Search

PurposeStudies on inter-firm relationships have recently shifted their attention from dyadic networks to more globally driven network structures. This condition occurs because embeddedness in global network structures may improve firm innovation and performance. In addition, the improvement of firm innovativeness and performance seems higher when globally networked firms both compete and cooperate between and among them. In this paper, we categorize the simultaneous interplay of cooperation and competition in the global arena as global network coopetition (GNC). Under GNC, multinational enterprises act jointly with their global partners-rivals to improve performance, at the same time by sharing complementary resources (cooperation side) and by undertaking independent actions to enhance their own performance (competition side). This paper aims to expand existing research on network and global coopetition by shedding light on the effects of coopetition between and among firms belonging to global network structures on value capture and innovation performance.Design/methodology/approachUsing a sample of 100 firms belonging to 14 industries organized in 47 global networks of different sizes, the authors conducted a longitudinal empirical study over the period 2000-2014 covering 1,098 observations, 1,717 interfirm relationships and 78 inter-networks linkages. A multiple regression model on panel data with random effects was conducted on the sample of 1,098 observations related to the global automotive industry to test the research hypotheses.FindingsFindings show that GNC enhances firm performance and innovation outcomes. In addition to GNC, structural characteristics such as network size, network position and network diversity have significant positive or negative effects on innovation and performance outcomes of firms belonging to these global network structures.Research limitations/implicationsOur research offers a contribution to the literature dealing with global networked structures’ effects on firm innovation performance. In fact, it effectively complements prior work on outcomes of coopetition between firms embedded in complex network structures. It also advances research in the area by introducing the notion of GNC as a network by which firms can enhance their innovation performance and, therefore, their global innovation performance. This study has some limitations. First, we acknowledge that it is focused only on 14 global coopetitive networks. It could be promising to extend the scope to integrate other networks. Second, our measures of firm actions as based on a content analysis of news reports related to firms. It would be important to complement this data collection by conducting a qualitative analysis (interviews). Atlast, it could be promising to include the study of customer needs in the new product development process.Practical implicationsOur study also offers some insights into the management of coopetition. In fact, by taking into account the existence of a context in which global coopetition networks play a role, managers may be better positioned to effectively deal with the paradox of being a partner of their direct rivals to improve their firms’ innovativeness and, consequently, achieve good performance, on the one hand, and to maintain relationships within several networks by taking into account their structural properties such as centrality and diversity, on the other hand.Originality/valueWe contribute to extant network coopetition literature in two ways. First, we introduce the notion of GNC to detect coopetition occurrence in global network structures. GNC refers to a context where actors in various networks belonging to different industries and geographies cooperate in a one (or more) innovative project/s, while simultaneously keeping on competing within and between their networks. Second, we contribute to network coopetition by analyzing specific GNC effects on firm innovation performance. In so doing, we can provide a deeper analytical understanding of GNC performance effects on firms operating in global network contexts.

Purpose This study aims to examine the critical role of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream), market structure (concentrated/competitive) and innovation (low vs high degree of innovation) that can affect the way consumers perceive the resulting price (un)fairness of new offerings. Design/methodology/approach Three between-subjects experiments involving different participant populations and product categories were conducted to test the research hypotheses. Findings The valence of the effect of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) on price fairness is conditional on the market structure and the degree of innovation associated with the new product offering. Downstream (as opposed to upstream) coopetition is much more detrimental to perceptions of price fairness in a concentrated market than in a competitive and fragmented market. However, within a competitive market, downstream coopetition may lead to greater price fairness perception than upstream coopetition when the new product offering is highly innovative. Research limitations/implications The current study uses lab experiments with fictitious scenarios and focuses on two moderating variables: market structure and innovation perceptions. Future research may use field experiments and explore additional moderating variables that may annihilate the negative effect of downstream coopetition on price fairness perception, especially in a concentrated market. Practical implications In concentrated markets, firms should opt for upstream rather than downstream coopetition to limit the negative effect the announcement of coopetition has on price fairness evaluation. However, within a competitive market, when the new product offering resulting from coopetition is associated with a high perceived degree of innovation, firms should opt for downstream rather than upstream coopetition because of its positive impact on price fairness evaluation. Originality/value To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that new product development from coopetition has important implications for the perception of price fairness, leading to positive or negative effects depending on market structure and the degree of innovation of the new product offering. It then explores the conditions under which types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) might backfire.

The aim of our paper is to clear up the draw backs of the firms’ strategic behavior on consumer behavior. It attempts to spot light on a possible interaction between strategic firms behavior and consumer behavior by using Inoculation Theory. Indeed, it suggests that interaction between firms on the public scene can be a possible source of inspiration for the consumers who react vertically to the firm and horizontally to its consumers by replicating the same firms’ interactional scheme with other consumers. A netnographic study of Smartphone consumers’ behavior reveals interesting results on possible inoculating effect of the firms’ strategic behavior and interaction on consumers that is noticeable through oppositional loyalty and resistance phenomena. We chose to call this replication of behavior from the corporate level to the consumer level ‘The Mirror Effect’. Despites the exploratory nature of our study, it draws attention towards a reconsideration of the use of inoculation theory and permits building a bridge between two analysis levels: the corporate and the consumer one.

Les relations inter-organisationnelles connaissent une transition dans leurs formes, passant de simples relations d’alliances dyadiques à des relations réticulaires de plus en plus complexes. Cet article vise à appréhender les performances des firmes enchâssées dans des structures de réseaux en explorant les caractéristiques structurelles susceptibles d’expliquer l’effet de telles configurations sur les performances des firmes. Portant sur un échantillon de 1132 observations formées de 1112 alliances, notre étude longitudinale (2000 et 2015) concerne 47 réseaux formés par 87 entreprises appartenant à différents secteurs. L’analyse a révélé que contrairement à la taille du réseau, sa nature et la position en son sein semblent être les caractéristiques structurelles qui constituent une importante source de performance pour les firmes membres., The inter-organizational relationships are experiencing a transition in their forms, from simple relationships of dyadic alliances to more increasingly complex network relationships. This article aims at understanding performance of firms which are embedded in networks structures through exploring structural characteristics that would likely explain the effect of such network configurations on this performance. By focusing on a 1132 observation sample set out of 1112 alliances, our longitudinal study (2000-2015) concerns 47 networks established by 87 firms belonging to different sectors. The analysis revealed that, unlike network size, network diversity and network position seem to be the structural characteristics that constitute an important source of firms’ performance., Las relaciones inter organizativas están experimentando una transición en lo que respecta a sus formas, pasando de simples alianzas diádicas a relaciones reticulares cada vez más complejas. Este artículo tiene como objetivo comprender el desempeño de las empresas incluidas en estructuras de redes mediante la exploración de características estructurales que puedan explicar el efecto de esas configuraciones en el desempeño de las empresas. Con una muestra de 1132 observaciones de 1112 alianzas, nuestro estudio longitudinal (2000-2015) trata 47 redes formadas por 87 empresas de diferentes sectores. El análisis revela que, a diferencia del tamaño de la red, parecen ser la naturaleza y la posición dentro de ella las características estructurales que son una fuente importante de desempeño para las empresas miembros.