1):56–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enberg C (2012) Enabling knowledge integration in coopetitive R&D projects: the management of conflicting logics. Int J Project Manage 30(7):771–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrada I, Faems D, de Faria P (2016) Coopetition and product innovation performance: the role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Ind Mark Manage 53:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez A-S, Chiambaretto P (2016) Managing tensions related to information in coopetition. Ind Mark Manage 53:66–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez A-S, Le Roy F, Gnyawali DR (2014) Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Ind Mark Manage 43(2):222–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco M, Haase H (2013) Firm resources and entrepreneurial orientation as determinants for collaborative entrepreneurship. Manag Decis 51(3):680–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman J, Engel JS (2007) Models of innovation: startups and mature corporations. Calif Manag Rev 50(1):94–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gast J, Filser M, Gundolf K, Kraus S (2015) Coopetition research: towards a better understanding of past trends and future directions. Int J Entrep Small Bus 24(4):492–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, Park B (2009) Co-opetition and technological innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: a multilevel conceptual model. J Small Bus Manage 47(3):308–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, Park B (2011) Co-opetition between giants: collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Res Policy 40(5):650–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, He J, Madhavan R (2006) Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: an empirical examination. J Manag 32(4):507–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17:109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halinen A, Törnroos J-Å (2005) Using case methods in the study of contemporary business networks. J Bus Res 58(9):1285–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme M, Korpela M (2014) Responsible Innovation toward sustainable development in small and medium-sized enterprises: a resource perspective. Bus Strategy Environ 23(8):547–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbison JR, Pekar PP, Stasior WF (1998) Smart alliances: a practical guide to repeatable success. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan E (2005) Recall bias can be a threat to retrospective and prospective research designs. Internet J Epidemiol 3(2):339–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogenhuis BN, van den Hende EA, Hultink EJ (2016) When should large firms collaborate with young ventures? understanding young firms’ strengths can help firms make the right decisions around asymmetric collaborations. Res Technol Manag 59(1):39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24(4):602–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila R, Rosenberger J, Eisenhardt KM (2008) Swimming with sharks: technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Adm Sci Q 53(2):295–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen D, Ireland RD, Snow C (2007) Strategic entrepreneurship, collaborative innovation, and wealth creation. Strateg Entrep J 1(3–4):371–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmann T, Hensellek S, Kensbock J (2016) European startup monitor 2016. German Startup Association, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S, Meier F, Niemand T, Bouncken R, Ritala P (2017) In search for the ideal coopetition partner: an experimental study. RMS. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0237-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Lado A, Boyd N, Wright P (1992) A competency-based model of sustainable competitive advantage: toward a conceptual integration. J Manag 18(1):77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Lado A, Boyd N, Hanlon S (1997) Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: a syncretic model. Acad Manag Rev 22(1):110–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner C, Dowling M (2003) Firms networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrep Reg Dev 15(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner C, Soppe B, Dowling M (2016) Vertical coopetition and the sales growth of young and small firms. J Small Bus Manage 54(1):67–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marion TJ, Friar JH (2012) Managing global outsourcing to enhance lean innovation. Res Technol Manag 55(5):44–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M’Chirgui Z (2005) The economics of the smart card industry: towards coopetitive strategies. Econ Innov New Technol 14(6):455–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (2003) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris M, Koçak A, Özer A (2007) Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance. J Small Bus Strat 18(1):35–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrin-Boucher E, Le Roy F, Gurău C (2013) Coopetitive strategies in the ICT sector: typology and stability. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 25(1):71–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Salancik G (1978) The external control of organizations. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinasti M, Adawiyah WR (2016) Co-opetition to promote growth of batik small and medium enterprises. Int J Bus Soc 17(3):401–412

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P (2012) Coopetition strategy: When is it successful? empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. Br J Manag 23(3):307–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen P (2013) Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition: the role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. J Prod Innov Manag 30(1):154–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P, Kraus S, Bouncken R (2016) Introduction to coopetition and innovation: contemporary topics and future research opportunities. Int J Technol Manage 71(1–2):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roessl D, Fink M, Kraus S (2010) Does size matter? balancing power in dyadic cooperation relationships. Int J Entrep Innov 11(2):119–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross WT Jr, Robertson DC (2007) Compound relationships between firms. J Mark 71(3):108–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubini L, Desmet K, Piguillem F, Crespo A (2012) Breaking down the barriers to firm growth in Europe. The fourth EFIGE policy report. Bruegel Blueprint Series, Brussels

  • Ryan G (1999) Measuring the typicality of text: using multiple coders for more than just reliability and validity checks. Hum Organ 58(3):313–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soppe B, Lechner C, Dowling M (2014) Vertical coopetition in entrepreneurial firms: theory and practice. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 21(4):548–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe AL (1965) Social structure and Organizations. In: March JG (ed) Handbook of organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp 142–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece D (1992) Competition, cooperation, and innovation: organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. J Econ Behav Organ 18(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece D, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas DR (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27(2):237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidström A (2014) Managing tensions in coopetition. Ind Mark Manage 43(2):261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidström A, Rajala A (2016) Coopetition strategy as interrelated praxis and practices on multiple levels. Ind Mark Manage 58(1):35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walley K (2007) Coopetition. Int Stud Manag Organ 37(2):11–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiblen T, Chesbrough HW (2015) Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation. Calif Manag Rev 57(2):66–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu L-Y (2007) Entrepreneurial resources, dynamic capabilities and start-up performance of Taiwan’s high-tech firms. J Bus Res 60(5):549–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Applications of case study research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo M, Winter S (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci 13(2):339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Liechtenstein, Fürst-Franz-Josef Strasse, 9490, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein

    Wolfgang Hora

  2. Montpellier Business School – MRM, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34185, Montpellier, France

    Johanna Gast

  3. School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, 53851, Lappeenranta, Finland

    Johanna Gast

  4. Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Str. 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

    Norbert Kailer

  5. Universitat de València, Av. de Blasco Ibáñez 13, 46010, Valencia, Spain

    Andrea Rey-Marti

  6. Universitat de València, Av. Tarongers, 46022, Valencia, Spain

    Alicia Mas-Tur

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Hora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna Gast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Norbert Kailer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Rey-Marti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alicia Mas-Tur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Hora.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Interview guideline

1.1.1 Description of the firm

  • What is the main product/service that your firm offers (USP)?

  • Can you briefly describe your firm’s history (from the idea to the foundation, visions, growth intentions, internationalization strategies, etc.)?

  • Has the company introduced any innovations since its foundation or does the company own patents or certifications?

  • How is your innovation management primarily organized (e.g. internally: special R&D department; externally: cooperation with other firms, research facilities or customers etc.)?

1.1.2 Before the cooperation

  • What was the main motivation of the cooperation and what was the intention behind it?

  • What were the expectations of the cooperation?

  • What advantages did the cooperation yield for your company?

  • What disadvantages do you think cooperations can cause?

  • What criteria did you use to select potential cooperation partners?

  • How did the first contact take place? How much time passed between the initial contact and the project start?

  • How did you legally secure the cooperation? Are there any written cooperation agreements?

1.1.3 During the cooperation

  • How many cooperations are currently in progress, and when did each of them start? How many cooperations do you have with firms that can be considered competitors?

  • Which actions were particularly important to ensuring the success of the cooperation?

  • Which crucial factors were taken into account prior to the cooperation and during the cooperation?

  • How did you set the objectives and how did the attainment take place?

  • How intense was the contact with the partnering firm?

  • Could any inhibiting factors be observed during the relationship? Did you take any countermeasures?

  • Were there any conflicts? If so, did they have any impact and what actions were taken to resolve the issues?

  • Do you think that both partners were equal?

  • How would you evaluate the impact of the cooperation on business success? Can you make statements regarding any changes?

  • How satisfied are you with the results of the cooperation?

  • What did you personally learn from the cooperation? What did your organization learn? To what extent was the cooperation crucial for the future of your company?

  • Could you imagine further cooperations in the future or are further cooperations planned?

1.2 Sample overview

Acronym

Number of employees (rounded)

Year of foundation

Turnover in EUR (rounded)

Sector

ISIC Rev.4a

CO-1

40,000

1926

2.5 bn

Manufacture

C 10

Manufacture of food products

SU-1

8

2015

n/a

Service

G 47

Retail trade

CO-2

2000

1974

800 m

Manufacture

C 10

Manufacture of food products

SU-2

9

2015

n/a

Service

G 46

Wholesale trade

CO-3

700

1968

250 m

Manufacture

C 10

Manufacture of food products

SU-3

5

2011

n/a

Manufacture

C 10

Manufacture of food products

CO-4

6000

1938

2 bn

Manufacture

C 17

Manufacture of paper and paper products

SU-4

3

2012

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-5

9000

1868

1.5 bn

Manufacture

C 20

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

SU-5

8

2013

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-6

550

1966

130 m

Manufacture

C 20

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

SU-6

4

2014

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-7

300

1999

n/a

Manufacture

C 21

Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations

SU-7

8

2014

600,000

Manufacture

C 28

Manufacture of machinery and equipment

CO-8

5000

1927

750 m

Manufacture

C 22

Manufacture of rubber and plastics products

SU-8

70

2013

12 m

Manufacture

C 28

Manufacture of machinery and equipment

CO-9

4200

1986

600 m

Manufacture

C 22

Manufacture of rubber and plastics products

SU-9

11

2015

n/a

Service

G 47

Retail trade

CO-10

15,000

1884

2 bn

Manufacture

C 23

Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products

SU-10

15

2013

n/a

Manufacture

C 20

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

CO-11

600

1976

85 m

Manufacture

C 23

Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products

SU-11

6

2013

300,000

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-12

3000

1989

600 m

Manufacture

C 25

Manufacture of fabricated metal products

SU-12

4

2013

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-13

280

1994

20 m

Manufacture

C 25

Manufacture of fabricated metal products

SU-13

4

2012

n/a

Manufacture

C 26

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products

CO-14

1300

1912

200 m

Manufacture

C 27

Manufacture of electrical equipment

SU-14

3

2012

250,000

Service

G 47

Retail trade

CO-15

280

1983

40 m

Manufacture

C 27

Manufacture of electrical equipment

SU-15

16

2012

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-16

11,000

1914

3 bn

Manufacture

C 28

Manufacture of machinery and equipment

SU-16

5

2011

n/a

Manufacture

C 27

Manufacture of electrical equipment

CO-17

3400

1996

450 m

Manufacture

C 28

Manufacture of machinery and equipment

SU-17

3

2014

n/a

Manufacture

C 26

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products

CO-18

3000

1886

1 bn

Manufacture

C 28

Manufacture of machinery and equipment

SU-18

20

2012

n/a

Manufacture

C 26

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products

CO-19

1500

2014

700 m

Manufacture

C 28

Manufacture of machinery and equipment

SU-19

5

2015

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-20

800

1946

200 m

Manufacture

C 28

Manufacture of machinery and equipment

SU-20

3

2014

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-21

3000

1979

4 bn

Manufacture

C 29

Manufacture of motor vehicles

SU-21

30

2014

6 m

Manufacture

C 27

Manufacture of electrical equipment

CO-22

3000

1866

1 bn

Manufacture

C 29

Manufacture of motor vehicles

SU-22

6

2016

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-23

3000

1947

3 bn

Service

D 35

Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply

SU-23

17

2011

900,000

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-24

280

1990

70 m

Service

G 46

Wholesale trade

SU-24

4

2015

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-25

6000

2004

850 m

Service

H 49

Land transport

SU-25

5

2015

n/a

Service

L 68

Real estate activities

CO-26

4500

1957

2 bn

Service

H 51

Air transport

SU-26

4

2015

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-27

17,000

1999

2 bn

Service

H 53

Postal and courier activities

SU-27

3

2013

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-28

9000

2005

2.5 bn

Service

J 61

Telecommunications

SU-28

7

2014

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-29

270

1997

50 m

Service

J 61

Telecommunications

SU-29

6

2016

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-30

350

1991

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

SU-30

6

2014

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-31

260

2004

12 m

Service

J 63

Information service activities

SU-31

17

2015

n/a31

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-32

1000

1900

n/a

Service

K 64

Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding

SU-32

3

2015

n/a

Service

K 64

Financial service activities

CO-33

320

1980

400 m

Service

K 64

Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding

SU-33

6

2015

n/a

Service

J 62

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

CO-34

700

1956

20 m

Service

M 72

Scientific research and development

SU-34

10

2013

1 m

Service

M 71

Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis

CO-35

250

1957

50 m

Manufacture

C 29

Manufacture of motor vehicles

SU-35

8

2012

400,000

Manufacture

C 26

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products

  1. aCoopetitive relationships do not always occur in a firm’s main sector but also in closely related sectors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hora, W., Gast, J., Kailer, N. et al. David and Goliath: causes and effects of coopetition between start-ups and corporates. Rev Manag Sci 12, 411–439 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0273-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0273-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation