The contingent effects of coopetition on new product development under dual institutional interactions: evidence from China

Abstract

Purpose Integrating the coopetition perspective with institutional theory, this study aims to determine how balanced patterns (BPs) and combinative patterns (CPs) of coopetition impact firms’ new product development (NPD) and how these effects are contingent on the various types of interactions between firms and the institutional environments in which they are embedded. Design/methodology/approach To test the hypotheses, 303 firms in China were surveyed. Based on the responses, the proposed model was estimated using structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression analysis. Findings The findings indicate that CP of coopetition enhances NPD but a BP of coopetition impedes NPD. Further, the results suggest that obtaining government support positively moderates the effect of the CP on NPD but negatively moderates the effect of the BP. Conversely, influencing government policy negatively moderates the effect of the CP but positively moderates that of the BP on NPD. Research limitations/implications The findings indicate that different patterns of inter-firm coopetition may have different effects on NPD, thus, providing a holistic and dynamic understanding of the contingent value of coopetition for NPD. The findings also suggest that the complex effects of coopetition on NPD are influenced by institutional interactions, introducing further contingencies to the process of coopetition-based innovation. Practical implications This study provides guidelines for managers seeking to fully understand and capitalize on the dual nature of coopetition: they should be cautious about the different patterns of competition – cooperation interaction and manage their interactions with institutional environments to increase the benefits and avoid the potential damage that different types of coopetition may bring. Originality/value This study offers direct insights into the balanced nature of coopetition and opens up an avenue for further exploration of the specific effects of cooperation dominance and competition dominance on firm performance in the business-to-business context. Moreover, the proposed contingency model offers a potential interface between institutional and coopetition research on NPD in marketing and strategic fields.

Inter-firm coopetition and innovation in industrial clusters: the role of institutional support

“…Existing research has investigated many of the contingent factors that influence the relationship between coopetition and performance, such as competitive business environment (Crick, 2019; Chiambaretto and Fernandez, 2016) and inter-firm trust (Czakon and Czernek, 2016; Crick, 2019), competition intensity and technological turbulence (Ang, 2008) market uncertainty and industry (Ritala, 2012). Moreover, research has recognized the impact of institutional factors on the relationship between coopetition and performance (Garri, 2021; Shen et al , 2021; Wang and Hong, 2018), as firms cannot continue to operate outside of the institutional environment (Piperopoulos et al , 2021; Wan and Hoskisson, 2003; Park and Luo, 2001). Such institutional factors usually include institutional pressures, norms and culture (Xie et al , 2023).…”

“…technology and equipment introduction), as well as facilitating transactions (enabling cross-firm alliances) and regulating opportunistic behaviour. Shen et al (2021) have noted that if firms are in a highly supportive institutional environment (government support), they are more likely to construct trusting coopetition, in anticipation of creating greater collaborative value in the future. When the institutional environment is unstable or less supportive, the role of inter-firm coopetition becomes narrower as firms worry not only about not receiving a beneficial distribution of value but also about unconscious leakage of their interests.…”

Microfoundations of dynamic coopetition capabilities in firms from a microbrewery cluster

“…In this sense, the paradox cannot be divided into antecedents, processes and outcome relationships, but must be studied as a dynamic process (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). Consequently, Dynamic coopetition capabilities players create value through cooperative processes and dispute this value in the competitive process (Bouncken, Clauß, & Fredrich, 2016;Shen, Gao, Liu, & Chen, 2021). Thus, we believe it is relevant to identify different actors' movements and the dynamics and potential outcomes of coopetitive strategies.…”