Original Research

SAGE Open
January-March 2023: 1–19
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Coopetition, Where Do You Come DOI: 10.1177/21582440221085003
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
From? Identification, Categorization, and
Configuration of Theoretical Roots of
Coopetition

Patrycja Klimas1, Ali Ashraf Ahmadian2 , Morteza Soltani2,

Meisam Shahbazi2, and Ali Hamidizadeh2

Abstract
Though being 30 years old, coopetition, is still earning popularity and represents a fresh, beneficial, but paradoxical approach
to inter-organizational relations. The increasing interest is gradually filling the pool of coopetition knowledge with new and
interesting qualitative findings and quantitative results. Nonetheless, if we search in this pool of empirical evidence, we will
not find many theoretical works, especially those devoted to definitions, conceptualization, typology, or recognition of the
foundations of coopetition phenomenon. Our reviewing paper taps into these cognitive gaps using the interpretative and
descriptive revision of the theoretical underpinnings of coopetition concept. Our literature review reveals 10 main reference
theories with the dominant relevance of three ones, namely game theory, resource-based view, and network approach.
Identification of the theoretical lenses allowed us to develop two categorizations of theoretical rooting of coopetition. One
is based on the approach to reasoning the adoption of coopetition strategy (i.e., economic, organizational, and inter-organiza-
tional) and the second considering the function of coopetition theory development (i.e., preparing, encouraging, and manag-
ing). Finally, by integrating these categorizations, reinforced by the process view to coopetition phenomenon, this paper
offers a comprehensive configuration of theoretical lenses pointing at three sets of theories—construction, development,
and maintenance theories—useful when improving coopetition across its life cycle.

Keywords
Coopetition, co-opetition, systematic review, integrative review, theoretical foundations, theoretical rooting

Introduction forefront of their plans by formulating the assumptions of

To overcome the uncertainty of business environement,
the strategic learning concept has led firms to adopt new
strategies (Bouncken & Fredrich, 2016). Due to the same
reasons, along with the complex and hyper-competitive
environment of today‘s business world, the adoption of
relational strategies (e.g., utilizing alliances, networking,
ecosystems, etc.) has increased dramatically (Bengtsson,
Kock et al., 2016; Bouncken et al., 2015; Le Roy &
Czakon, 2016). The consequence of such a situation is
twofold. On the one hand, inter-organizational colla-
boration strategies have evolved and thereby, new con-
cepts such as strategic alliances have emerged in the field
of strategy (Lechner et al., 2016; McCutchen et al.,
2008). On the other hand, business firms have put a
more cooperative approach toward their rivals at the
strategic learning view (Dagnino, 2009), game theory
(Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2002), resource-based per-
spective (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000), and network approach
(Chiambaretto & Dumez, 2016). Indeed, in the modern
world, companies are far more willing to cooperate with
their competitors. This quite new type of relationship is
known as ‘‘coopetition,’’ as defined by Nalebuff and
1
Wroc1aw University of Economics and Business, Poland
2
University of Tehran, Iran
Corresponding Author:
Ali Ashraf Ahmadian, PhD, Business Administration, University of Tehran,
University Instructor, No. 567, Floor 5, Shahed Blvd., 212 East Street,
Tehran Pars, Tehran 1599665111, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Email: AliashrafAhmadian@ut.ac.ir

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
Brandenburger (1996, 1997), and is sometimes labeled as
cooperation with frenemy (Bermudez et al., 2019).
Coopetition strategy was introduced in the field of
strategic management literature due to the weaknesses of
the two previous theories, namely ‘‘competition’’ and
‘‘cooperation.’’ In fact, from the early beginning, cooper-
ation with rivals (von Hippel, 1987), later on, labeled as
coopetition (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1996), has been
shown as a ‘‘win-win’’ game (Brandenburger & Nalebuff,
2002). It is perceived as abolishing the limitations of both
cooperation and competition approaches (Dorn et al.,
2016, pp. 3–4), whereas due to the juxtaposition of these
two approaches, it is at the same time considered to be
paradoxical (Czakon, Fernandez et al., 2014), full of ten-
sion (Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016; Ritala et al.,
2017; Tidström, 2014), and yet extremely promising
(Ritala & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2013) and beneficial
(Ritala, 2012).
Most of the existing contributions acknowledge coo-
petition as a complex and dynamic phenomenon
(Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Padula & Dagnino,
2007). However, the significant point that has been gen-
erally neglected in a variety of research projects examin-
ing the topic is a comprehensive and coherent framework
for the theories underlying this strategy.
So far the majority of works have highlighted the
impact of this strategy on the performance of enterprises
(e.g., Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Bengtsson, Kock et al.,
2016; Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Lado et al., 1997; Le Roy
& Czakon, 2016), or have explained coopetition drivers
(Czakon et al., 2020; Kraus, Klimas et al., 2018), but
have left the theoretical roots out of their interest scope.
Moreover, as argued in one of the recent systematic
literature reviews (Della Corte, 2018), coopetition litera-
ture (including conceptual, empirical, and reviewing
ones) generally focus on coopetition typology, coopeti-
tion process (including management and strategizing),
(im-)balance of competition and cooperation, coopetition
outcomes, and coopetition motives/factors/antecedents.
It seems to confirm other literature reviews showing that
so far the cognitive focus has been on coopetition antece-
dents (e.g., Dorn et al., 2016), coopetition types (e.g.,
Czakon, Mucha-Kuś et al., 2014), levels (e.g., Bengtsson
& Raza-Ullah, 2016), and phases of coopetition process
(Dorn et al., 2016); recognition of past trends and main
streams in the exploration of coopetition (Della Corte,
2018; Devece et al., 2019; Gast et al., 2015), and prepara-
tion of future research agenda (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014;
Bouncken et al., 2015).
Theoretical frameworks have hardly been investigated
in SLRs, however, due to the low theoretical saturation
in the literature, the lack of integrative synthesis of prior
literature seems logical. In fact, among the existing litera-
ture reviews, we found just one research concentrating
mainly on conceptual and theoretical issues, namely on
the definition of coopetition phenomenon (Della Corte,
2018). Concerning exploration of theoretical underpin-
nings of coopetition, the available literature usually pro-
vides a brief outline (e.g., Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah,
2016), or sometimes recognizes different approaches
adopted so far (e.g., Devece et al., 2019). All in all, any
study that goes beyond merely brief descriptions and rea-
sonings, and pays more attention to theoretical bedrocks
should be considered as an exception (e.g., Czakon,
Mucha-Kuś et al., 2014). At the same time, it is empha-
sized that we need to organize and synthesize theoretical
issues if we want to run reliable and comparable studies
on coopetition (Gnyawali & Song, 2016, pp. 12–13).
For instance, Bouncken et al. (2015) refer to ‘‘theoreti-
cal perspectives’’ as one of the five most relevant direc-
tions for investigations of coopetition area. In particular,
the authors acknowledge the need for a deeper under-
standing of the theoretical lenses of coopetition and pro-
pose some more detailed directions including dynamics
and game theory, resource-based view and dynamic cap-
abilities, power (resource dependency and control the-
ory), negotiation (contract building, contract learning,
and different relational capital), and governance logic.
Similarly, recent literature highlights the need for the
exploration of theoretical issues (Devece et al., 2019).
Unfortunately, despite the very first steps taken by
Bengtsson, Kock et al. (2016) in exploring coopetition
roots, the above claims remain unaddressed by a com-
prehensive approach to theoretical issues. In this regard,
we believe that two questions remain unanswered: In
what contexts the theoretical lenses of coopetition are used
and how they can be categorized?; and finally, How the
theoretical lenses of the coopetition concept can be framed
into one multidimensional configuration? To our best
knowledge, this article is the first reviewing-based one
aimed at the exploration and synthesis of the theoretical
underpinnings of coopetition in detail. Our review specif-
ically targets one of the pre-defined gaps, namely ‘‘the
need for an integration of theories’’ rooting the previous,
present, and future research on coopetition (Bengtsson,
Kock et al., 2016, p. 4).
To address the first question, we carried out a seman-
tic analysis of theoretical descriptions included in the
reviewed papers. Based on the analysis of the collected
literature, the theories were categorized in the context of
function for the development of coopetition theory (cri-
terion important for coopetition researchers) and
approach to reasoning coopetition strategy adoption (cri-
terion important for managers). In both categorizations,
the identified theoretical roots have been aggregated into
three categories. On the one hand, given the leading
approach to reasoning coopetition, we distinguished eco-
nomic, organizational, and inter-organizational ones. On
Klimas et al.
the second, given the leading function for coopetition
theory development, we distinguished introductory, rein-
forcing, and those giving legitimization.
Simultanously, to answer the second question, we fol-
lowed a configurational approach. We see the configura-
tion approach relevant as there is a stock of—more or
less coherent and ambidextrous—theories used or recom-
mended to be used as a theoretical background when
exploring coopetition (Bengtsson, Kock et al., 2016,
p. 4). Nonetheless, this stock of knowledge is shredded
and dismembered, even though it is possible to find some
narrow areas of convergence possible to configure
together (Bouncken et al., 2020).
Our configuration suggests that the theoretical under-
pinnings can be divided into three sets of theories.
Particularly, given the above-mentioned categorization
criteria and the phase of coopetition strategy to which
the theories suit the most, the following theoretical
underpinnings were distinguished: coopetition construc-
tion theories, coopetition development theories, and coo-
petition maintenance theories. Given our configuration,
some theories are useful mainly for preparation and con-
structing coopetition between firms, some are more bene-
ficial for fast and multidimensional development of the
coopetition strategy adopted already, and finally, others
are vital mainly for keeping the relationship strong, prof-
itable, and long evitable.
The main contributions of this paper are threefold:
synthesis and description of theoretical roots of coopeti-
tion phenomenon; typology of identified theories using
two differentiation criteria, namely approach to coopeti-
tion reasoning and function for coopetition theory devel-
opment; configuration of the identified theories using
previously developed typologies organized following the
process view to coopetition phenomenon. We saw it
important as only 47% of studies on coopetition adopt a
clear and coherent theoretical focus (Gnyawali & Song,
2016, p. 15). Hence, the argumentation of coherence with
the underlying concept and internal coherence of theore-
tical arguments determine the level of conceptual rigor
of scientific exploration (i.e., according to Suddaby
(2010)coherence is considered as one of the four compo-
nents of the conceptual rigor). Moreover, given that our
review does not end with literature synthesis (Denyer &
Tranfield, 2009; Fink, 2019) yet integrates prior findings
and develops an original configuration of those findings,
we see our work as a valuable source for the consolida-
tion of knowledge on coopetition by its cumulative devel-
opment (Elsbach & Knippenberg, 2020, pp. 2–3).
Research Methodology
The paper aims to clarify the theoretical views on the
coopetition phenomenon by identifying the leading
3
theoretical views, their categorization, and developing a
comprehensive framework using a configurational
approach.
Prior literature reviews (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014;
Bengtsson et al., 2010; Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016;
Bouncken et al., 2015; Czakon, Mucha-Kuś et al., 2014;
Czakon & Rogalski, 2014; Della Corte, 2018; Devece
et al., 2019; Dorn et al., 2016; Gast et al., 2015) provide
evidence that in the coopetition literature there is a rich
stock of empirical knowledge. Moreover, there is still an
impressively dynamic upward trend in the number of
publications. Nonetheless, we are still in need of works
focused on theoretical (Bengtsson, Kock et al., 2016) and
methodological (Gnyawali & Song, 2016) issues.
Particularly, as emphasized by Bengtsson, Kock et al.
(2016), the present literature is characterized by concep-
tual ambiguity, lots of theoretical inconsistencies, and a
lack of sound understanding of the theoretical roots of
coopetition phenomenon. Therefore, we pose two
research questions: In what contexts the theoretical lenses
of coopetition are used and how they can be categorized?
And how the theoretical lenses of coopetition concept can
be framed into one multidimensional configuration?
We assume answering those questions as relevant
since prior literature reviews have simply overlooked the
importance of theoretical pillars of coopetition in an in-
depth investigation. Furthermore, we claim that it is
important to shed some light on the theoretical issues as
the recognition of the theoretical foundations will con-
tribute to integration and consolidation of the coopeti-
tion theory (Bengtsson, Kock et al., 2016, pp. 4–5) as
well as to more accurate designing of future research and
more reliable interpretation of their findings (Devece
et al., 2019, pp. 208–209).
Systematic Reviewing—Literature Collection, Selection,
Scanning, and Analysis
To answer our research questions, we adopted a systema-
tic (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009) approach to reviewing.
Therefore, besides the synthesis of prior literature, we
developed an integrated configuration of the theoretical
foundations of coopetition. Our review of the literature
targets two main goals: (1) summarizing studies through
detecting patterns, themes, and problems; and (2) identi-
fying conceptual content in a field to push theory further
(Fink, 2019; Seuring & Müller, 2008).
The literature review is considered as systematic when
the process of reviewing takes a planned and replicable
form (Fink, 2019). Therefore, our review was run using a
predefined reviewing protocol and was divided into five
typical stages (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009): (1) initial liter-
ature screening and development of research questions—
July 2018; (2) literature gathering and initial database
4 SAGE Open
creation—September 2018; (3) initial screening and final
database creation—October 2018; (4) literature analysis
– November 2018; (5) drawing conclusions and report-
ing—January to June 2019.
The selection of works for our review consisted of
three phases (Tranfield et al., 2003). Firstly, we identified
the databases that hold comprehensive citation lists for
inter-firm relationships studies which are usually in the
areas (topics) related to management and strategy:
Ebsco, Elsevier/Springer, Emerald, Proquest, and ISI
Web of Knowledge. In this study, research questions and
keywords were specified concerning some exploratory
studies, well-documented texts, and well-known figures
of the field. Secondly, we searched the databases for the-
oretical foundations of inter-firm relations studies expli-
citly related to business and strategy by applying a
keyword search: competition, cooperation, strategic alli-
ances, coopetition/co-opetition located in the title,
abstract or keywords of papers published in English
from 1987 (the first work done on cooperation between
business rivals by von Hippel). Thirdly, we began to
extract unrelated studies. Given that our study focuses
on the theoretical foundations of coopetition, and that
we need to review the study backgrounds of other inter-
firm relationships such as strategic alliances, coopera-
tion, and networking. To achieve the theoretical frame-
work, we felt compelled by the historical commonalities
of relationships. It was necessary to design more execu-
tive steps so that we can extract all the theories in this
area. Accordingly, the steps adopted in collecting the lit-
erature are outlined in Figure 1.
Our initial database consisted of 1,453 works, how-
ever, the application of exclusion, inclusion, and screen-
ing criteria resulted in a limited final database covering
only 67 articles. The timespan of the collected papers
was 33 years (1987–2019). The vast majority of identified
works were published in management journals including
seven papers published in Industrial Marketing
Management and Strategic Management Journal, six in
the British Journal of Management, and 5 in Academy
of Management Review (Table 1).
Although the scope of our literature searching went a
little bit beyond just coopetition, it does confirm that
despite an observable growing trend in the number of
publications on coopetition, there are some seasonal
peaks like the peak in 2014 (Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah,
2016; Bouncken et al., 2015; Dorn et al., 2016) or 2017.
Integrative Reviewing—Categorization of Theoretical
Lenses Using the Configurational Approach
Yang (2002), according to Benson and Hagtvet (1996),
introduces three levels of research: theoretical, experi-
mental, and assessment research. Eisenhardt (1989) also
distinguishes between two main types of research:
hypothesis and theory development; and theory and
hypothesis testing (i.e., applied research and theoretical
research). The methodologies of this type of research are
quite different from those of the experimental research
since theoretical structures and the relationships among
them are the main focus of research. This paper presents
findings from theoretical research based on systematic
and integrative literature review.
Accordingly, there are two general approaches to
study a social phenomenon: the reductionist approach
and the holistic approach. The most important analysis
method in the reductionist approach is the contingency
method. The contingency method is considered as an
appropriate solution to many organizational problems
being at the same time quite simple and replicable (as
contextually independent) analytical approach. The con-
tingency approach concentrates only on one underlying
factor and one structural feature and how they affect per-
formance. This, of course, does not mean that the contin-
gency approach makes no use of multivariate modeling;
however, it indicates that the relationships in this para-
digm are analyzed as bivariate as the other model vari-
ables are assumed to be controlled (Donaldson, 1996).
Nonetheless, as studies have progressed and more
complex issues have raised, there have been criticisms of
the closed and linear nature of the contingency approach,
and it has been argued that the contingency approach
does not apply to many complex phenomena since it
leads to reductionism (Anderson et al., 1999). On the
contrary, there is the holistic approach which examines
the phenomena using a situational approach and consid-
ers the components of the social phenomenon to be inse-
parable. The best research method using the holistic
approach is the configuration method (Meyer et al.,
1993).
The configuration approach was developed to address
the shortcomings of the contingency approach. To some
extent, the new approach focuses on the overall synthesis
to examine the bilateral and nonlinear relationships
between the organization and the environment. Indeed,
the configuration approach that views organizational
phenomena holistically claims that understanding orga-
nizational phenomena is possible only when a large num-
ber of structural and contextual variables are analyzed
simultaneously. Regarding the fact that this study can be
considered as conceptual, along with the shortcomings
of the contingency approach, the configuration or multi-
contingency method is used to summarize and classify
the theories. Given the above, in the following sections,
first, the theories and features of each theoretical
approach to coopetition are introduced, and then the
theories and their logics are classified based on the func-
tion and approach, and then different typologies are
Klimas et al.
Figure 1. The process of literature selection.
Table 1. Dissemination of Coopetition Papers by the Journal.
Journals
Industrial Marketing Management, Strategic
Management Journal
Academy of Management Review
British Journal of Management
Technovation, European Management Journal,
American Journal of Sociology
Research in organizational behavior, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Administrative Science
Quarterly
Journal of Management, Management Science,
Annual Review of Sociology, Journal of High
Technology Management Research,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business, Tourism Management
Progress in Tourism Hospitality Research,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Review of General Psychology, Advances in
Competitiveness Research, Organization
Science, Journal of Business Research,
Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
European Business Review
5
presented. Finally, a new configuration is suggested
based on both function and approach. This framework
No. of articles is based on the deductive analyses of the theories and
7 their internal consistency.
6
5 Findings From Literature Analysis
4
The Plurality of Theoretical Foundations of Coopetition
3 Although the theoretical origin of coopetition in the
business world is not crystal clear (Bengtsson, Kock
2 et al., 2016), from a fundamental viewpoint, it is derived
from the game theory (Bengtsson, Kock et al., 2016;
Mariani, 2007) which is partly based on Brandenburger
and Nalebuff’s (1995). Nevertheless, over time, the co-
1 opetition has been explained by using other theories the
most remarkable of which are the resource-based view
and the network approach. Even though those three the-
oretical approaches are commonly acknowledged as
dominant in coopetition literature (Czakon, Mucha-Kuś
et al., 2014; Devece et al., 2019), coopetition is also seen
to be as extensively drawn on in the cooperative inter-
6 SAGE Open
organizational relationships literature (Czakon, Mucha-
Kuś et al., 2014) including strategic alliances in particu-
lar (Chen & Miller, 2015; Devece et al., 2019; Golnam
et al., 2014; Lechner et al., 2016).
Indeed, the theoretical foundations of coopetition can
be linked with 10 theories or theoretical concepts includ-
ing game theory, resource-based view, network
approach, transaction cost economy, institutional econ-
omy, dynamic capabilities, strategic learning (entailing
knowledge management/sharing), mutual trust, and ten-
sions management (Table 2).
It should be emphasized that the set of 10 identified
theoretical pillars (Table 2) does not exhaust the plurality
of theoretical approaches used to explain coopetition.
Indeed, in coopetition literature, one can find also such
underlying theoretical explanations as those adopted
from philosophy (Luo, 2004), legal sciences (Levin &
McDonald, 2006), or evolutionary approach (Czakon,
Mucha-Kuś et al., 2014). Among the recent ones, there
is, for instance, the biological perspective (Cygler, 2015)
including the ecosystem theory used to explain coopeti-
tion by ICT (Basole et al., 2015) or innovation (Bacon
et al., 2020) ecosystem concepts. Furthermore, in recent
papers, a more sociological view can be identified as the
studies re-focus from tough managerial issues to more
behavioral, cognitive, and social ones (e.g., Baruch &
Lin, 2012; Czakon et al., 2020; Lundgren-Henriksson &
Kock, 2016), thus coopetition appears as explained
thought concepts adopted from sociology and
psychology.
Summing up, the list of the identified theoretical pil-
lars supports the results from previous literature reviews.
First, as pointed out by Czakon, Mucha-Kuś et al.
(2014) coopetition is explained using such theories as alli-
ances (83% of papers), RBV (35%), game theory (39%),
competition (24%), networks (23%), evolutionary eco-
nomics (9%), TCE (8%), others (3%). Second, as shown
by Devece et al. (2019) the phenomenon of cooperation
of business rivals is explored using coopetition itself (19
of analyzed papers), RBV, dynamic capabilities, and
knowledge management (12), alliance dynamics (11),
dynamics and game theory (10), social perspective (8),
network perspective (7), others (8).
Aggregation of Theoretical Roots of Coopetition
Theoretical roots of coopetition spread out over many
different theoretical concepts (Bengtsson, Kock et al.,
2016; Czakon, Mucha-Kuś et al., 2014; Devece et al.,
2019). Nevertheless, the literature suggests that those
theoretical roots can be distinguished in terms of the type
of justification of coopetition strategy adoption and the
leading function of the implementation of coopetition
strategy
First, given the approach to coopetition reasoning,
one can distinguish the following: (1) economic—
generally focused on financial issues considered from the
perspective of economic rent, (2) organizational—taking
the internal perspective reasoning the strength of organi-
zation through the scarcity and differential rent, and (3)
inter-organizational approach—focused on aspects
remaining at the common edges of coopetitors, whereas
leading to relational rent. The literature review shows
that so far, some researchers have investigated coopeti-
tion using an economic approach, emphasizing the finan-
cial benefits of this strategy and its functions in
managing the firm financial performance through appro-
priate pricing, cost management, or value appropriation
in a financially profitable manner. Conversely, in the
organizational approach, the focus of the researchers has
been paid on the internal factors influencing the firm
bargaining power at the market, the most important of
which are resources (accessing, sharing, solving the
redundancy problem, etc.), organizational learning, and
reinforcing dynamic capabilities including coopetition
capability in particular. Finally, the inter-organizational
approach takes an open perspective considering the firm
embeddedness external context, which if used properly
can generate benefits from networking, maintenance of
trust-based relationships, or balancing tensions including
the tension between value creation and value appropria-
tion in the long-term perspective.
Second, considering the leading function of the utili-
zation of the theoretical roots when adopting coopeti-
tion, these roots can be divided into those focused
(mainly) on (1) introduction to coopetition by emphasiz-
ing the multifaceted beneficial outcomes in the light of
the shortcomings of the previous concepts, (2) reinforce-
ment of coopetition concept by pointing at mutual gains
not available without cooperation, including outcomes
of cooperation with competitors, (3) legitimization of
coopetition concept by highlighting the constitutive coo-
petition issues like balancing paradoxes and tensions,
strengthening dynamic capabilities including coopetition
capability in particular, and exploitation of coopetitive
opportunities stimulated by formal institutions.
Regarding the function of the identified theoretical con-
cepts for the development of coopetition theory, the
researchers have emphasized the need for the introduc-
tion of coopetition concept, then favoring and stimula-
tion of its application in business practice, and finally the
necessity of solving coopetition-specific issues.
Last but not least, it should be noted that some
theories presented in Table 2 might be bi- or multi-func-
tional. In practice, managers can find specific theoretical
reasoning from one theoretical perspective as applicable
in one, two, or three phases of coopetition theory devel-
opment. For instance, the RBV (and the extended RBV
 Table 2. Theoretical Pillars of Coopetition Strategy.

Theory Key variables Leading association with coopetition References

Game theory
Resource-based view
Network approach
Transaction cost economy
Resource dependence theory
n Players
n Value Added
n Terms and Conditions
n Tactics
n Scope (territory)
n Win-win
n Positive-sum game
n Market commonality
n Resource similarity (homogeneity
vs heterogeneity)
n Resource redundancy and exchange
n Unity formation
n Selecting the governance
structure (how to manage)
n The evolutionary process of unity
n Function of unity
n The output of the company’s
engagement in unity
n Cost management
n Opportunistic behaviors
n Market risk management
n Importance of resources
n Resource utilization
n Resource control
n Resource interdependencies
Game theory is to adopt a game-oriented
look to the business world to illustrate
coopetition as a win-win game for both
game players and encourage them to use
this strategy.
The relationship between two or more firms Chen (2008), Helfat and Peteraf (2003), Hoopes
depends on market commonality and
resource similarity. The heterogeneity of
core resources leads to cooperation, while
market commonalities lead to competitive
interactions between competitors.
Accordingly, resource similarity and market
commonalities (common markets) may lead
to competition and cooperation at the
same time.
The firm’s centrality in the network
influences its use of coopetition strategy
and the network power in reaching this
strategy is indisputable.
This theory attempts to introduce the
coopetition strategy as a tool for managing
the firms’ costs in the business
environment. Furthermore, it reminds the
risk of opportunistic behaviors by
competing firms and the need to anticipate
and manage this issue.
The main focus is on the perceived
dependence of one firm on another firm
regarding cooperation-competition-based
relations. In other words, under high levels et al. (1996), Luo (2004), Le Roy et al. (2018),
of dependence, the weak coopetition part is Lechner et al. (2016), Gast et al. (2015), Kedia
not free from negative consequences;
however, the dependent firm receives
benefits through reducing the costs of
interest coordination.
Clarke-Hill et al. (2003), Gnyawali and Park
(2009), Okura (2007, 2008, 2009, 2012),
Pesamaa and Eriksson (2010), Ohkita and
Okura (2014), Ghobadi and D’Ambra (2011),
Bengtsson and Kock (2014), Carfi (2010, 2012),
Carfı̀ et al. (2011), Carfı̀ and Schilirò (2011),
Carfı̀ and Trunfio (2011), Carfi and Musolino
(2012, 2013, 2014), Lin et al. (2017),
Rodrigues et al. (2009)
et al. (2003), Kim and Parkhe (2009), Kim et al.
(2013), Lambe et al. (2002), Peng et al. (2012),
Chen and Miller (2015), Rusko et al. (2013),
Ritala et al. (2014), Priem and Butler (2001),
Meso and Smith (2000), Lado et al. (1997),
Dutta (2015), Wernerfelt (1984)
McCutchen et al. (2008), Gnyawali and
Madhavan (2001), Gnyawali et al. (2006),
Moran (2005), Burt (2004), Bengtsson and
Kock (2000, 2014), Lechner et al. (2016), Peng
and Bourne (2009), Daidj and Egert (2018),
Golnam et al. (2014), Mione (2009), Ritala and
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen (2009), Gulati (1998),
Gulati and Gargiulo (1999), Gulati et al. (2000),
Gulati et al. (2012)
Quintana-Garcı́a and Benavides-Velasco (2004),
Dowling et al. (1996), Eriksson (2008),
Belleflamme and Neysen (2009), Cygler and
Sroka (2016, 2017), Madhok (2000),
Belleflamme and Neysen (2009), Le Roy and
Sanou (2014), Navickas and Malakauskaite
(2009)
Bouncken and Fredrich (2012), Dowling et al.
(1996), Gast et al. (2015), Zacharia et al.
(2019), Jakobsen (2020), Yang (2020), Dowling
et al. (2016)
(continued)

7
8
Table 2. (continued)
Theory
Institutional Economics Theory
Strategic learning theory
Dynamic capabilities
Tension management
Mutual trust
Key variables Leading association with coopetition References
n Institutionalism This approach outlines how institutions can Loebbecke and van Fenema (1998), Dagnino and
n Networking play a role in facilitating a coopetition Rocco (2009), Dagnino (2009), Bouncken et al.
n Learning strategy through networks. In this way, they (2015), Gast et al. (2015), Monticelli et al.
n Internationalization promote the competitiveness of local (2018), Fang et al. (2018), Tordjman (2004),
businesses through communication Mione (2009), Wu (2014), Della Corte (2018),
networks and learning mechanisms, reduce Aas et al. (2005), Byrd et al. (2009), Fong et al.
transaction costs, and ultimately accelerate (2018), Wang and Fesenmaier (2007), Melo
the internationalization of enterprises, Brito (2001)
especially small and medium-sized
enterprises. So far, mainly formal
institutions have been considered as
grounding coopetition studies.
n Learning organization A strategic learning perspective is a solution Luo (2007), Yami et al. (2010), Bouncken and
n Knowledge management Knowledge sharing to encourage enterprises to use Kraus (2013), Czakon (2010), Czakon and
n Learning based-innovation coopetition strategy through learning from Rogalski (2014), Dal-Soto and Monticelli
n Mutual learning their competitors. (2017), Mariani (2007), Zacharia et al. (2019),
Zhu et al. (2020), Zerbini and Castaldo (2007),
Nieto and Santamarı́a (2007), Dussauge et al.
(2000), Fredrich et al. (2019), Gast et al.
(2019), Lee and Sukoco (2007), Mesquita et al.
(2008), Tsai and Hsu (2014), Tsai (2002)
n Organizational processes An enterprise seeking performance Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen (2013),
n Coordination enhancement can use coopetition with rival Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), Teece (2012),
n Integration enterprises. This not only develops the Lavie (2006), Helfat and Peteraf (2009), Salunke
n Learning competitive capabilities of enterprises both et al. (2011), Tidström (2009), Felzensztein et
n Rearrangement inside and outside the organizations al. (2012), Crick (2018a, 2019), Bengtsson and
(through cooperation) but also promotes Johansson (2014), Park et al. (2014), Helfat et
their performance through increased al. (2009), Kale et al. (2002), Klimas and
competitiveness. Czakon (2018), Liu (2013), Osarenkhoe
(2010), Melo Brito (2001)
n Individual tension Managing coopetition tension is implemented Castaldo et al. (2010), Czakon, Mucha-Kuś et al.
n Intra-organizational tension through the adoption of separation and (2014), Chen (2008), Tidström (2014),
n Inter-organizational tension combination principles, and may lead to Tidström and Hagberg-Andersson (2012), Luo
n Separation improved conflict management. Managing (2005), Bengtsson and Kock (2000), Le Roy
n Combination inter-organizational communications in the and Czakon (2016), Fernandez and
n Paradoxes coopetition strategy addresses the tension Chiambaretto (2016), Ritala et al. (2017),
in this area, which ensures the long-term Fernandez et al. (2014), Jakobsen (2020), Seran
sustainability of coopetition. et al. (2016) Fang et al. (2011), Gnyawali and
Ryan Charleton (2018), Granata et al. (2018)
n Learning Regarding inter-organizational relations, this Petter et al. (2014), Castaldo and Dagnino
n Commitment theory emphasizes the organization’s (2009), Czernek and Czakon (2016), Bouncken
n Trust openness and the existence of mutual and Fredrich (2012), Baruch and Lin (2012),
n Open organization satisfactory interactions along with positive Ritala (2009), Lascaux (2020), Jakobsen (2020),
n Dynamic and Future-looking organizations mental feelings and predictable behaviors Chin et al. (2008), Morris et al. (2007), de
for both sides. This is also considered as Araujo and Franco (2017), Crick (2019),
the basis for the formation of this strategy. Thomason et al. (2013), Perry et al. (2004)
Klimas et al.
covering the relational view by Dyer and Singh (1998) in
particular) has been extensively used to introduce coope-
tition into strategic management literature. Nonetheless,
the same theoretical lenses have been used to strengthen
the need for acknowledging coopetition as relevant and
different from cooperation strategies. Finally, the
resource perspective is still used to give stronger legitimi-
zation to coopetition theory as referring to strategic (in
terms of VRIO/VIRS features—Barney, 1991) role of
coopetition capabilities as well as shared coopetition-
related resources.
All in all, following a contingency approach it was
possible to outline two different categorizations of theo-
retical roots of coopetition. Nonetheless, due to its
reductionist nature, the contingency approach had found
a major weakness in finding the appropriate holistic
approach to categorization of the theories underlying
coopetition. Therefore, one would like to ask ‘‘How
should we evaluate and classify the coopetition theories
concerning both categorizations simultaneously?’’
As mentioned in the methodological section, the con-
tingency approach is not decent for addressing such a
question. Thus, a configuration methodology has been
employed. It should be noted that for configuration the-
ory advocates (Anderson et al., 1999; Meyer et al., 1993),
the internal compatibility and coherence of joint config-
uration of the distinguished combinations is considered
as the only one relevant and reflecting the real world,
whereas any other cannot reflect the complex business
surroundings due to the high modularity of the theoreti-
cal construct (i.e., competition on one side, cooperation
on the other), fragmentedness of the cognition (that is
missing from sound coopetition classifications, although
some complementary typologies have been developed),
and the lack of internal conceptual consistency (i.e., the
developed typologies have been framed without an in-
depth discussion about the theoretical roots of coopeti-
tion). At the same time, a configuration approach
assumes that a limited number of combinations does
exist (Bouncken et al., 2020) because the features or
dimensions forming the configurations are intercon-
nected and their changes are discrete and intermittent
(Meyer et al., 1993).
In the field of strategic management, some prominent
configurations have been developed by Miles et al. (1978)
and Mintzberg (1979). Following a similar approach, the
theoretical roots of coopetition have been framed. The
framework, taking the form of a nine-field matrix, covers
nine theoretical concepts classified by the approach to
the reasoning of coopetition strategy adoption and the
function for the development of coopetition theory
simultaneously. Furthermore, those theoretical concepts
were categorized in terms of their applicability across the
coopetition life cycle, distinguishing a set of three group
9
theories, namely coopetition construction, coopetition
development, and coopetition maintenance theories
(Figure 2).
In general, categorization of theories underlying coo-
petition phenomenon is expressed as follows: ‘‘coopeti-
tion construction theories’’ are giving the foundation of
coopetition strategy adoption, ‘‘coopetition development
theories’’ are taking the form of setting up, initiation,
and implementation of coopetition strategy, and ‘‘coope-
tition maintenance theories’’ are being a solid ground for
a long-term and beneficial coopetition exploitation.
The identified categories of the theoretical roots of
coopetition support the process view on coopetition phe-
nomenon, as every category seems to be applicable at a
different phase of coopetition. Following Dorn et al.
(2016), coopetition as a dynamic phenomenon, develops
in time. Using the life cycle approach, this development
can be divided into four specific phases: a preliminary
phase in which the antecedents for coopetition are identi-
fied, initiation when coopetition is established and the
flows between coopetitors star, managing and shaping
coopetition relationships including the flows inside, and
evaluation phase in which coopetitors do assess the coo-
petition outputs. Given the above, the functions as well
as the theoretical views assigned to them, seem to be the
most applicable at different phases of the coopetition life
cycle. In other words, the primary function of the coope-
tition construction theories (applicable mainly before
coopetition is formally established) is to prepare business
executives to be convinced to adopt this strategy. This is
due to the complex nature of coopetition, the duality of
cooperation-competition, and the arrangements linking
these two concepts. Later on, there appear coopetition
development theories (applicable mainly at the beginning
of coopetition when it develops fast) used to stimulate
enterprises to intensively and multidimensionally exploit
coopetition strategy through leveraging the level of
engagement and mutual investments. Finally, the coope-
tition maintenance theories were addressed (applicable
mainly when coopetition is well-developed and mature)
to be considered for conflict management, balancing ten-
sions, symmetrical exploitation of coopetition capabil-
ities, and also when experiencing cooperation with
formal institutions can determine coopetition longevity
and performance. As stated, in a long-term perspective,
coopetition strategy is accompanied by the inherent con-
tradictions, paradoxes, and tensions caused by the dua-
lity of cooperation-competition, and the management of
these tensions requires proper executive mechanisms and
well-developed coopetition capability taking the form of
ambidextrous dynamic capability balancing between
dynamics of coopetition and cooperation.
The first group of theories with an economic approach
and the three-phase functions (e.g., introduction,
10
Figure 2. Two-dimensional configuration of theories underlying coopetition.
reinforcement, and legitimization) was entitled ‘‘coopeti-
tion construction theories’’ which include transaction cost
theory (TCT), game theory, and institutional economic
theory (marked as theories A, B, C in Figure 2). Here,
the label ‘‘construction theories’’ refers to the role of the-
ories in the adoption and development of a coopetition
strategy by business managers. In other words, those the-
ories have been considered as an essential factor influen-
cing the propensity of business managers to approach –
before formal establishment – a coopetition strategy.
According to the theory classification logic described
above, those three theories have played a pivotal role in
establishing and pre-shaping a coopetition relationship.
They somehow familiarize business managers with the
coopetition strategy and prepare them for entry into this
paradoxical domain, which is an essential step in imple-
menting this theory in the business world. The theories
above provide good incentives for senior managers to
make decisions on entering this area and focus on
SAGE Open
managing firm costs, acknowledging synergistic effects
(i.e., ‘‘win-win’’ or ‘‘win-win-win’’ scenario), and promot-
ing firm innovation also through the exploitation of the
supportive business environment. All three items have a
high impact on the perceptions and attitudes of senior
managers to lean toward this strategy. For example, in
his research using the transaction cost theory, Erickson
(2016) seeks to justify coopetition in the buyer-supplier
relationships; in their research using the resource-based
view. In the case of game theory, the role of the stories of
successful organizations in designing and forming the
game, and even the role of this theory in the formation
of an organization’s strategy are reported
(Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2002). Finally, in their
study, Fong et al. used an institutional economics per-
spective to encourage coopetition in the tourism indus-
try, hence other items such as organizational (Klimas,
2016) or national (Knein et al., 2020) culture reflecting
informal institutions have been shown as important for
Klimas et al.
considering entering coopetitive relationships. All in all,
this group of theories tries to create a positive tendency
toward a coopetition strategy.
The second group, labeled as ‘‘coopetition development
theories’’ refers to the theories with the organizational
and inter-organizational approach as well as preliminary
and encouraging functions. This set of theories includes
resource-based view/resource-dependency theory, net-
work approach, and strategic learning of organization
(marked as theories D, E & F in Figure 2). Here ‘‘devel-
opment’’ means to develop the necessary arrangements
for the establishment and initial (but fast) expansion of a
coopetition strategy. Those theories, due to extreme
complexity and interdisciplinary nature of coopetitive
relationships, suit the most coopetition covering more
components of the value chain (Fayazbakhsh & Sepehri,
2011; Klimas, 2014) and crossing dyadic relationships
through different functions and industries (Knein et al.,
2020; Luo et al., 2006), as well as coopetition with a wide
range of firms including both direct and indirect business
rivals (Kraus, Meier et al., 2018).
Given potentially wide and rich benefits (e.g., genera-
tion of the additional, relational rent, access to network
resources, resource sharing and diffusion, mutual organi-
zational learning including sharing tacit knowledge,
experiences, and skills, etc.), those theories can convince
senior corporate managers to try to expand the level of
cooperation with their competitors in more parts of the
value chain or to cooperate with more firms in an indus-
try or even with other industries. In this group of the-
ories, a coopetitor moves one step further and after
deciding about coopetition adoption, the focus is paid to
exploit its benefits to the greatest (and the fastest) extent.
For instance, after the coopetition establishment,
Chimbareto and Fernandez have shown that firms fur-
ther tend to use a coopetition strategy in times of high
uncertainty; in their research by taking advantage of the
coopetition strategy, Sanou et al. (2016) showed that the
network strength is effective in improving the perfor-
mance of its member firms in an industry and improving
the overall situation of the company. Finally, the learn-
ing organization has been considered useful for taking
benefits that arise quickly including knowledge transfer,
sharing, and diffusion as well as sharing and joint build-
ing of experience (Le Roy & Czakon, 2016; Luo, 2007).
Last but not least, the third group of theories labeled
as ‘‘coopetition maintenance (continuity) theories’’ covers
two levels of approaches to coopetition justification (i.e.,
organizational and inter-organizational ones) and two
functions of theoretical lenses for coopetition theory
development (i.e., reinforcement and legitimization).
Chronologically, the last set of theoretical concepts
includes mutual trust theory, tension management, and
dynamic capabilities approach (marked as theories G, H,
11
I in Figure 2). Generally, the theoretical roots considered
here point at the issues specific (or even distinctive) for
coopetition strategy faced by managers in a long-term
perspective and determining coopetition survival and
longitudinal performance. In this category, given the
focus on longitudinal gains from coopetition, the the-
ories concentrate on different ways of transforming the
business coopetition surroundings into a favorable and
peaceful environment based on trust, balanced tensions,
or well-developed coopetition capability. Those theoreti-
cal lenses appear as apparent and become considered as
significant when coopetition reaches the maturity phase
of its life-cycle, as the more negative and problematic
issues occur when coopetition is sufficiently intense,
deep, and long-lasting, thus requiring management and
strategizing (Le Roy et al., 2018). Regarding this stream
of theoretical views, mutual trust is known as a powerful
mechanism in the long-term development of inter-firm
relationships (de Resende et al., 2018), hence dynamic,
coopetition capabilities are known as good stimuli for
both the development and maintenance of firm coopeti-
tive behaviors (Bengtsson, Raza-Ullah et al., 2016;
Gnyawali & Park, 2011; Raza-Ullah et al., 2014, 2018)
especially when dealing with technological changes
(Afuah, 2000). Similarly, tension management has been
proven as being critical to sustaining coopetition at sym-
metrical and beneficial level (Fernandez et al., 2014;
Tidström & Hagberg-Andersson, 2012), hence the inter-
organizational communication management in the coo-
petition strategy is concerned as the most contributing to
the sustainability of coopetition.
Concluding Remarks
This reviewing paper leverages our understanding of the
theoretical roots of coopetition. The clarification of the
coopetition theoretical background is achieved using a
systematic (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Fink, 2019) and
integrative (Elsbach & Knippenberg, 2020) literature
review, semantic analysis, and configuration approach.
As a result of our exploration, we identify 10 different,
whereas interlinked and complimentary, theoretical
lenses of coopetition phenomenon. The identified con-
cepts are categorized using two separate criteria; one
more important for conceptual transparency of coopeti-
tion theory (i.e., the function of theoretical roots for the
development of coopetition theory) and one more signifi-
cant for coopetition popularization in business practice
(i.e., approach to the reasoning of coopetition strategy
adoption). Finally, both categorizations, using a process
and life-cycle view on coopetition phenomenon, are used
to develop a multidimensional configuration of the theo-
retical roots of coopetition.
12
Following a systematic approach to literature review-
ing (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009), our desk research started
from setting up two research questions categorization of
addressing the leading theoretical lenses of coopetition
and their multidimensional configuration.
First, our findings reveal the following main theories
underlying the coopetition strategy: game theory, RBV,
RDT, network approach, TCT, institutional economic
theory, dynamic capabilities, strategic learning, the con-
cept of mutual trust, tension management. Furthermore,
as discussed in prior literature reviews, some authors
investigating coopetition use also other theoretical con-
structs (e.g., strategic alliances—Czakon, Mucha-Kuś
et al., 2014; Devece et al., 2019) or even paradigms (e.g.,
cooperation, competition—Bengtsson, Kock et al., 2016)
to give a theoretical background to their studies. Our
study, focuses however on theories (labeled also as con-
cepts, doctrines) acknowledged as more advanced and
complex than theoretical constructs, whereas less com-
plex than paradigm. On the one hand, theoretical con-
structs are conceptualized mainly through
operationalization and measurement (Blalock, 1982),
hence theory needs conceptual considerations and defini-
tion. On the other, a paradigm stands behind the set of
coherent and compatible theories and allows those the-
ories to be measured, verified, or tested (Kuhn, 2012).
Second, by integration and semantic analysis of the
identified set of theoretical lenses, it was possible to
develop their two categorizations. By the analysis of the
contexts in which they are used as well as though the
analysis of the similarities, and differences in reasoning,
explaining, and understanding the coopetition specificity
among them the following categorizations were devel-
oped: the one based on the approach to the justification
of the applicability of coopetition strategy and the second
considering the function of particular theoretical concept
for the development of coopetition theory. As noted, sev-
eral theories have been reported by researchers of the
field. In an approach-based classification, they include
economic, organizational, and inter-organizational the-
ories. Regarding the function of theoretical lenses for the
development of coopetition theory, some theories express
the applicability and provide sound reasoning for coope-
tition strategy adoption, thus impact the awareness and
popularity of coopetition theory. Moreover, some theo-
retical groups try to emphasize coopetition benefits, thus
reinforce the meaning of coopetition-based approach to
competitive advantage. Finally, the rest of the theoretical
roots gives legitimization to coopetition theory by focus-
ing on coopetition-specific problems. The last group of
theoretical lenses, due to their specificity, can be seen as a
piece of conceptual evidence for the autonomy of coope-
tition theory.
SAGE Open
Third, the developed classifications, using the config-
urational approach, were used to create a multidimen-
sional and comprehensive framework of theoretical
lenses of coopetition. Our configuration, besides previ-
ously revealed categorization criteria, uses the process
view on coopetition strategy, thus considers the applic-
ability of the particular theoretical concepts for manag-
ing coopetition across its life cycle. All in all, our
configuration covers nine theoretical concepts organized
into three sets: coopetition construction theories, coopeti-
tion development theories, and coopetition maintenance
theories. The identified constructs find applicability in
sub-sequent phases of coopetition development starting
from the preliminary phase aimed at recognition and
acknowledgment of coopetition antecedents; initiation
phase aimed at establishing and strengthening of coopeti-
tion relationships; and managing and shaping phase
aimed at long-term, balanced, and beneficial exploitation
of coopetition relationships. Given the entire coopetition
process (Dorn et al., 2016), the above configuration
leaves the last phase of coopetition life cycle, namely the
evaluation phase, without theoretical support. The con-
sidered theoretical lenses, however, refer to coopetition
reasoning and explanation, whereas the last phase does
appear when coopetition is terminated. Thus, it does not
have to be reasoned or explained anymore. Nonetheless,
as the first configuration refers to antecedents, being at
the same time possible goals and outcomes of coopeti-
tion, it seems to be reasoned to use recommendations
from that set of concepts and assess to what extent coo-
petition has allowed reaching the preliminary considered
goals and outcomes.
In this paper we focus on the categorization of theore-
tical lenses of coopetition as ‘‘The growth in the theoreti-
cal field (of coopetition) provides a deeper understanding
of the phenomenon, yet the risk is that conceptual and theo-
retical inconsistencies and confusions will follow theoretical
developments, thus hampering the consolidation of the
field’’ (Bengtsson, Kock et al., 2016, p. 5). We do believe
that our findings increase transparency in the theoretical
background of coopetition. Moreover, we see our paper
as valuable for future research as it contributes to a bet-
ter arrangement of theoretical roots of coopetition and
thus, it would add to the scientific rigor of future research
in the field. According to Gnyawali and Song (2016), the
rigor in scientific work can be considered as consisting of
three building blocks: conceptual rigor (sound develop-
ment of a theory that would provide a valid basis for
empirical investigation), methodological rigor (appropri-
ateness of methodological choices in terms of accurate
measurement of the considered phenomenon), and
empirical rigor (proper organization and interpretation
of research findings). This paper develops a configuration
Klimas et al.
of theoretical lenses of coopetition and makes a wide range
of the theoretical lenses, concepts, and underlaying logics
more transparent, showing how and when to rest on those
different theoretical views. We see this as a potentially signif-
icant methodological contribution to the improvement of
the conceptual rigor in future studies on coopetition.
Coopetition theory still has many dark spots in terms of
the theoretical underpinnings of the entire concept. The
present study attempts to bridge these theoretical gaps by
presenting the comprehensive framework of theories in this
field. Besides the conceptual and methodological contribu-
tions, we do notice managerial implications as well. Based
on the configuration of the theoretical underpinnings, man-
agers can more easily and quickly reach particular theories
that would be useful in a certain phase in the life cycle of
coopetition. Furthermore, the presented integrated view on
theoretical roots of coopetition can be seen as reasoning for
coopetition strategy adoption, for example, managers would
know how to justify coopetitive behaviors from the eco-
nomic, organizational, and inter-organizational perspective
and how to develop coopetition as well as its outputs by
paying greater attention to gains expressed by particular
theoretical concepts. Finally, given the developed configura-
tion, managers would know how to manage and maintain
coopetition in a long-term perspective, for example, by
focusing more on tensions and building up coopetition
capability.
Although the developed classification contributes to
coopetition literature and practice, we are aware of its
limitations. First and foremost, is based on literature
review, the findings are prone to typical reviewing biases
related to the type and scope of adopted inclusion/exclu-
sion criteria, accessibility of literature in full length, or
subjectivity of analyses (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009).
Moreover, as mentioned, in the research literature
regarding relevant theories, the focus of most researchers
is on three main theories and other theories have been
used sparsely and in proportion to the needs of research-
ers. The main limitation of the research was related to
the over-dispersion of theories. Besides that, so far some
theories have been presented in a blurry way and there
were some theoretical overlaps and misunderstandings.
All of the above may result in classification bias.
However, to limit this problem, the research team used
intra-team brainstorming to discuss problematic papers.
Considering the future research directions and heed-
ing the fact that our paper investigates theoretical roots
of coopetition and proposes a configuration of the appli-
cable theoretical views, we support prior claims that ‘‘the
future growth of the coopetitive research field hinges on
creatively combining– the identified and differentiated –
existing theoretical approaches with novel research meth-
ods and contexts’’ (Bengtsson, Kock et al., 2016, p. 4).
13
Furthermore, as coopetition is a complex and multifa-
ceted area (Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Klimas,
2014; Le Roy & Czakon, 2016), it would be interesting
to explore the applicability of other theories in the field
of coopetition. For instance, as the link between coopeti-
tion and innovation output remains ambiguous, it would
be interesting to consider concepts useful in innovation
management including NPD in particular (e.g., co-inno-
vation). Also, it remains blurry whether coopetition is
stimulated or destimulated by cognitive similarity, tech-
nological overlap, or geographical distance of coopeti-
tors. Thus, it would be interesting to consider the
applicability of the proximity hypothesis (Albert-
Cromarias & Dos Santos, 2020; Jakobsen & Steinmo,
2016) on the coopetition ground, especially as proximity
does reflect parabolic (inverted ‘‘U’’) link with innova-
tion output (Boschma, 2005).
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to the Editors and Reviewers from Sage Open
journal for their insightful and constructive comments. Dear
Contributors, your willingness to give your time and insightful
comments, to share ideas for improvements so generously is
very much appreciated.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The publication of the paper benefited from grant given
by National Science Centre under the agreement No. UMO-
2020/39/B/HS4/00935.
Declaration of the Exclusivity of Submission
The manuscript has not been published previously, it is not
under consideration for publication elsewhere, and if accepted,
it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English
or any other language.
ORCID iD
Ali Ashraf Ahmadian https://orcid.org/0000-0001-55
04-5837
References
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder colla-
boration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32(1), 28–48.
14
Afuah, A. (2000). How much do yourco-opetitors’ capabilities
matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 21(3), 397–404.
Albert-Cromarias, A., & Dos Santos, C. (2020). Coopetition
between French healthcare providers: An analysis in terms
of proximity. Supply Chain Forum an International Journal,
21(2), 69–78.
Anderson, P., Meyer, A., Eisenhardt, K., Carley, K., & Petti-
grew, A. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Applica-
tions of complexity theory to organization science.
Organization Science, 10(3), 233–236.
Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition
in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowl-
edge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research,
115, 307–316.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Baruch, Y., & Lin, C.-P. (2012). All for one, one for all: Coope-
tition and virtual team performance. Technological Forecast-
ing and Social Change, 79(6), 1155–1168.
Basole, R. C., Park, H., & Barnett, B. C. (2015). Coopetition
and convergence in the ICT ecosystem. Telecommunications
Policy, 39(7), 537–552.
Belleflamme, P., & Neysen, N. (2009). Coopetition in infome-
diation: General analysis and application to e-tourism. In
Á. Matias, P. Nijkamp, & M. Sarmento (Eds.) Advances in
tourism economics (Vol. 1, pp. 217–234). Springer.
Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Co-opetition
dynamics – An outline for further inquiry. Competitiveness
Review: An International Business Journal, 20(2), 194–214.
Bengtsson, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). Managing coopetition
to create opportunities for small firms. International Small
Business Journal, 32(4), 401–427.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). ‘‘Coopetition’’ in business
Networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously.
Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo Vadis?
Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Mar-
keting Management, 43(2), 180–188.
Bengtsson, M., Kock, S., Lundgren-Henriksson, E. L., &
Näsholm, M. H. (2016). Coopetition research in theory and
practice: Growing new theoretical, empirical, and methodologi-
cal domains. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 4–11.
Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of
research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding.
Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 23–39.
Bengtsson, M., Raza-Ullah, T., & Vanyushyn, V. (2016). The
coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of
coopetition capability. Industrial Marketing Management,
53, 19–30.
Benson, J., & Hagtvet, K. A. (1996). The interplay among
design, data analysis, and theory in the measurement of cop-
ing. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of cop-
ing: Theory, research, applications (pp. 83–106). Wiley.
Bermudez, R. J., Korlin, J., Moorer, D. J., Shamma, M., &
Wallace, S. (2019). Frenemies in business: Partner or compe-
titor? Muma Case Review, 4(12), 001–024.
Blalock, H. M. (1982). Conceptualization and measurement in
the social sciences. SAGE Publications.
SAGE Open
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical
assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
Bouncken, R. B., & Fredrich, V. (2012). Coopetition: Perfor-
mance implications and management antecedents. Interna-
tional Journal of Innovation Management, 16(05), 1–28.
Bouncken, R. B., & Fredrich, V. (2016). Learning in coopeti-
tion: Alliance orientation, network size, and firm types.
Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1753–1758.
Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2020). Configura-
tions of firm-level value capture in coopetition. Long Range
Planning, 53(1), 101869.
Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coo-
petition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research
directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577–601.
Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-
intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition.
Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060–2070.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1995). The right
game: Use game theory to shape strategy. Harvard Business
Review, 76, 57–71.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (2002). Use game the-
ory to shape strategy. Strategy: Critical Perspectives on Busi-
ness and Management, 4, 260–291.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American
Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.
Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Com-
parisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in
rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30(5),
693–703.
Carfi, D. (2010). A model for coopetitive games. RePEc - Research
papers in Economics. MPRA Paper, 59633 (pp. 1–25).
Carfi, D. (2012). Coopetitive games and applications. In R. K.
Mishra, S. Deman, M. Salunkhe, S. B. Rao, & J. Raveen-
dran (Eds.), Advances and applications in game theory
(pp. 128–147). J. Macmillan Publishing House.
Carfı̀, D., & Musolino, F. (2012). Game theory and speculation
on government bonds. Economic Modelling, 29(6),
2417–2426.
Carfı̀, D., & Musolino, F. (2013). Game theory application of
Monti’s proposal for European government bonds stabiliza-
tion. Applied Sciences, 15.
Carfı̀, D., & Musolino, F. (2014). Speculative and hedging
interaction model in oil and US dollar markets with finan-
cial transaction taxes. Economic Modelling, 37, 306–319.
Carfı̀, D., Patané, G., & Pellegrino, S. (2011). Coopetitive games
and sustainability in project financing. In G. Calabro (Ed.), Mov-
ing from the crisis to sustainability. Emerging issues in the interna-
tional context (Vol. 1, pp. 175–182). Franco Angeli.
Carfı̀, D., & Schilirò, D. (2011). A model of coopetitive game
and the Greek crisis. MPRA Paper (pp. 1–12). https://
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35245/
Carfı̀, D., & Trunfio, A. (2011). A non-linear coopetitive game
for global Green Economy. In G. Calabro (Ed.), Moving
from the crisis to sustainability-emerging issues in the interna-
tional context (Vol. 1, pp. 421–428). Franco Angeli.
Castaldo, S., & Dagnino, G. B. (2009). Trust and coopetition:
the strategic role of trust in interfirm coopetitive dynamics.
In G. B. Dagnino, & E. Rocco (Eds.), Coopetition strategy
theory, experiments and cases (pp. 94–120). Routledge.
Klimas et al.
Castaldo, S., Möllering, G., & Grosso, M. (2010). Exploring
how third-party organizations facilitate coopetition
management in buyer–seller relationships. In S. Yami, S.
Castaldo, G. B. Dagnino, & F. Le Roy (Eds.), Coopeti-
tion: Winning strategies for the 21st century (pp. 141–165).
Edward Elgar.
Chen, M.-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition—
cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Jour-
nal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2015). Reconceptualizing competi-
tive dynamics: A multidimensional framework. Strategic
Management Journal, 36(5), 758–775.
Chiambaretto, P., & Dumez, H. (2016). Toward a typology of
coopetition: A multilevel approach. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 46(2-3), 110–129.
Chin, K. S., Chan, B. L., & Lam, P. K. (2008). Identifying and
prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4), 437–454.
Clarke-Hill, C., Li, H., & Davies, B. (2003). The paradox of
co-operation and competition in strategic alliances: Towards
a multi-paradigm approach. Management Research News,
26(1), 1–20.
Crick, J. M. (2018a). The facets, antecedents and consequences
of coopetition: An entrepreneurial marketing perspective.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
21(2), 253–327.
Crick, J. M. (2019). Moderators affecting the relationship
between coopetition and company performance. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 34(2), 518–531.
Cygler, J. (2015). Structural pathology in inter-organizational
networks and the decision-making autonomy of its mem-
bers. In W. Sroka, & S. Hittmár (Eds.), Management of net-
work organizations (pp. 181–195). Springer.
Cygler, J., & Sroka, W. (2016). The boundaries of coopetition:
A case study of Polish companies operating in the high-tech
sector. In J. Ateljevic, & J. Trivić (Eds.), Economic develop-
ment and entrepreneurship in transition Economies (pp. 253–
269). Springer.
Cygler, J., & Sroka, W. (2017). Coopetition disadvantages: The
case of the high tech companies. Engineering Economics,
28(5), 494–550.
Czakon, W. (2010). Emerging coopetition: An empirical inves-
tigation of coopetition as interorganizational relationship
instability. In S. Yami, S. Castaldo, G. B. Dagnino, & F. Le
Roy (Eds.), Coopetition: Winning strategies for the 21st cen-
tury (pp. 58–73). Edward Elgar.
Czakon, W., Fernandez, A.-S., & Minà, A. (2014). Editorial -
from paradox to practice: The rise of coopetition strategies.
International Journal of Business Environment, 6(1), 1–10.
Czakon, W., Klimas, P., & Mariani, M. (2020). Behavioral
antecedents of coopetition: A synthesis and measurement
scale. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 1–44.
Czakon, W., Mucha-Kuś, K., & Rogalski, M. (2014). Coopeti-
tion research landscape-a systematic literature review 1997-
2010. Journal of Economics & Management, 17, 122–150.
Czakon, W., & Rogalski, M. (2014). Coopetition typology
revisited - a behavioural approach. International Journal of
Business Environment, 6(1), 28–46.
15
Czernek, K., & Czakon, W. (2016). Trust-building processes in
tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tourism
Management, 52, 380–394.
Dagnino, G. B. (2009). Coopetition strategy: A new kind of
interfirm dynamics for value creation. In G. B. Dagnino, &
E. Rocco (Eds.), Coopetition strategy: Theory, experiments
and cases (pp. 45–63). Routledge.
Dagnino, G. B., & Rocco, E. (2009). Introduction-coopetition
strategy: A ‘‘path recognition’’ investigation approach. In
G. B. Dagnino & E. Rocco (Eds.), Coopetition strategy (pp.
21–42). Routledge.
Daidj, N., & Egert, C. (2018). Towards new coopetition-based
business models? The case of Netflix on the French market.
Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship,
20(1), 99–120.
Dal-Soto, F., & Monticelli, J. (2017). Coopetition strategies in
the Brazilian higher education. Revista de Administracxão de
Empresas, 57(1), 65–78.
de Araujo, D. V. B., & Franco, M. (2017). Trust-building
mechanisms in a coopetition relationship: A case study
design. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
25(3), 378–394.
Della Corte, V. (2018). Innovation through coopetition: Future
directions and new challenges. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(4), 1–13.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic
review. In D. A. Buchanan, & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689).
SAGE Publications Ltd.
de Resende, L. M. M., Volski, I., Betim, L. M., de Carvalho,
G. D. G., De Barros, R., & Senger, F. P. (2018). Critical
success factors in coopetition: Evidence on a business net-
work. Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 177–187.
Devece, C., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E., & Palacios-Marqués, D.
(2019). Coopetition as the new trend in inter-firm alliances:
Literature review and research patterns. Review of Manage-
rial Science, 13(2), 207–226.
Donaldson, L. (1996). For positivist organization theory: Prov-
ing the hard core. SAGE.
Dorn, S., Schweiger, B., & Albers, S. (2016). Levels, phases
and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review
and research agenda. European Management Journal, 34(5),
484–500.
Dowling, M. J., Roering, W. D., Carlin, B. A., & Wisnieski, J.
(1996). Multifaceted relationships under coopetition:
Description and theory. Journal of Management Inquiry,
5(2), 155–167.
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. Stra-
tegic Management Journal, 21(2), 99–126.
Dutta, D. K. (2015). Hypercompetitive environments, coopeti-
tion strategy, and the role of complementary assets in build-
ing competitive advantage: Insights from the resource-based
view. Strategic Management Review, 9(1), 1–11.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Coopera-
tive strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
16
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study
research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabil-
ities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal,
21(10-11), 1105–1121.
Elsbach, K. D., & Knippenberg, D. (2020). ‘creating High-
Impact Literature Reviews: An Argument for Integrative
Reviews’. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6),
1277–1289.
Eriksson, P. E. (2008). Achieving suitable coopetition in buyer–
supplier relationships: The case of AstraZeneca. Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing, 15(4), 425–454.
Erickson, K. (2016). Defining the public domain in economic
terms-approaches and consequences for policy. Etikk i prak-
sis. Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 10(1), 61–74.
Fang, S.-R., Chang, Y.-S., & Peng, Y.-C. (2011). Dark side of
relationships: A tensions-based view. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(5), 774–784.
Fang, K. T., Kotz, S., & Ng, K. W. (2018). Symmetric multi-
variate and related distributions. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Fayazbakhsh, K., & Sepehri, M. (2011). A quantitative exami-
nation of competition, coopetition and cooperation in sup-
ply chains. South African Journal of Business Management,
42(3), 61–70.
Felzensztein, C., Gimmon, E., & Aqueveque, C. (2012). Clus-
ters or un-clustered industries? Where inter-firm marketing
cooperation matters. Journal of Business and Industrial Mar-
keting, 27(5), 392–402.
Fernandez, A.-S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2016). Managing ten-
sions related to information in coopetition. Industrial Mar-
keting Management, 53, 66–76.
Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014).
Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evi-
dence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in
Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.
Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From
the internet to paper. SAGE Publications.
Fong, V. H. I., Wong, I. A., & Hong, J. F. L. (2018). Develop-
ing institutional logics in the tourism industry through coo-
petition. Tourism Management, 66, 244–262.
Fredrich, V., Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2019). The race is
on: Configurations of absorptive capacity, interdependence
and slack resources for interorganizational learning in
coopetition alliances. Journal of Business Research, 101,
862–868.
Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopeti-
tion research: Towards a better understanding of past trends
and future directions. International Journal of Entrepreneur-
ship and Small Business, 24(4), 492–521.
Gast, J., Gundolf, K., Harms, R., & Matos Collado, E.
(2019). Knowledge management and coopetition: How do
cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and
protect their knowledge? Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 77, 65–74.
Ghobadi, S., & D’Ambra, J. (2011). Coopetitive Knowledge
Sharing: An Analytical Review of Literature. Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 307–317.
SAGE Open
Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. (2006). Impact of co-
opetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical exami-
nation. Journal of Management, 32(4), 507–530.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks
and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 431–445.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. (2009). Co-opetition and tech-
nological innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises:
A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business
Management, 47(3), 308–330.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition between
giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological
innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Ryan Charleton, T. (2018). Nuances in the
interplay of competition and cooperation: Towards a theory
of coopetition. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2511–2534.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Song, Y. (2016). Pursuit of rigor in
research: Illustration from coopetition literature. Industrial
Marketing Management, 57, 12–22.
Golnam, A., Ritala, P., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition
within and between value networks - a typology and a mod-
elling framework. International Journal of Business Environ-
ment, 6(1), 47–68.
Granata, J., Lasch, F., Le Roy, F., & Dana, L. P. (2018). How
do micro-firms manage coopetition? A study of the wine sec-
tor in France. International Small Business Journal, 36(3),
331–355.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 19(4), 293–317.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganiza-
tional networks come from? American Journal of Sociology,
104(5), 1439–1493.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203–215.
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two
facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in
strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Annals,
6(1), 531–583.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H.,
Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Under-
standing strategic change in organizations. Wiley.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-
based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management
Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Understanding dynamic
capabilities: Progress along a developmental path. Strategic
organization, 7(1), 91–102.
Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. (2003). Guest edi-
tors’ introduction to the special issue: why is there a
resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heteroge-
neity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 889–902.
Jakobsen, S. (2020). Managing tension in coopetition through
mutual dependence and asymmetries: A longitudinal study
of a Norwegian R&D alliance. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, 84, 251–260.
Jakobsen, S., & Steinmo, M. (2016). The role of proximity
dimensions in the development of innovations in
Klimas et al.
coopetition: A longitudinal case study. International Journal
of Technology Management, 71(1-2), 100–122.
Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability,
stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The
role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal,
23(8), 747–767.
Kedia, B. L., Rhew, N. D., Gaffney, N. T., & Clampit, J. A.
(2016). Emerging market multinationals: Coopetition for
global growth. Thunderbird International Business Review,
58(6), 515–526.
Kim, J., & Parkhe, A. (2009). Competing and cooperating simi-
larity in global strategic alliances: An exploratory examina-
tion. British Journal of Management, 20(3), 363–376.
Kim, S., Kim, N., Pae, J. H., & Yip, L. (2013). Cooperate
‘‘and’’ compete: Coopetition strategy in retailer-supplier
relationships. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
28(4), 263–275.
Klimas, P. (2014). Multifaceted nature of coopetition inside an
aviation supply chain–the case of the aviation valley. Journal
of Economics & Management, 17, 95–119.
Klimas, P. (2016). Organizational culture and coopetition: An
exploratory study of the features, models and role in the Pol-
ish Aviation Industry. Industrial Marketing Management,
53, 91–102.
Klimas, P., & Czakon, W. (2018). Organizational innovative-
ness and coopetition: A study of video game developers.
Review of Managerial Science, 12(2), 469–497.
Knein, E., Greven, A., Bendig, D., & Brettel, M. (2020). Cul-
ture and cross-functional coopetition: The interplay of orga-
nizational and national culture. Journal of International
Management, 26(2), 1–24.
Kraus, S., Klimas, P., Gast, J., & Stephan, T. (2018). Sleeping
with competitors: Forms, antecedents and outcomes of coo-
petition of small and medium-sized craft beer breweries.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, 25(1), 50–66.
Kraus, S., Meier, F., Niemand, T., Bouncken, R. B., & Ritala,
P. (2018). In search for the ideal coopetition partner: An
experimental study. Review of Managerial Science, 12(4),
1025–1053.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th
ed.). University of Chicago press.
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competi-
tion, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syn-
cretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1),
110–141.
Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance
competence, resources, and alliance success: Conceptualiza-
tion, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158.
Lascaux, A. (2020). Coopetition and trust: What we know,
where to go next. Industrial Marketing Management, 84,
2–18.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected
firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of
Management Review, 31(3), 638–658.
Lechner, C., Soppe, B., & Dowling, M. (2016). Vertical coopeti-
tion and the sales growth of young and small firms. Journal
of Small Business Management, 54(1), 67–84.
17
Lee, L. T.-S., & Sukoco, B. M. (2007). The effects of entrepre-
neurial orientation and knowledge management capability
on organizational effectiveness in Taiwan: The moderating
role of social capital. International Journal of Management,
24(3), 549–565.
Le Roy, F., & Czakon, W. (2016). Managing coopetition: The
missing link between strategy and performance. Industrial
Marketing Management, 53(1), 3–6.
Le Roy, F., Fernandez, A. S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2018). From
strategizing coopetition to managing coopetition. In A. S.
Fernandez, F. Le Roy, P. Chiambaretto, & W. Czakon
(Eds.), The Routledge companion to coopetition strategies
(pp. 36–46). Routledge.
Le Roy, F., & Sanou, F. H. (2014). Does coopetition strategy
improve market performance? An empirical study in mobile
phone industry. Journal of Economics & Management, 17,
64–92.
Levin, M. A., & McDonald, R. E. (2006). Theory as a post-Chi-
cago argument for legal coopetition. The Marketing Man-
agement Journal, 16(2), 1–12.
Lin, D. Y., Huang, C. C., & Ng, M. (2017). The coopetition
game in international liner shipping. Maritime Policy &
Management, 44(4), 474–495.
Liu, R. (2013). Cooperation, competition and coopetition in
innovation communities. Prometheus, 31(2), 91–105.
Loebbecke, C., & van Fenema, P. C. (1998). Interorganiza-
tional knowledge sharing during coopetition. In W. R. J.
Baets (Ed.), Proceedings 6th European Conference on Infor-
mation Systems (Volume IV (ECIS 98), pp. 1632–1639).
Aix-en-Provence.
Lundgren-Henriksson, E. L., & Kock, S. (2016). A sensemak-
ing perspective on coopetition. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, 57, 97–108.
Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional
‘‘coopetition’’: The simultaneous role of cooperation and
competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2),
67–80.
Luo, Y. (2004). A coopetition perspective of MNC–host gov-
ernment relations. Journal of International Management,
10(4), 431–451.
Luo, Y. (2005). Toward coopetition within a multinational
enterprise: A perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal
of World Business, 40(1), 71–90.
Luo, Y. (2007). A coopetition perspective of global competi-
tion. Journal of World Business, 42(2), 129–144.
Madhok, A. (2000). Transaction (in)efficiency, value (in)effi-
ciency and interfirm collaboration. In D. O. Faulkner, & M.
de Rond (Eds.), Cooperative strategies: Economic, organiza-
tional and business issues (pp. 74–95). Oxford University
Press.
Mariani, M. M. (2007). Coopetition as an emergent strategy:
Empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of opera
houses. International Studies of Management and Organiza-
tion, 37(2), 97–126.
McCutchen, W. W., Jr, Swamidass, P. M., & Teng, B.-S.
(2008). Strategic alliance termination and performance: The
role of task complexity, nationality, and experience. The
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 18(2),
191–202.
18
Melo Brito, C. (2001). Towards an institutional theory of the
dynamics of industrial networks. Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 16(3), 150–166.
Meso, P., & Smith, R. (2000). A resource-based view of organi-
zational knowledge management systems. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 4(3), 224–234.
Mesquita, L. F., Anand, J., & Brush, T. H. (2008). Comparing
the resource-based and relational views: Knowledge transfer
and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic Management
Journal, 29(9), 913–941.
Meyer, A., Tsui, A., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational
approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 36, 1175–1195.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J., Jr.
(1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process.
Academy of management review, 3(3), 546–562.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of ‘‘direct’’
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 582–589.
Mione, A. (2009). When entrepreneurship requires coopetition:
The need for standards in the creation of a market. Interna-
tional Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(1),
92–109.
Monticelli, J. M., Garrido, I. L., & de Vasconcellos, S. L.
(2018). Coopetition and institutions: A strategy for Brazilian
wineries facing internationalization. International Journal of
Wine Business Research, 30(1), 74–95.
Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness:
Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 26(12), 1129–1151.
Morris, M. H., Koc xak, A., & Ozer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a
small business strategy: Implications for performance. Jour-
nal of small business strategy, 18(1), 35–56.
Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co-opetition:
Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digi-
tal economy. Strategy and Leadership, 25(6), 28–33.
Nalebuff, B. J., Brandenburger, A., & Maulana, A. (1996). Co-
opetition (p. 0). Harper Collins Business.
Navickas, V., & Malakauskaite, A. (2009). The impact of clus-
terization on the development of small and medium-sized
enterprise (SME) sector. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 10(3), 255–259.
Nieto, M. J., & Santamarı́a, L. (2007). The importance of
diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product
innovation. Technovation, 27(6-7), 367–377.
Ohkita, K., & Okura, M. (2014). Coopetition and coordinated
investment: Protecting Japanese video games’ intellectual
property rights. International Journal of Business Environ-
ment, 4, 6(1), 92–105.
Okura, M. (2007). Coopetitive strategies of Japanese insurance
firms a game-theory approach. International Studies of Man-
agement and Organization, 37(2), 53–69.
Okura, M. (2008). Why isn’t the accident information shared?
A coopetition perspective. Management Research Journal
of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 6(3),
219–225.
Okura, M. (2009). Coopetitive strategies to limit the insurance
fraud problem in Japan. In G. B. Dagnino, & E. Rocco
SAGE Open
(Eds.), Coopetition strategy: Theory, experiments and cases
(pp. 240–257). Routledge.
Okura, M. (2012). An economic analysis of coopetitive training
investments for insurance agents [Conference session]. Inter-
national Conference on Information Processing and Man-
agement of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems.
Springer (pp. 571–577).
Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-firm dynamics between
competition and cooperation – A coopetition strategy. Jour-
nal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Manage-
ment, 17(3–4), 201–221.
Padula, G., & Dagnino, G. B. (2007). Untangling the rise of
coopetition: The intrusion of competition in a cooperative
game structure. International Studies of Management and
Organization, 37(2), 32–52.
Park, B. J. R., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014).
Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competi-
tion and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innova-
tion performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2),
210–221.
Peng, T. J. A., & Bourne, M. (2009). The coexistence of compe-
tition and cooperation between networks: Implications from
two Taiwanese healthcare networks. British Journal of Man-
agement, 20(3), 377–400.
Peng, T. J. A., Pike, S., Yang, J. C. H., & Roos, G. (2012). Is
cooperation with competitors a good idea? An example in
practice. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 532–560.
Perry, M. L., Sengupta, S., & Krapfel, R. (2004). Effectiveness
of horizontal strategic alliances in technologically uncertain
environments: are trust and commitment enough? Journal of
Business Research, 57(9), 951–956.
Pesamaa, O., & Eriksson, P.-E. (2010). Coopetition among
nature-based tourism firms: Competition at local level and
cooperation at destination level. In S. Yami, S. Castaldo,
G. B. Dagnino, & F. Le Roy (Eds.), Coopetition: Winning
strategies for the 21st century (pp. 166–182). Edward
Elgar.
Petter, R. R. H., Resende, L. M., de Andrade Júnior, P. P., &
Horst, D. J. (2014). Systematic review: An analysis model
for measuring the coopetitive performance in horizontal
cooperation networks mapping the critical success factors
and their variables. The Annals of Regional Science, 53(1),
157–178.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based
‘‘view’’ a useful perspective for strategic management
research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.
Quintana-Garcı́a, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2004).
Cooperation, competition, and innovative capability: A
panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms.
Technovation, 24(12), 927–938.
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coope-
tition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels.
Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Vanyushyn, V. (2018). Coo-
petition capability: What is it. In G. B. Dagnino, & E. Rocco
(Eds.), Coopetition strategy: Theory, experiments and cases
(pp. 197–204). Routledge.
Klimas et al.
Ritala, P. (2009). Is coopetition different from cooperation?
The impact of market rivalry on value creation in alliances.
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management,
3(1), 39–55.
Ritala, P. (2012). Coopetition strategy–when is it successful?
Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance.
British Journal of Management, 23(3), 307–324.
Ritala, P., Golnam, A., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-
based business models: The case of amazon.com. Industrial
Marketing Management, 43(2), 236–249.
Ritala, P., Huizingh, E., Almpanopoulou, A., & Wijbenga, P.
(2017). Tensions in R&D networks: Implications for knowl-
edge search and integration. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 120, 311–322.
Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009). What’s in it
for me? Creating and appropriating value in innovation-
related coopetition. Technovation, 29(12), 819–828.
Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental
and radical innovation in Coopetition-the role of absorptive
capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30(1), 154–169.
Rodrigues, F., Souza, V., & Leitao, J. (2009). Strategic coopeti-
tion of global brands: A game theory approach to ‘Nike +
iPod Sport Kit’co-branding. International Journal of Entre-
preneurial Venturing, 3(4), 435–455.
Rusko, R., Merenheimo, P., & Haanpää, M. (2013). Coopeti-
tion, resource-based view and legend: Cases of Christmas
tourism and city of Rovaniemi. International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 5(6), 37–51.
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R.
(2011). Towards a model of dynamic capabilities in
innovation-based competitive strategy: Insights from
project-oriented service firms. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 40(8), 1251–1263.
Sanou, F. H., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2016). How does
centrality in coopetition networks matter? An empirical
investigation in the mobile telephone industry. British Jour-
nal of Management, 27(1), 143–160.
Seran, T., Pellegrin-Boucher, E., & Gurau, C. (2016). The man-
agement of coopetitive tensions within multi-unit organiza-
tions. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 31–41.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a
conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain manage-
ment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.
Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in
theories of management and organization. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 35(3), 346–357.
Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus
entrepreneurial action. Journal of management studies, 49(8),
1395–1401.
Thomason, S. J., Simendinger, E., & Kiernan, D. (2013). Sev-
eral determinants of successful coopetition in small business.
Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 15–28.
19
Tidström, A. (2009). Causes of conflict in intercompetitor coop-
eration. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(7),
506–518.
Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Indus-
trial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261–271.
Tidström, A., & Hagberg-Andersson, Å. (2012). Critical events
in time and space when cooperation turns into competition
in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management,
41(2), 333–343.
Tordjman, H. (2004). How to study markets? An institutionalist
point of view. Revue d’Economie industrielle, 107(1), 19–36.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a meth-
odology for developing evidence-informed management
knowledge by means of systematic review. BritishJournal of
Management, 14(3), 7–222.
Tsai, K.-H., & Hsu, T. T. (2014). Cross-functional collabora-
tion, competitive intensity, knowledge integration mechan-
isms, and new product performance: A mediated moderation
model. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 293–303.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘‘coopetition’’ within a mul-
tiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraor-
ganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2),
179–190.
von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperating between rivals: Informal
know-how trading. Research Policy, 16(6), 291–302.
Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2007). Collaborative destina-
tion marketing: A case study of Elkhart county, Indiana.
Tourism Management, 28(3), 863–875.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strate-
gic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Wu, J. (2014). Cooperation with competitors and product inno-
vation: Moderating effects of technological capability and
alliances with universities. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 43(2), 199–209.
Yami, S., Castaldo, S., Dagnino, B., & Le Roy, F. (Eds.).
(2010). Coopetition: Winning strategies for the 21st century.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yang, B. (2002). Meta-analysis research and theory building.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 296–316.
Yang, X. (2020). Coopetition for innovation in R&D consortia:
Moderating roles of size disparity and formal interaction.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(1), 79–102.
Zacharia, Z., Plasch, M., Mohan, U., & Gerschberger, M.
(2019). The emerging role of coopetition within inter-firm
relationships. The International Journal of Logistics Manage-
ment, 30(2), 414–437.
Zerbini, F., & Castaldo, S. (2007). Stay in or get out the Janus?
The maintenance of multiplex relationships between buyers
and sellers. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7),
941–954.
Zhu, Y., Lynette Wang, V., Wang, Y. J., & Nastos, J. (2020).
Business-to-business referral as digital coopetition strategy.
European Journal of Marketing, 54(6), 1181–1203.