Content uploaded by Sea Matilda Bez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sea Matilda Bez on Apr 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
1
AOM Presenter Symposium Proposal:
THE ROLE OF COOPETITION ON INNOVATION, VALUE CREATION AND
VALUE CAPTURE
Co-Organizers:
Garima Sharma
Anderson School of Management
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
sharmag@unm.edu
Lori DiVito
Amsterdam School of International
Business
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Amsterdam, Netherlands
l.e.d.divito@hva.nl
Chair:
Garima Sharma
Presenters (*) and Co-Authors:
Strategizing coopetition for innovation: The key role of knowledge transparency
Sea Matilda Bez*
UC Berkeley, USA
University of Montpellier, France
Sea.bez@umontpellier.fr
Mechanisms for value creation in coopetition
Devi Gnyawali *
Virginia Tech, Department of Management
880 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA
devi@vt.edu
Asymmetric knowledge sharing and learning in coopetition: Capturing individual
firm and collective value
Garima Sharma
Anderson School of Management
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
sharmag@unm.edu
Lori DiVito*
Amsterdam School of International
Business
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Amsterdam, Netherlands
l.e.d.divito@hva.nl
Business cooperation for shared green reputation
Jorge Rivera*
School of Business
The George Washington
University
jrivera@email.gwu.edu
Marina Angelica Naranjo
Juan Robalino
Francisco Alpizar
EfD -Central America
Allen Blackman
Resources For the Future,
Washington DC
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
2
Discussant
Paavo Ritala
Lappeenranta University of Technology
School of Business and Management
Lappeenranta, Finland
Paavo.ritala@lut.fi
Potential Sponsor Divisions:
Organization and Natural Environment (ONE)
Strategic Management (STR)
Technology, Innovation and Management (TIM)
The symposium organizers, Garima Sharma and Lori DiVito, have received the
statements from all intended participants agreeing to participate in the entire symposium
and stating that they are not in violation of the Rule of Three + Three.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
3
ABSTRACT
Coopetition (simultaneous competition and collaboration between firms) is an important
driver for innovation, as competing organizations benefit from pooling resources and
ideas for new products, processes and achieving benefits such as collective reputation.
However, a key issue facing such relationships is the notion of value creation and
capture—how does value get created and distributed amongst competing partners. This
issue becomes increasingly salient when the coopetition includesmultiple actors and
common pool resources such as land and water. In this symposium, we bring together
scholars who are investigating coopetition between different actors such as direct
competitors, actors from the same industry, and organizations sharing similar collective
goals such as sustainable manufacturing. In showcasing this diversity of context we shed
light on the notion of value creation and capture in coopetitive relationships.
Keywords: coopetition, sustainability, innovation
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
4
OVERVIEW OF SYMPOSIUM
By Lori DiVito and Garima Sharma
Coopetition is the paradoxical relationship and dynamic process between two or
more actors that simultaneously and jointly create and capture value through cooperative
and competitive interactions, regardless of whether their relationship is horizontal or
vertical (Bengtsson et al, 2014; Bouncken et al, 2015).Coopetition is important for
innovation; competing organizations benefit frompooling resources and ideas for new
products and processes (Bouncken et al, 2017; Gnyawali and Park, 2011). However, a
key issue facing such relationships is the notion of value creation and capture—how does
value get created and distributed amongst competing partners. This issue becomes
increasingly salient as the coopetition objectives include multiple actors and common
pool resources such as land and water (e.g., Bowen, Bansal, Slawinski, forthcoming).
In this symposium, we bring together scholars who are investigating coopetition
between different actors such as direct competitors (Bez; Gnyawali), actors from the
same industry (Rivera), and organizations sharing similar collective goals such as
sustainable manufacturing (DiVito and Sharma). Through this diversity of context we
bring to the forefront distinct coopetition dynamics and innovation outcomes, and
specifically shed light on the notion of value creation and capture in coopetitive
relationships. Our panellists showcase that scholars can reveal novel insights when they
consider also broader notions of coopetition beyond bilateral relationships, including
industrial networks (e.g., Bengtsson and Kock, 2014; Bouncken and Kraus, 2013;
Gnyawali and Park, 2011; Padula and Dagnino, 2007) and multiple horizontal and
vertical actors in entrepreneurial or innovation ecosystems (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006;
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
5
Gueguen, 2009; Ritala and Tidström, 2014).
Coopetition for Innovation
The literature on innovation studies and systems has shown that searching for novel ideas
and filling research and developmentpipelines is an increasingly collaborative and open
process (Bogers and West, 2012; Bouncken et al, 2015; Chesbrough, 2003; Laursen and
Salter, 2006). Externally searching and accessing resources for innovation, e.g.
knowledge and learning,takes form in temporary organizations of collaborative projects
or platforms (Grabher, 2002; Maskell, Bathelt & Malmberg, 2006)and through various
types of relationships such as buyer-supplier, lead-users, and R&D consortia. Accessing
innovation resources using open strategies involves a wide range of external actors
(including firms, universities, governments, research institutes, of which any could be
competitors) that are embedded in innovation networks and systems (Dhanaraj and
Parkhe, 2006; Ritala et al, 2017).
Competitors are drawn to collaborate on innovation to combine knowledge and
resources for novel new technologies or product or process innovation(Hagedoorn, 2002)
and for sharing costs and risks associated with solving common (technological) problems
or setting industry standards (Gnyawali and Park, 2011; Miotti and Sachwald, 2003).
A few studies on R&D collaborations have found that collaborating with
competitors is beneficial for radical innovations (Belderbos, Carree & Lokshin, 2004a;
Belderbos, Gilsing & Lokshin, 2012). However, the positive effects of firm size, R&D
intensity and incoming knowledge spillovers are weaker in competitor collaborations
than with other types of partners, indicating greater risks in value creation, capture and
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
6
appropriability(Belderbos et al, 2004b; Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009). Some
studies have found a curvilinear relationship between coopetition and innovation (Wu,
2014) and when strong coopetition relations increase,as part of an alliance portfolio,firm
innovation performance decreases; however, experience with coopetition positively
influences this relationship (Schiavone and Simoni, 2011). Furthermore the relationship
between coopetition and radical innovativeness is inconclusive in the literature, with
studies showing positive effects but high risks (Bouncken and Fredich, 2012) and others
showing positive benefits for radical business-model innovation but negative benefits for
radical technology innovation(Ritala and Sainio, 2014).Other studies shed light on
moderating factors, for example showing that absorptive capacity and the appropriability
regime influence coopetition and innovation outcomes (Ritala and Hurmelinna-
Laukkanen, 2013; Tsai, 2009).
Research Opportunities and Gaps
The issue of value creation and capture is salient in coopetitive relations (Laursen
& Salter, 2014; Rai, 2016; Ritala & Tidström, 2014). This issue varies between dyadic or
network-based coopetitive relations that concentrate on technology, product or process;
and innovations in multi-actor coopetitive relations focusing on common pool resources
such as land and water use.
For example, animportant concern in the coopetition literature is the tension
between knowledge sharing and protection (Gnyawali et al, 2016; Ritala et al, 2017).
This dynamic, specifically the concern of free riding, is likely to play out differently
when the number of actors involved increases. Raza-Ullah, Bengtsson, and Kock (2014)
bring our focus to multiple actors at different levels in capturing individual and collective
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
7
value. The authors show that there istension between positive and negative emotions as
coopetitive relationships are experienced between and within organizations. Such
tensions have implications for coopetition outcomes. Along the same lines, Sonenshein,
Nault and Obodaru (2017) and Mathias et al (forthcoming) show that niche strategic
groups such as those in the craft beer industry and food truck industry, define competitors
idiosyncratically, and treat value capture in terms of the collective identity rather than
zero-sum game, again indicating that who is involved and how has implications for
individual and collective outcomes. Along the same lines, Bowen et al (forthcoming)
study COSIA, an alliance between oil sand companies in Alberta. The authors argue that
organizing rules, and hence the coopetition outcomes related to common pool resources
vary for issues of different scales.
These studies show that the research on coopetition and innovation can benefit
from deeply and empirically understanding how competitors and competit ion are defined
in coopetition, who is involved in coopetitive relationships, and how do coopetition
dynamics, such as the tension between knowledge sharing and receiving, change when
we open the inquiry to multiple actors across intra and inter-organizational levels.
Symposium Objectives
Our aim in this symposium is to initiate a scholarly dialogue and debate about
coopetition and innovation. The papers in this symposium complement each other in
unpacking the(1) antecedents and mechanisms that explain individual and collective
value accrued from coopetition; (2) outcomes of coopetition, so as to show that who is
involved in the coopetition and how,has salient implications for managing individual and
collective value and innovation.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
8
Bez’s paper investigateswhy and how the sharing of strategic knowledge between
competitors occurs and evolves in coopetition for innovation. She developsa multi-level
conceptual framework based on insights from two in-depth exemplary cases of
coopetition in the pharmaceutical industry and oil and gas industry. She finds that
although transparency in sharing strategic knowledge is challenging and counter-intuitive,
transparency helps firms to address major innovation challenges, to create benefits for all
partners and to advance existing knowledge. Importantly, her study highlights how firms
subsequently compete after the coopetition and further technological development.
Moreover, coopetition capabilities of firms play an important role in implementing a high
degree of knowledge transparency as well as in capturing proportionately a larger share
of the benefits.
Gnyawali’s paper brings to front the notion of value creation by distinguishing
between mutual value and firm value. He argues that coopetition partners can achieve
both firm and mutual value when the partners explicitly consider both, and when they
recognize and navigate trade-off between the two kinds of value.
DiVito and Sharma’s paper further unpacks the notion of value capture by
bringing to the forefront the differences in existing knowledge with which coopetition
members enter the coopetition. Through a study of a textile alliance in Europe, the
authors identify three roles—leaders, followers, and laggards—and describe the
differences in absorptive capacity. They argue that this difference affects individual, firm
and collective value.
The paper by Rivera et al. proposesa different perspective on coopetition –when
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
9
actors within a community collaborate to attain a common environmental certificate to
achieve a sharedgreenreputation. Rivera et al. allude to value capture by arguing that
resourceslike shared green reputation do not diminish when the number of actors joining
the collaboration increases. But there is loss in collective and individual value if even one
of the actors has a poor environmental record. They study this phenomenon through panel
data on participation of 281 beach communities in Costa Rica in a joint environmental
certification program. The findings reveal that socioeconomic factors such as lack of
income inequality in the community can explain whether actors cooperate to create value
through a jointcertification.
INTEREST TO ONE, STR, and TIM DIVISIONS
We believe that this symposium addsvalue to the specific interests of scholars
from –but not limited to –Organizations and the Natural Environment (ONE),Strategic
Management (STR), and Technology and Innovation Management (TIM)divisions of the
Academy of Management. A number of papers in this symposium showcase the diversity
of methods, theories, and research contexts that converge to contribute toward a better
understanding of coopetition on innovation across diverse contexts and with diverse
actors.
ONE divisionfocuses on research, teaching and service in the area of
organizations and the natural environment. Since sustainability challenges related to the
natural environment are highly complex and addressing them involves various
stakeholders across various sectors, our approach to integrate sustainability challenges
with prevailing work in innovation and strategy isparticularly relevant and promising.
This symposium offers participants insights into an emerging stream of research in the
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
10
ONE field that argues for collaborative solutions to problems of common pool resources.
Rivera’s paper on the joint environmental certification offers a complementary
perspective to common pool resources often considered in sustainability related
coopetition considered by ONE scholars. They show that collective and individual value
in collaborations such as joint certification by competing firms can be tightly aligned,
which comes with its own set of challenges such as decrease in collective value because
of individual actions. Similarly, DiVito and Sharma show that collaboration in the
sustainability context affords a unique opportunity to understand the differences in
existing knowledge of collaborating partners, and how that affects individual and
collective innovative outcomes.
STR encourages the development and dissemination of research that focuses on
understanding and predicting why and how some firms perform better than others. This
symposium is relevant for the STR division because it focuses on competitive and
cooperative interactions in inter-organizational relations that affect firm performance, and
related outcomes such as innovation. Sea’s paper highlights the tension between
knowledge sharing and receiving; and Gnyawali’s papers offer insights on the related
tension between value creation and capture, speaking directly to interests of STR scholars.
DiVito and Sharma’s paper on the differential in absorptive capacity in coopetitive
relationships shedsfurther light on some of the key area of interests of the members of
the STR division.
Finally, TIM’s domain seeks to understand the management of innovation and
change from a variety of perspectives and encourages interdisciplinary scholarship,
dialogue and debate. This symposium addresses specific topics in TIM’s domain on the
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
11
strategic management of technology and on innovation processes. The interaction of
coopetition, innovation and value creation and capture offers a range of interesting and
relevant aspects for the TIM division. The papers in this symposium showcase that who
is involved in coopetitive relationships for innovation and how,has implicatio ns for
innovation and other outcomes. The papers offer a unique perspective to TIM’s interest in
encouraging interdisciplinary research and debate that opens up areas of new inquiry.For
instance, the paper by Rivera et al. highlight the notion of resource such as joint
reputation with significant firm and industry implications. Similarly, DiVito and Sharma
bring the unique context of sustainability to the research on innovation, and show how
the differential in absorptive capacity affects outcomes such as learning and innovation.
Finally, the papers by Sea,and Gnyawali address a key tension in the innovation
literature: knowledge sharing and protection; and value creation and capture. They offer
insights to TIM scholars studying these innovation tensions.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
12
PROPOSED FORMAT OF SYMPOSIUM
Length: 90 minutes
This symposium is organized as a session with four papers, a discussant and a chair. We
will distribute the 90 minutestime slot as follows:
Introduction (5 minutes): The chair will open the session with a brief
introduction to why it is important and interesting to link the topics of coopetition,
innovation and sustainability.
The Papers (15minutes each; 60 minutes total):
oSea Matilda Bez
Strategizing coopetition for innovation: the key role of knowledge
transparency
oDevi Gnyawali
Mechanisms for value creation in coopetition
oLori DiVito and Garima Sharma
Asymmetric knowledge sharing and learning in coopetition: Capturing
Individual Firm and Collective Value
oJorge Rivera, Marina Angelica, Juan Robalino, Francisco Alpizar, and
Allen Blackman
Business cooperation for shared green reputation
Discussant’s comments (15minutes): The symposium discussant (Prof. Paavo
Ritala) will summarize the papers and identify their differences and similarities, in
order to describe the future research directions that the scholarly community
could take.
Questions and Answers (10minutes)
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
13
PAPER SUMMARIES
STRATEGIZING COOPETITION FOR INNOVATION:
THE KEY ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSPARENCY
Sea Matilda Bez
UC Berkeley, USA
University of Montpellier, France
$100 billion is the global revenue generated by two discoveries of the
pharmaceutical company Sanofi. To reach this level of revenue, Sanofi did not do it on its
own. It was achieved by involving one of its main American rivals in the processes of
developing and commercializing the two discoveries. Carlin et al. (1994) would say
Sanofi succeeded by “sleeping with the enemy”(p.9). But, Sanofi did not just “sleep with
the enemy.” Sanofi and its rival Bristol-Myer Squibb enabled each other. Through this
collaboration between rivals, they shared and even taught each other strategic knowledge.
Thus, competitors are not only capable of acting against their automatic impulse of
ignoring, avoiding or fighting their competitor (Carlin et al., 1994), but they can even go
one step further by enabling their competitors with their own strategic knowledge. This
fact is a puzzle as it violates the traditional business practice of being in a win/lose
relationship with a competitor (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996) and reopens the
question of how to share knowledge between competitors in coopetitio n.
Scholarly attention to knowledge sharing in co-opetition has increased with its
practical significance (Bouncken et al., 2017; Ritala et al., 2017; Fernandez et al., 2017).
The implementation of the coopetition strategy and more precisely the decision
concerning knowledge sharing is acknowledged as the missing link between coopetition
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
14
and innovation (Le Roy and Czakon, 2016). The knowledge sharing is more critical in
context of a coopetition strategy for innovation because of several challenges such as
shrinking product life cycles, need for heavy investments in research and development,
convergence of multiple technologies, and importance of technological standards
(Gnyawali and Park, 2011; Bouncken et al., 2017). Despite its increased importance,
limited research has systematically examined why and how the sharing of strategic
knowledge between competitors occurs in coopetitive projects for innovation. This paper
aims to address this critical gap by focusing on the following questions: (a) what
strategies drive the knowledge sharing in the context of coopetition for innovation? and
(b) how is the strategic knowledge shared in the context of coopetition for innovation?
The research inquiry
We address these research questions in two phases. First, we review relevant
literature to develop conceptual arguments regarding the strategic drivers, the modalities
and consequences of knowledge sharing in coopetition. Second, we discuss our study of
two unique and exemplar cases of co-opetition between giants (i.e., a collaboration
between two pharmaceutical companies which generated two blockbuster drugs; a joint
venture between competitors in the oil and gas industry to explore and produce oil in a
geographical area considered as too complex to access the potential oil).
The case studies were instrumental in illuminating critical factors relevant to the
drivers and outcomes of knowledge sharing in coopetition for innovation described in the
conceptual discussion. By blending the conceptual arguments and the findings from the
case study, we develop a multi-level conceptual framework of knowledge sharing in
coopetition for innovation that consists of a continuum of choice in terms of transparency
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
15
degree in knowledge sharing.
The conceptual framework
Our conceptual framework underscores three main ways to create and pursue the
innovation in a coopetitive project. Each way implies different knowledge sharing and
more precisely different degree of transparency.
The two first ways are a follow-up to the dominant research approach of
coopetition which argues that a focal firm should reduce the coopetitor’s internalization
of the knowledge shared. Or, even obstruct it totally (i.e. reduce or totally restrict the
focal firm’s knowledge transparency). Indeed, the value creation of a coopetitive
project’s success can be jeopardized by the fear of knowledge sharing between
competitors. The reduction or restriction of its knowledge transparency is a key
organizational solution to overcome this fear of knowledge sharing and thus this fear of
collaborating with a competitor.
Alternatively, we identified a third way of strategizing and managing coopetition
which goes one step further. We argue that the creation and pursuit of current and future
advantage for a focal firm in a coopetitive project for innovation can also consist of
implementing a strategy and management based on greater and freer knowledge
transparency. In that case, the dominant coopetitive knowledge sharing adages of
“protecting” or even “sharing and protecting” shift into “sharing and enabling for
constructive capturing.”
Insert Figure 1 here
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
16
Contributions
This research contributes to both co-opetition and innovation literature. First, it
enriches our understanding of why and how competitors share knowledge in coopetition
for innovation. The knowledge sharing is driven by the different coopetition strategies:
increasing technological efficiency, versus increasing innovation capabilities on one
project, versus renewing its knowledge base. Second, we demonstrate that a high degree
of knowledge transparency in co-opetition often helps the competitors to achieve better
innovation outcomes in terms of market shares, technological development, and
technological standards in the industry. We also articulate why coopetition may not
generate benefits for participating firms unless the firms possess necessary capabilities to
anticipate and manage the need for knowledge transparency between competitors. Finally,
this highly transparent knowledge sharing opens academic research opportunities based
on broader theoretical roots than Hamel’s approach of inter-firm relationships in which
the strategic intent is a learning race and one of the key organizational elements is
minimized transparency.
The managerial contributions
This research increases top management analytical capability by generating a new
counter-intuitive insight: enabling a competitor in a coopetitive project can be strategic
tool to create and pursue current and future advantages for themselves. Moreover, our
conceptual framework can be reused to train top managers’ analytical coopetitive
capabilities by making them aware of three ways of strategizing and managing
coopetition for innovation.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
17
Figure 1. A conceptual model of the three main ways of sharing knowledge
in coopetition for innovation
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
18
MECHANISMS FOR VALUE CREATION IN COOPETITION
Devi Gnyawali *
Department of Management, Virginia Tech
880 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061
devi@vt.edu
This presentation will focus on the following critical question: how does coopetition help
to create value? Understanding the mechanisms for value creation is critical to understand
how and when coopetition can help innovation, which is the focus of the symposium.
We suggest that value creation in coopetition embodies two critical aspects: mutual
value creation and firm value creation. Mutual value creation refers to benefits realized
jointly by the partners, whereas firm value creation is about benefits realized by each firm
individually (Lavie, 2006; Rai, 2016). Mutual value occurs through joint creation of new
products, technologies, and services, as well as knowledge and resource development
through joint R&D (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). Resources contributed by the partners
can be combined in novel ways to generate synergies (Gnyawali & Park, 2011).
Competition preserves firms’ impetus to tackle ambitious, complex problems and
cooperation provides stability and deep social connections required to resolve such
problems (Uzzi, 1999). Samsung and Sony’s success in jointly developing and advancing
panel technology for LCD-TVs is a clear example of mutual value (Gnyawali & Park,
2011).
Firm value creation is about each partner firm augmenting and leveraging its own
share of the jointly created value (Hamel et al., 1989; Lavie, 2006) through internal
excellence and innovation (Gnyawali & Park, 2011). Coopetition generates a race with a
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
19
competitor partner who is accessing the same (jointly developed) technology and offers
opportunities to derive individual benefits from valuable external resources and learning
opportunities. Although firms are driven to pursue the best individual outcomes, self-
enforcing safeguards in coopetition help to create a balance where firm value creation
firm is pushed as far as possible without jeopardizing mutual interests (e.g., Das, 2005).
Self-enforcing safeguards generate similar protections to those enforced by external
parties but with less cost and greater flexibility.
We articulate two critical considerations in value creation: (a) explicit recognition
of the importance of both mutual and firm-specific value creation; and (b) navigation of
the tradeoffs between these two aspects of value. First, the synergies and
interdependencies between mutual value creation and firm value creation require that
firms make conscious efforts to focus on both. Firm value creation relies on the growth of
the overall pie, which is fueled by mutual value creation (Rai, 2016). Mutual value
creation depends on complementary resources and capabilities, which are developed
internally from firm value creation (Hamel et al., 1989). Investments in mutual value
creation is necessary for large scale pursuits (e.g., major product development or market
entry) (e.g., Fernandez et al., 2014; Garrette, Castañer, & Dussauge, 2009; Gnyawali &
Park, 2011) because the scale and complexity of such projects require intensive focus and
resource endowments that a single firm could not manage alone. On the other hand,
where the intent is to learn from partners or “digest their skills” (Hamel et al., 1989: 134)
for internal pursuits (Rai, 2016), firm value creation is more significant. In such cases,
individual investments to develop internal abilities for identifying, evaluating, and
assimilating partners’ knowledge may be more critical.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
20
Second, it is important to recognize and navigate tradeoffs between mutual and
firm-specific value creation. Past a certain point, the finite nature of resources means that
efforts to push one element will occur at the expense of the other. A firm predisposed to
firm value creation may prevent the mutual pie from reaching its full potential, while
mutual value creation may similarly hinder internal gains (Khanna et al., 1998; Lado et
al., 1997). Firms must ensure that overall value creation is not compromised by
overemphasis on one or the other as there are damaging effects in both scenarios. On one
side, overemphasis on mutual value creation fosters comfort within the relationship and
lessens capabilities to pursue firm value creation (Hamel et al., 1989). When tasks are
allocated to the most capable partners (Gomes-Casseres, 2006), dependencies may
increase and existing knowledge may erode (Hamel, 1991). Mutual value creation also
has high cognitive costs (e.g., Fernandez et al., 2014; Gnyawali et al., 2016) that hinder
the identification of firm value creation opportunities. Overemphasis on mutual value
creation can make a firm competitively vulnerable to an opportunistic partner and limit
differentiation potential in output markets. Conversely, overemphasis on firm value
creation may jeopardize the overall pie where a self-interested focus leads to racing
behavior, misappropriation, and other opportunistic efforts (e.g., Khanna et al., 1998;
Park & Russo, 1996). Opportunistic behavior can limit future partnering potential (Hill
1990) and cause reluctance to share resources in the dyad.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
21
ASYMMETRIC KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND LEARNING IN
COOPETITION: CAPTURING INDIVIDUAL FIRM
AND COLLECTIVE VALUE
Lori DiVito*
Amsterdam School of International Business
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Amsterdam, Netherlands
l.e.d.divito@hva.nl
Garima Sharma
Anderson School of Management
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
sharmag@unm.edu
Coopetition, or collaborating with competit ors, provides benefits of accessing expertise,
markets or technologies that improve firm and industry innovation performance but it
also poses risks and is a precarious way to innovate (LeRoy & Czakon, 2015; Park &
Russo, 1996). Organizations that engage in coopetitive relations need to strike the right
balance between what and how much knowledge to share with competitors in order to
also receive valuable knowledge in return. However, strategies for accessing and
exchanging knowledge are only one piece of the puzzle, there also needs to be value
captured from the knowledge exchange. In more complex coopetition relations that go
beyond the dyad and involve multiple actors from different levels of the value chain, we
have an ambiguous understanding of value capture. On both an individual firm level and
a collective level, value capture is a significant concern for collaborative success or
failure.
Using absorptive capacity, the ability to recognize, assimilate and exploit externally
accessed knowledge (Clausen, 2013; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Hughes and Wareham,
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
22
2010; Zobel, 2017) as an explanatory lens, our study uncovers and explicates the
asymmetric learning patterns and value capture among the individual competing firms of
a coopetition and its effect on the collective ambition. The question we ask is: what are
the mechanisms of value capture when competitorscollaborate to achieve a collective
ambitio n?
Our study is based on data gathered from an ongoing coopetition in the
apparel/fashion industry. We identified three types of knowledge roles in the coopetition
–leaders, followers and laggards –that are explained by the existing knowledge of the
individual participants and the organizational absorptive capacity of the competing firms.
Accordingly, we find differential benefits of value capture for each type of knowledge
role and for the individual firm and collective levels.
Research Context and Methods
We conducted an inductive study using a single case of a textile manufacturing
alliance that aims to reduce the use of chemical and water resources in producing textiles.
The alliance includes two working groups and multiple horizontal and vertical actors
across the textile production value chain. Therefore, our case provides several embedded
levels of analysis (Yin, 2003). We initiated and continue to follow this alliance in real-
time and use a participant-based, process research approach. From our continued and
regular contact with participants, we gained first-hand experiences and insights on value
created and captured.
Our study is based on one year of data collection from the participants in the
alliance, which include 24 small-medium sized organizations (clothing brands, textile
mills, non-governmental organizations, chemical suppliers and equipment manufacturers)
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
23
and 60 individuals from various countries in Europe. Data is collected from several types
of interaction moments, e.g. plenary and other types of meetings, in-depth interviews,
email documentation, researcher reflections and field notes. We have 30 hours of direct
observation, 30 in-depth interviews and more than 100 emails. Additionally, the research
team consists of four researchers, a lead researcher who interacts with and facilitates
alliance participants, a second lead researcher who is more distant to the relationships,
and two research assistants who are actively engaged in operational alliance activities and
communication and collect, assemble and distribute information from and to participants.
As a participatory research team, we are aware of our active role and use the reflexivity
of our participation as a data source (Bjørkeng, Carlsen, & Rhodes, 2014).
Our analytical approach is primarily abductive, as we it erate between research
activities and between theoretical and empirical observations. As we review our data, we
develop coding structures, narratives, and timelines and draw initial, emerging insights
that illuminate the process dynamics of collaborating with competitors.
Knowledge sharing and learning among competitors
We uncover three clear roles and patterns associated with knowledge exchange and
learning –knowledge leaders, followers and laggards –that coincide with asymmetric
learning trajectories and outcomes. We briefly explain each learning trajectory according
to innovation or learning outcomes.
Knowledge followers derive significant organizational benefits from the collective
knowledge exchange. Knowledge followers acknowledged that they had much to learn
from the knowledge leaders. The knowledge that was accessed by individual participants
was transferred back into the individual organization with direct benefits. As one
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
24
participant stated, “I was so inspired by the technology that I immediately told our
production manager about it. Our supplier had the equipment so I placed an order the
very next day specifying the use of that technology … I’m now inspired to produce a
waterless garment.” The participant lacked deep sustainability knowledge but could
individually absorb the new knowledge and transfer it to her organization. The
organizational-level absorptive capacity of knowledge followers provided ripe conditions
to assimilate and exploit externally accessed knowledge into new products and processes,
but each according to their own organization’s innovation needs and brand image.
Knowledge laggards lacked the organizational-level absorptive capacity to
assimilate the knowledge gained into their individual firms, even though as participating
individuals they personally and individually learned and filled their own knowledge gaps.
We identified one firm as a knowledge laggard that stated in the beginning of the alliance
at the plenary meetings,they “sat there hoping that no one would ask them any questions.”
The insecurity of their knowledge gaps encouraged these participants to visit their Indian
suppliers and garment collectors to learn more about the recycling process in textiles. By
gaining that knowledge they felt more at ease in participating in the plenary discussions.
Still, however, on an organizational level, the lack of absorptive capacity to assimilate the
newly gained knowledge into their processes prevented them from realizing any product
or process changes.
The knowledge leaders were essential in setting the collective ambitio n level and
providing an aspirational role in pursuing industrial systemic transformation. However, as
knowledge leaders, they receivedminimal benefit from the knowledge exchange, but
their knowledge sharing raisedthe collective knowledge level. On this collective level,
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
25
knowledge leaders recognized collective benefits. As the collective knowledge level rises,
the competing horizontal actors gained leverage and power to influence other vertical
actors (or suppliers) in the value chain to use or adopt certain procedures, equipment or
practices. For example, one knowledge leader proclaimed, “… the reason for us to join
the alliance is to create synergy and have a better leverage with suppliers …”. Indeed
one of the collective successful results of the alliance is developing common
specifications for recycled fabrics and showcasing these fabrics from textiles mills to
garner interest from larger clothing brands to join the alliance and increase the demand
for these recycled materials.
Insert table 1
Contribution
Using an absorptive capacity lens for open innovation (Zobel, 2017), our study
contributes to a deeper understanding of how value is captured from knowledge sharing
in multi-actor coopetitioncollaborations and the differential learning effects on individual
firm and collective innovative performance. Existing literature shows how coopetition
effects the types of innovation and how absorptive capacity influences the success of
coopetition for innovation (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2013). We extend this
understanding by showing how individual competing firms as well as the collective
capture value from asymmetric knowledge exchange and learning patterns.
We contribute to the literature on coopetition by shedding light on the understudied
area of how value is captured in complex coopetition relations and how value is
distributed among individual firm and collective levels. We put forth that in multi-actor
coopetition horizontal competing firms have heterogeneous knowledge levels and
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
26
therefore knowledge exchange has asymmetric value. This is in line with Laursen and
Salter (2014) who find that search for external knowledge has diminishing value in
relation to the openness of the search (or number of external knowledge partners). It also
resonates with Arora, Athreye and Huang (2016) that show value capture differs if firms
are knowledge leaders or followers. We expand on this notion by showing that for a
collective purpose individual value capture may be superseded by the pursuit of a
collective ambition towards broader industrial systemic innovation and change.
The study also contributes to managerial practice. Competitors and other
organizations that participate in coopetition can benefit from identifying and analyzing
their endowed knowledge resources and knowledge role in a coopetition. Managers can
better align their organizational goals with that of the collective and increase their
absorptive capacity to assimilate newly acquired knowledge. Our findings contribute to
managerial strategies to capture value from collaborating with competitors.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
27
Table 1. Value capture and learning from coopetition knowledge exchange
Knowledge
role
Nr. of
competing
firms
Evidence of individual
firm learning /
innovation outcomes
Evidence of collective
learning / innovation
outcomes
Dynamics
Leader
3 at start
2 currently
Already leading in
sustainable production
No changes to products
or collections due to
collective knowledge
exchange
Share knowledge on
sustainable practices
and technology
Set ambition levels
for collective
1 brand exited due
to reluctance to
share knowledge
and experience on
sustainable
practices
Followers
6
Recognition of new
knowledge, learning
during plenary
knowledge sharing
interactions
Ability to assimilate
knowledge internally by
carrying out tasks
associated with
coopetition goals
Absorb knowledge
from leaders
Share results of
experiments with
other alliance
members
The speed of
progress is impeded
by internal
organizational
strategy, changes
and structure; some
brands progress
more quickly than
others
Laggards
2
1 currently
Low recognition of
value of knowledge
Unable to assimilate
knowledge internally
Low participation and
engagement
Organizational goals
misaligned with
collective
Learning impeded
by low individual
absorptive capacity
and by low
organizational
absorptive capacity;
1 brand exited due
to organizational
resource priorities
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
28
BUSINESS COOPERATION FOR SHARED GREEN REPUTATION
Jorge Rivera
The George Washington University
Marina Angelica Naranjo
Juan Robalino
Francisco Alpizar
EfD -Central America
Allen Blackman
Resources For the Future, Washington DC.
Over the last few decades, there has been a steady increase in the demand for certified
environmentally friendly products and services from consumers, companies, and governments
from industrialized countries. Accordingly, garnering a green reputation indicating superior
environmental protection performance has increasingly become a more valuable intangible asset,
not only for business but also for countries and their local communities seeking to attract visitors,
investors, and/ or new residents. Scholars interested in collective action efforts have identified
informal institutional norms present in local communities cooperating to more sustainably
manage common-pool natural resources (e.g., forests, water, pastures, fisheries, etc.). These
institutional norms include mutually accepted rules and noncompliance sanctions for resource
use and mechanisms for shared monitoring, conflict resolution, and rule modification (Ostrom,
2010). However, we know very little about the characteristics of the local communities that
successfully cooperate to attain a shared green reputation. In particular, there is a debate about
how basic contextual attributes such as business population size, income inequality, levels of
democratic political participation, and foreign resident levels are associated with enhanced local
community’s management of these natural resources (Ostrom, 2010). This research aims to
contribute to this debate by identifying how these basic contextual characteristics are linked to
higher within-community cooperation that yields an intangible resource: a shared green
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
29
reputation. To do this, we use panel data for the entire population of beach communities in Costa
Rica, between 2001 and 2009, and analyze how their basic socioeconomic and physical
characteristics are associated with participation in a collective voluntary environmental program
(VEP), the Costa Rican Blue Flag Program (BFP) (see Figure 1). Most previous studies
examining this question have used cross-sectional data of cooperation by actors using common-
pool natural resources and include few controls for the effect of multiple local physical factors
(Araral, 2009; Ostrom, 2010).
We define green reputation as having a favorable and publicly recognized standing for credible
beyond-compliance environmental-protection performance (King & Whetten, 2008). In contrast
to common-pool natural resources that tend to be rival and nonexcludable, a local community’s
shared green reputation is characterized by being a nonrival and excludable club good (Barnett &
King, 2008; Prakash & Potoski, 2007). That is, a shared green reputation’s branding payoffs are
not diminished by the number of local community members benefiting from them. Additionally,
community outsiders are excluded from enjoying these benefits. Most importantly for our study,
the nonrival feature of a shared green reputation implies that a local community member’s poor
environmental record taints not only its individual standing but also the green reputation of the
other community members (all have a jo int reputational fate) (Barnett & King, 2008; Prakash &
Potoski, 2007). This combination of joint reputational fate and ability to exclude outsiders
magnifies the effect that contextual differences may have on garnering a local community’s
shared green reputation. Thus, providing an attractive opportunity to identify how local
socioeconomic and political characteristics affect within-community cooperation to attain an
intangible shared good different than the widely examined common-pool natural resources.
In addition, our focus on identifying the drivers of participation in a green certification program
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
30
implemented in a developing country contributes to the scholarly literature on VEPs that has
primarily studied the implementation of these initiatives in industrialized nations. In developing
countries, given the typical lax and poorly enforced environmental regulations, VEPs are often
used as a front-line regulatory tool rather than a means of moving beyond compliance—their
usual role in industrialized countries. Hence, the policy lessons from the much larger empirical
literature on VEPs in industrialized countries may not apply as the political, institutional, and
socioeconomic context is quite different. Our study also seeks to add to previous empirical
research that has identified factors that promote participation in conventional VEPs that seek to
enroll individual business facilities (Barnett & King, 2008; DeBoer, Panwar, & Rivera, 2017).
By contrast, we seek to identify the drivers of participation in a collective VEP. Instead of
seeking to enroll individual firm facilities, collective VEPs seek joint group participation and
certification of mult iple businesses and various organizations from different sectors (e.g., firms,
NGOs, and government agencies).
Sample and data sources. Our sample includes the whole population of 281 beaches open for
tourism in Costa Rica between 2001 and 2008, resulting in a total of 2248 beach-year
observations. To identify this population, we relied on the 2008 National Digital Atlas of Costa
Rica (ITCR 2008). Beach communities are understood in this paper as the census tract localities
situated immediately adjacent to each beach identified by the 2008 Atlas of Costa Rica.
According to the Costa Rica National Census Institute, a census tract is defined as the basic
geographic unit for the purpose of taking a census (INEC, 2004). In rural areas of Costa Rica (e.g.
beaches) the census tracts match the towns’ limits (INEC, 2004). We also collected the latest
available data on beach communities’ geographic and socioeconomic characteristics from the
2000 Costa Rican Population Census and the 2008 National Digital Atlas. The list of beach
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
31
communities participating in the BFP between 2001 and 2008 was obtained from The Costa
Rican Water and Sewer Agency. The Costa Rican Tourism Institute provided figures and precise
locations for the 2001-2008 population of registered hotels. Using a geographic information
system software (ArcGIS), we georeferenced and merged these data at the census tract-level, the
finest spatial data resolution, for the specific area occupied by each individual beach community.
Measures
Dependent variable. Multi-sector cooperation to gain a local community’s shared green
reputation was measured using a dummy variable equal to one for coastal communities enrolled
in the BFP for each year between 2001-08 and zero otherwise.
Independent variables of interest. Income inequality is measured by the 2000 Gini
coefficient for the county where each beach community is lo cated. The more unequal the income
distribution in a community the closer its Gini coefficient is to a value of one (meaning that one
individual possesses all the income); a Gini value equal to zero indicates perfect equality (Greene,
2011). To make interpretation easier we transformed the Gini coefficient values to percentages
(multiplying by a factor of 100). We quantify the number of businesses in each community by
the sum of all registered hotels located inside a 5-kilometer (K) radius from the beach
georeference point at t-1. Democratic political participation is indicated by the percentage of
eligible voters from a given beach community that took part in the last presidential election held
in 2006. Foreign resident levels are indicated by the percentage of non-Costa Rican citizens
living at a beach community in 2000.1
Control variables. Average formal education is measured by the mean years of formal
education attained by the residents of a beach community in 2000. The international chain hotels
1Most of the expatriates living in Costa Rican seashore communities come from industrialized countries.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
32
variable is measured by the number of these facilities located within 5K from the beach
georeference point at t-1. Population density is measured by the number of inhabitants per square
kilometer in the beach community in 2000. Poverty is proxied by the percentage of households
with a per capita income equal to or below the poverty line in 2000. Safety is measured by the
2006 county safety index. This index is estimated by the rate per 1,000 habitants of three crimes:
domestic violence, robberies, and intentional homicide (ITCR, 2008). Counties with higher
safety levels show indexes closer to one. Besides socioeconomic variables, in our analysis we
also controlled for other beach community physical characteristics such as distance to: the
closest national park, the closest national road, the closest river, and to the Costa Rican capital;
annual rain average (measured in meters), average terrain slope (measured in angle degrees), and
percentage of forest coverage. All distance variables are measured in kilometers from the beach
georeference point.
Analytical methodology. To test our hypotheses, we used a random effects logit
regression, with year fixed-effects. This logit regression approach is recommended because of
the binary nature of our dependent variable proxy (community participation in the BFP), the
panel nature of our 2001-08 data, and that some of our key independent variable are time-
invariant.
Results and Conclusion
The results of our panel logit analysis of 10 years of participation in a collective VEP, the Costa
Rican Blue Flag, suggest that higher cooperation for a shared green reputation is more likely in
beach communities with lower income inequality and/or larger business population size (see
Graph 1 and Table 1). These findings challenge previous research indicating higher levels of
cooperation in the management of common-pool natural resources for local communities with
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
33
higher inequality and/or smaller business population size. Our study also provides initial
evidence about how greater cooperation for shared green reputation is more likely in local
communities with higher democratic political participation and/or higher levels of foreign
residents from industrialized countries.
Finally, although our findings cannot be generalized to other countries, we believe that our
analysis of participation in the Costa Rican Blue Flag Program suggests interesting implications
for business managers and policymakers. This is because, given Costa Rica’s highly recognized
success in nature conservation, its environmental policies and programs tend to be imitated and
promoted in other developing countries. We posit that collective VEPs providing a certified joint
green reputation can be an appealing environmental policy instrument that takes advantage of the
increasing demand for environmentally certified products and services. To be sure, their use as
complements to mandatory regulations is more attractive in industries like tourism (and organic
food) where beyond-compliance environmental quality is highly valued by citizens from
industrialized countries. In this case, policymakers can expect—instead of the usual private
sector opposition to more environmental protection—to actually find higher business cooperation
and leadership to adopt collective voluntary programs. Yet, our findings also indicate that despite
collective voluntary programs’ design to divide costs and reduce technical challenges through
multisector cooperation, they do not appear to attract higher participation by disadvantaged local
communities (e.g., those that are more unequal, poorer, have fewer businesses, and/or show
lower democratic political participation). Hence, to help these communities realize the branding
benefits from a certified green reputation, collective VEPs need to be modified to provide
underprivileged communities with the training and assistance to successfully manage and sustain
multisector cooperation. Contributing to the provision of this assistance to disadvantaged
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
34
communities could be made part of a recertification requirement for communities already
enrolled in a collective VEP.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
35
Figure1.BlueFlagbeaches,2008a
a:Source,CostaRica’sBlueFlagProgram,2008.
Graph1,Predictedprobabilityofcooperationfor
sharedgreenreputationbyincomeinequalitya
a:Probabilityestimatedwhileholdingotherindependentvariablesconstantattheirmeans.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
36
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and panel logit regression results, 2001-08 sample
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Model 1
(DV: BFP participation)
Model 2
(Robustness test)
(DV: BFP certification)
Coefficient
Coefficient
Constant
N/A
N/A
91.509***
(20.019)a
27.083*
(13.649)
Independent variables of interest
Income
inequality
48.93
2.24
-
2.298***
(0.356)
-
1.067***
(0.283)
Number of businesses
3.94
5.08
0.299*
(0.128)
0.050*
(0.023)
Democratic political participation
58.93
11.50
0.259**
(0.078)
0.173**
(0.062)
Foreign resident levels
14.83
14.21
0.263***
(0.051)
0.151***
(0.151)
Control variables
Average formal education
7.00
1.75
0.946*
(0.422)
0.720*
(0.336)
International chain hotels
.05
.24
10.768***
(2.264)
4.945**
(1.811)
Population density
56.40
237.6
0.038***
(0.004)
0.002
(0.002)
Poverty
21.73
12.45
-
0.289***
(0.058)
-
0.135*
(0.062)
Safety
61.57
16.00
0.058
(0.047)
0.054
(0.035)
Annual rain average
2.84
1.00
0.568
(0.764)
0.946
(0.666)
Average terrain slope
10.00
7.79
-
0.177*
(0.085)
0.011
(0.082)
Distance to closest national park
15.31
14.07
-
0.435***
(0.065)
-
0.159**
(0.059)
Distance to closest national road
4.07
5.41
-
0.888***
(0.162)
-
0.380**
(0.132)
Distance to closest river
2.56
1.83
-
1.388**
(0.460)
-
0.793*
(0.370)
Distance to Costa Rica’s Capital
136.5
50.18
-
0.055**
(0.016)
-
0.012
(0.019)
Forest density
41.85
28.78
0.015
(0.030)
-
0.013
(0.030)
# of observations
1967
1405
Wald chi2
610.06
***
122.06***
Log likelihood
-
229.493
-
272.82
Rho
0.985***
0.954***
Prob:*prob<0.05;**prob<0.01;***prob<0.001
a:Standarderrorsareinparenthesis.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
37
REFERENCES
Araral, E. (2009). What explains collective action in the commons? Theory with econometric
results from the Philippines. World Development, 37 (3): 687-697.
Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative
innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7), 1352-1361.
Barnett, A. & King, A. (2008). Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of
an industry self-regulatory institution. Academy of Management Journal,51, 6: 1150–
1170.
Barringer, B. R. & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26: 367–403.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition —Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future
challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180–188.
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004a). Cooperative R&D and firm performance.
Research Policy, 33(10), 1477-1492.
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004b). Heterogeneity in
R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8),
1237-1263.
Belderbos, R., Gilsing, V., & Lokshin, B. (2012). Persistence of, and interrelation between,
horizontal and vertical technology alliances. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1812-1834.
Bjørkeng, K., Carlsen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2014). From Self-Reflexivity to Other-Vulnerability in
the Research Process in Language and Communication at Work: Discourse,
Narrativity, and Organizing, edited by François Cooren, Eero Vaara, Ann Langley,
Haridimos Tsoukas. Oxford University Press.
Bogers, M., & West, J. (2012). Managing distributed innovation: Strategic utilization of open
and user innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 61-75.
Bouncken, R. B., & Fredrich, V. (2012). Coopetition: performance implications and management
antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(05), 1250028.
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.
Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., Ritala, P., & Kraus, S. (2017). Coopetition in New Product
Development Alliances: Advantages and Tensions for Incremental and Radical Innovation .
British Journal of Management, Vol. Early View, pp. 1–20.
Bowen, F. E., Bansal, P., & Slawinski, N. (forthcoming). Scale matters: The scale of
environmental issues in corporate collective actions. Strategic Management Journal.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-Opetition. New York: Doubleday currency.
Carlin, B. A., Dowling, M. J., Roering, W. D., Wyman, J., Kalinoglou, J., & Clyburn, G. (1994).
Sleeping with the enemy: Doing business with a competitor. Business Horizons, Vol.
Septembre-, pp. 9–16.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Clausen, T. H. (2013). External knowledge sourcing from innovation cooperation and the role of
absorptive capacity: empirical evidence from Norway and Sweden. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 25(1), 57-70.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
38
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128-152.
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of
Management Review, 31(3), 659-669.
Das, T. K. (2005). Deceitful behaviors of alliance partners: Potential and prevention.
Management Decision, 43: 706–719.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions
perspective. Organization Science, 11: 77–101.
DeBoer, J., Panwar, J. and Rivera, J. (2017). Toward a Place-Based Understanding of
Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Green Competitors and Green Locales in Firms’
Voluntary Environmental Engagement. Business Strategy & the Environment,26: 940–
955.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660–679.
Fernandez, A.S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in
co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe.
Industrial Marketing Management, 43: 222–235.
Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., & Chiambaretto, P. (2017). Implementing the right project
structure to achieve coopetitive innovation projects . Long Range Planning, Vol.online, pp.
1–22.
Garrette, B., Castañer, X., & Dussauge, P. (2009). Horizontal alliances as an alternative to
autonomous production: Product expansion mode choice in the worldwide aircraft industry
1945–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 885–894.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park BJ. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with
competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40: 650–663.
Gnyawali, D. R., Madhavan, R., He, J., & Bengtsson, M. (2016). The competit ion–cooperation
paradox in inter-firm relationships: A conceptual framework. Industrial Marketing
Management, 53: 7–18.
Gomes-Casseres, B. (2006). How Alliances Reshape Competit ion. In O. Shankar & J. J. Reuer
(Eds.) Handbook of Strategic Alliances: 39–53. California: Sage.
Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collaboration in social context.
Regional Studies, 36(3), 205-214.
Gueguen, G. (2009). Coopetition and business ecosystems in the information technology sector:
The example of intelligent mobile terminals. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Small Business, 8, 135–153.
Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns
since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477-492.
Hamel, G. (1991). Competit ion for competence and interpartner learning within international
strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 83–103.
Hamel, G., Doz. Y, L., Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win.
Harvard Business Review, 67: 133–139.
Hill, C. W. (1990). Cooperation, opportunism, and the invisible hand: Implications for
transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 15: 500–513.
Hughes, B., & Wareham, J. (2010). Knowledge arbitrage in global pharma: a synthetic view of
absorptive capacity and open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 324-343.
INEC. (2004). IX Censo Nacional de Población y V de Vivienda del 2000. Instituto Nacional
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
39
de Estadística y Censos San José, Costa Rica.
ITCR. (2008). Atlas digital de Costa Rica. Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica. Vice-rectoría
de Investigación y extensión de la Escuela de Ingeniería Forestal. San José, Costa Rica.
King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between reputation and
legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(3): 192-
207.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition,
cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 193–210.
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N.G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competit ion, cooperation, and the search for
economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22: 110–141.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining
innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,
27(2), 131-150.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search
and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867-878.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the
resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31: 638–658.
Le Roy, F., & Czakon, W. (2016). Managing coopetition: the missing link between strategy and
performance. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.53, pp. 3–6.
Maskell, P., Bathelt, H., & Malmberg, A. (2006). Building global knowledge pipelines: The role
of temporary clusters. European Planning Studies, 14(8), 997-1013.
Mathias, B. D., Huyghe, A., Frid, C. J., & Galloway, T. L. (forthcoming). An identity
perspective on coopetition in the craft beer industry. Strategic Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2734.
Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: An integrated
framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481-1499.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic
systems. The American Economic Review,100: 641-672.
Padula, G., & Dagnino, G. B. (2007). Untangling the rise of coopetition: the intrusion of
competition in a cooperative game structure. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 37(2), 32-52.
Park, S. H., & Russo, M. V. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history
analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science, 42: 875–890.
Prakash, A., & M. Potoski. (2007). Collective action through voluntary environmental
programs: A club theory perspective. Policy Studies Journal,35: 773-92.
Rai, R. K. (2016). A co-opetition based approach to value creation in interfirm alliances:
Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of
Management, 42: 1663–1699.
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in
coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 189–198.
Ritala, P., Huizingh, E., Almpanopoulou, A., & Wijbenga, P. (2017). Tensions in R&D
networks: Implications for knowledge search and integration. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 120, pp. 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.
Coopetition and innovation Submission #15630
40
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.
Ritala, P., & Sainio, L. M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: technology, market and
business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(2), 155-
169.
Ritala, P., & Tidström, A. (2014). Untangling the value-creation and value-appropriation
elements of coopetition strategy: A longitudinal analysis on the firm and relational levels.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4), 498-515.
Schiavone, F., & Simoni, M. (2011). An experience-based view of co-opetition in R&D
networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 136-154.
Sonenshein, S., Nault, K., & Obodaru, O. (2017). Competition of a different flavor: How a
strategic group identit y shapes competition and cooperation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 62(4): 626–656.
Tsai,K. H. (2009). Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a
contingency perspective. Research Policy, 38(5), 765-778.
Uzzi, B., (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and
networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64: 481–505.
Wu, J. (2014). Cooperation with competitors and product innovation: Moderating effects of
technological capability and alliances with universities. Industrial Marketing
Management, 43(2), 199-209.
Yin, R. K. (1994/2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1ST and 3RD editions).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zobel, A. K. (2017). Benefiting from open innovation: A multidimensional model of absorptive
capacity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 269-288.