This study reviews literature on paradoxical tensions between value co‐creation and capture in interorganizational relationships (IORs). The purpose of this review is to make a re‐evaluation of the literature by engaging a paradox theory lens, thereby identifying factors that render tensions salient and factors that lead to virtuous or vicious cycles. This review of 143 articles reveals factors that make tensions salient: these relate to plurality (e.g. coopetition), scarcity (e.g. lack of experience with IORs), change (e.g. changes in collaboration scope) or combinations thereof (e.g. IORs in weak appropriability regimes). Results also uncover factors that resolve paradoxical tensions of value co‐creation and capture, thus spurring virtuous cycles (e.g. carefully mixing trust and contracts), as well as factors that promote vicious cycles, owing to the emphasis on either value co‐creation or capture (e.g. myopia of learning). This review further reveals a new category of factors that may stimulate either virtuous or vicious cycles, depending on the extent to which they are enforced. This finding expands the value co‐creation–capture paradox resolution and brings to light new dynamics in the paradox framework of dynamic equilibrium. This study thus contributes by: (1) reassessing the existing literature and applying paradox theory to the well‐known hazard of value co‐creation and capture; (2) highlighting factors that amplify paradoxical tensions related to this hazard; and (3) outlining factors that help solve the paradox by embracing its contradictory poles and factors that hinder paradox resolution by emphasizing either value co‐creation or appropriation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.