Business Journal 3

0019-8501/00/$–see front matter PII S0019-8501(99)00067-X

Industrial Marketing Management

29

, 411–426 (2000) © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

”Coopetition” in Business Networks—to

Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously

Maria Bengtsson Sören Kock

Existing theory and research on relationships among com- petitors focuses either on competitive or on cooperative rela- tionships between them, and the one relationship is argued to harm or threaten the other. Little research has considered that two firms can be involved in and benefit from both cooperation and competition simultaneously, and hence that both types of relationships need to be emphasized at the same time. In this article, it is argued that the most complex, but also the most advantageous relationship between competitors, is “coopeti- tion” where two competitors both compete and cooperate with each other. Complexity is due to the fundamentally different and contradictory logics of interaction that competition and

cooperation are built on. It is of crucial importance to separate the two different parts of the relationship to manage the com- plexity and thereby make it possible to benefit from such a re- lationship. This article uses an explorative case study of two Swedish and one Finnish industries where coopetition is to be found, to develop propositions about how the competitive and cooperative part of the relationship can be divided and man- aged. It is shown that the two parts can be separated depend- ing on the activities degree of proximity to the customer and on the competitors’ access to specific resources. It is also shown that individuals within the firm only can act in accordance with one of the two logics of interaction at a time and hence that ei- ther the two parts have to be divided between individuals within the company, or that one part needs to be controlled and regulated by an intermediate actor such as a collective association. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Address correspondence to Sören Kock, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Management, P.O. Box 287, FIN- 65101 Vasa, Finland.

412

INTRODUCTION

In earlier studies concerning buyer–seller relationships within networks, the trade-off between cooperation and competition has been emphasized as a mean of creating progress among actors involved in long-term relation- ships. This is true for buyer–seller relationships, but the question posed in this article concerns the trade-off between cooperation and competition in relationships among competitors. Even though similarities can be found, vertical and horizontal relationships are, in many senses, totally different types of relationships, and it is obvious that the trade-offs between cooperation/harmony and competition/conflict in vertical and horizontal rela- tionships, respectively, are of different natures and ac- cordingly have to be managed differently.

Research on cooperation and competition between horizontal actors has been conducted within different theoretical fields. In literature using a network approach, horizontal relationships have been studied indirectly, as they are seen as a consequence of competitors’ relation- ships to buyers, suppliers etc. (e.g., [1– 3]). Interaction between competitors is, on the contrary, seen as direct in economic theory, but the focus is placed on structure rather than relationships [4–6]. Competition is described as the direct rivalry that develops between firms due to the dependency that structural conditions within the in- dustry give rise to. Intense rivalry between many firms is argued to be the most beneficial interaction, and coopera- tion is considered to hamper effective competitive inter- action. Finally, in literature on strategic alliances (cf., [7– 10]) or business alliances [11], relationships rather than structures are studied, and they are seen as direct rather than indirect consequences of vertical relationships. Co- operation among competitors is analyzed and argued to be advantageous in that firms resources and capabilities can be combined and used in competition with others. The main issue for these studies is how competitors within an alliance can resist from acting in conflict with each other to get the alliance to work.

Significant insights about horizontal relationships have been reached in the theoretical fields mentioned, but the trade-off between cooperation and competition has not been addressed. A firm is usually assumed to cooperate with one competitor and compete with another, thereby participating in totally different relationships with differ- ent actors. In this article, it is argued, in accordance with Hunt [12], that competitors can be involved in both coop- erative and competitive relationships with each other si- multaneously and benefit from both, and hence that it is of importance to emphasize both the cooperative and competitive dimensions of a relationship:

For a theory of competition to provide a theoretical foun- dation for relationship marketing, the theory must admit at least the possibility that some kinds of cooperative rela- tionships among firms may actually enhance competition, rather than thwart it. (p. 8) [12]

The dyadic and paradoxical relationship that emerges when two firms cooperate in some activities, such as in a strategic alliance, and at the same time compete with each other in other activities is here called “coopetition.” It is argued that it is of great importance to further de- velop the knowledge about this kind of business relation- ship, as it must be regarded as the most advantageous one, when companies in some respect help each other and to some extent force each other towards, for example, more innovative performance. It is of interest to ask the question how cooperation and competition is possible to combine in one and the same relationship, and how such a relationship can be managed?

Coopetitive relationships are complex as they consist of two diametrically different logics of interaction. Ac- tors involved in coopetition are involved in a relationship that on the one hand consists of hostility due to conflict- ing interests and on the other hand consists of friendli- ness due to common interests. These two logics of inter- action are in conflict with each other and must be separated in a proper way to make a coopetitive relation- ship possible. The purpose of this study is to explore how the division between the cooperative and the competitive part of the relationship can be made and to further scruti- nize the advantages of coopetition. Both these issues are of strategic importance for managers within competing companies. The article begins with a review of existing theory on horizontal relationships, after which the con- cept coopetition is further explored. Cooperation and competition in different settings of relationships in busi- ness networks in Finland and Sweden are then described

MARIA BENGTSSON is a Researcher in the Department of Business Administration at Umeå Business School, University of Umeå, Sweden

SÖREN KOCK is a Professor in the Department and Organization of Management at the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland.

413

and used to formulate some propositions about why and how coopetitive relationships can be developed, and to formulate some strategic implications for the firms in- volved.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COMPETITORS

Theories on interaction between competitors and rela- tionships between them focus either on cooperation or competition between competitors and not on the combi- nations of the two types of interactions that competitors can be involved in, as already mentioned. When competi- tion is emphasized, the discussion often derives from neoclassical economic theory, in which competition is described as different structures within an industry. In- dustrial organization theory, which to some extent criti- cizes neoclassical theory, has advanced knowledge of competition by including the dependency that exists be- tween firms in imperfect markets and by introducing the concept of strategic groups [13–16]. Hunt [17] analyzes competitive rivalry at an intermediate level, between the industry level and the firm level, making it possible to grasp differences that exist within an industry. It is at this intermediate level that networks and relationships be- tween competitors can be observed and analyzed. Thus, theory about strategic groups is fruitful as it provides tools that distinguish groups of competitors where rela- tionships are more likely to develop.

Theory on competition also gives insight in the advan- tages provided by intense rivalry between firms. Dy- namic models of competition, building on the Schumpet- erian tradition, have emerged in recent literature [18, 19]. Here, the nature of competition is described along dimen- sions of intensity. Intense competition is argued to be a central driving element in pressuring and stimulating firms to innovate and upgrade their competitive advan- tage. Porter [20] considers that in the presence of many local competitors, the pressure to create improvements

and innovations in operations relative to competitors be- comes greater. Proximate competitors are able, within a short space of time, to observe each others’ moves and countermoves, enabling them to rapidly imitate each oth- ers’ products. Psychological factors, such as prestige and pride, also stimulate companies to compete actively and to be innovative in their actions. In this way, rivalry sharpens the “struggle” between competitors and there- fore increases the dynamics within an industry.

To reach a deeper understanding of the relationships between competitors and the advantages provided by competition, it is hence necessary to analyze competition beyond mere structural characteristics. Competition is an interactive process where individual, and thereby organi- zational, perceptions and experience affect organiza- tional actions, and thus affect interactions between com- petitors [2, 21, 22]. To understand the relationships that develop through interactive processes, a network per- spective on competition can be fruitful. A network per- spective is, however, most often applied on vertical rela- tionships between buyers and sellers, and relationships between competitors have not been studied to the same extent. When relationships between competitors are dis- cussed, competitors are seen to be linked to each other in- directly by relationships to the same buyer, thereby con- necting the competitors’ relative positions [23].

Some researchers have nevertheless shown that com- petitors are involved in direct relationships with each other, that horizontal relationships can be formed in many different ways, and that they are different from ver- tical relationships. Easton and Arajou [24] argue that re- lationships between competitors differ depending upon the companies’ motives for action and the degree of dis- tance between competitors. The degree of distance can be related to the degree of dependence between competitors. Caves and Porter [13] point out that competition within strategic groups is less intensive then between strategic groups. They argue that competitors within a strategic

It is of importance to emphasize both cooperative and competitive dimensions of

a relationship.

414

group tend to avoid rivalry, because mutual dependence can be more easily understood by firms within the same strategic group.

In comparing vertical and horizontal relationships, it can be stressed that vertical relationships are often built upon a mutual interest to interact [24–26], whereas com- petitors often are forced to interact with each other, giv- ing rise to rivalry and mutual dependence between them [7, 27, 28]. Contrary to vertical relationships, relation- ships between competitors often are conflicting, as the interests of competitors often cannot be fulfilled simulta- neously. Competitors therefore try to avoid interaction, whereas buyers and sellers try to maintain interaction [28]. Cooperative relationships between vertical actors are also more easy to grasp as they are usually visible and built on a distribution of activities and resources among actors in a supply chain. Horizontal relationships, on the other hand, are more informal and invisible, in that infor- mation and social exchanges are more common than eco- nomic exchange. Competitors are almost always in- formed about each other’s movements, often through buyers, but also directly through trade fairs, brochures, meetings, buying competitors’ products, etc.

Competition is traditionally defined as the conflicting and rivaling relationship between competitors described above. The literature on strategic alliances has, however, contributed to a broader understanding of competition by pointing out that competitors in many occasions cooper- ate with each other (cf., [7, 29, 30]). Two main issues have been addressed: (1) the reasons for forming strate- gic alliances, and (2) how to build successful alliances or how to get an alliance to work. Different advantages are argued to be obtained by cooperation between competi- tors. David and Slocom [31] as well as Mason [32] argue that firms through cooperation in strategic alliances can complement and enhance each other in different areas such as production, introduction of new products, entry into new markets, etc. Flanagan [33] includes advantages related to the reduction of firms costs and risks through the formation of strategic alliances. A third advantage pointed out in the literature is the possibility of techno- logical and capability transfer that appears in alliances [34–38].

By forming strategic alliances, firms can fulfill many different purposes, but the formation of a successful stra- tegic alliance is not easy, and many researchers have pointed out features of importance for success. The dis- tribution of control and power between the partners is ar- gued to be of importance for the performance of an alli-

ance [39, 40]. Another explanation for the success is the mutuality or equity between partners. Mason [32] argues that equity in risk and contribution is important for the success, and Lewis [41] points out that mutual objectives, complementary needs, shared risk, and trust are impor- tant factors needed for an alliance to work.

The literature on strategic alliances give important in- sight into the advantages that can be obtained by cooper- ation and the prerequisites needed for an alliance to work, but it is primarily the cooperative dimension of the relationship that is emphasized. Rivalry and conflict are seen as a threat because they can hamper the performance of a strategic alliance. In contrast cooperation in eco- nomic theory is argued to hamper competition and anti- trust law is seen as necessary to guarantee healthy com- petition. Both in traditional theory about competition and in literature on strategic alliances, the assumption has been that cooperation in the first case and competition in the other case need to be minimized to get competition and cooperation to work. The possibility of combining cooperation and competition to receive advantages pro- vided by coopetition between two parties can thereby be overlooked (cf., [42]).

It has been shown that both cooperation and competi- tion are needed in vertical relationships [43, 44]. On the one hand, actors must compete to a certain extent, other- wise the business network will not be effective. On the other hand, there is a demand for cooperation, as the ac- tors must invest in bonds and make adaptations to create long-term relationships. Actors get to know each other through these bonds and thereby come to know what the interacting partner is capable of doing [30]. In this article, it is argued that cooperation and competition are also needed in horizontal relationships, as the different rela- tionships provide the firm with different advantages. The two types of interactions can, however, be assumed to create progress in a slightly different way in horizontal relationships compared with vertical relationships.

COOPETITION—SIMULTANEOUS COOPERATION AND COMPETITION

The Concept Coopetition

In this article, it is argued that one single relationship can comprise of both cooperation and competition, that two firms can compete and cooperate simultaneously. In any specific relationship elements of both cooperation and competition can be found, but one or the other of

415

these elements can in some cases be tacit. If both the ele- ments of cooperation and competition are visible, the re- lationship between the competitors is named coopeti- tion [45].

Nalebuff and Brandenburger [46] have observed that cooperation and competition can be parts of one and the same relationship, and they also use the concept coopeti- tion to describe such a relationship. They discuss the im- portance of coopetition in business by using game theory as a theoretical frame. Their definition of competitors is, however, different from ours. Their definition [46] is as follows:

A player is your competitor if customers value your prod- uct less when they have the other player’s product than when they have your product alone.

Thus, a car manufacturer and a bank can be seen as com- petitors that establish a coopetitive relationship if the former sells cars and the latter grants loans for purchas- ing the car. In the same way, a manufacturer of comput- ers can establish a coopetitive relationship with a pro- ducer of software. To use the computer, the buyer needs software and to use the software the buyer needs a com- puter. Two competitors can also complement each other by creating new markets but will compete when it comes to separating the markets. It is common that stores com- plement each other to attract customers to come to a shopping mall, for example, a toy store is located near McDonalds or Burger King. The problem for the toy store is that if the children stay in the hamburger restau- rant, the probability of the parents making a purchase on impulse is low. Hence, when Nalebuff and Branden- burger [46] describes coopetition, they use a very broad definition of competition.

The concept coopetition used in this article is more narrow than the concept used by Nalebuff and Branden- burger [46]. We define competitors as actors that produce and market the same products. We see McDonalds and

Burger King as competitors but not a toy store and a burger restaurant. The coopetitive relationship described on this article is more complex, as the firm simulta- neously is involved in both cooperative and competitive interactions with the same competitor at the same product area. The two different types of interaction are not di- vided between counterparts but between activities, as it is impossible to compete and cooperate with the same ac- tivity. Simultaneous cooperation and competition can, however, give rise to internal disagreement and it can be difficult to separate the activities where competitors in- teract in cooperation and in competition.

The relationship between cooperation and competition can have different shapes depending on the degree of co- operation and the degree of competition. On one hand, we can have a relationship between two competitors con- sisting merely of cooperation, a traditional cooperative relationship. On the other hand, we can have a relation- ship between two competitors consisting merely of com- petition, a competitive relationship. Between these two we will have at least three different types of coopetitive relationships depending on the degree of cooperation and competition. In Figure 1, three different types of coopeti- tive relationships between actors are identified.

Different Logics of Interaction

All coopetitive relationships are complex as they are built around diametrical different logics of interaction. The idea behind competition, one part of the coopetitive relationship, is built on the assumption that individuals act to maximize their own interest (cf., [47, 48]). The as- sumption that rational ego-centered self-interest steers human action means that the individual will not partici- pate in collective action [49]. The different self-interests are in conflict with each other, which in consequence means that people compete against each other to best ful- fill their own self-interests. The idea behind cooperation, the other part of the coopetitive relationship, is based on

Coopetitive relationships are complex as they consist of two diametrically different

logics of interaction.

416

a diametrically opposite assumption. A precondition for cooperation is that individuals participate in collective actions to achieve common goals. However, individuals’ interests and motives for action are not considered to ex- plain collective action, rather, it is the social structure that surrounds individuals that is considered to explain why people act collectively to create a win–win relation- ship [50]. In such a relationship, the well being of the ac- tors involved is more important than one actor’s profit maximization or opportunism. Actors involved in win– win relationships all contribute to the total value created in the relationship, and they are satisfied with a smaller share of the profit to maintain the relationship.

The assumptions that structural conditions within an industry force firms to act in rivalry relatively to each other and that social structure and the dependence that follows from structure explain cooperation, rest on the belief that there is a reciprocal relation between structure and action. Giddens [51] argues that individuals create structure through action, and that at the same time they are restricted in their actions by that structure. The same reasoning holds for firms within a business network. Hå- kansson [52] describes the reciprocal relationship be- tween structure and (inter)action in the following way:

The network is the framework within which the interac- tion takes place but is also the result of the interaction. Thus, it is affected by the exchanges between the actors.

The dependence between competitors due to structural conditions can explain why competitors cooperate and also why they compete. If the structural conditions for

cooperation and competition are analyzed simulta- neously, the division between cooperation and competi- tion and the advantages provided by the two types of in- teractions can be better understood. From our empirical study of coopetitive relationships, two different patterns of division between the two parts of the coopetitive rela- tionship have been identified that can be related to the structure of the value chain and the market, respectively. The division is either related to the value chain or to the magnitude of business units. In the former, the division is based on functional aspects, or what activities the actors perform in the activity chain and the value they hereby create. In the latter, the cooperation and competition is divided between different business units or product areas, indicating that the competitors can compete in certain markets or product areas while they cooperate in others. These examples will be presented and discussed more in depth later in the article, but first the research design will be described.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A case study approach has been chosen for the empiri- cal study presented in this article. An exploratory analy- sis is made of coopetitive relationships in three industries to develop certain propositions about coopetition. This constitutes a first phase of a larger research project focus- ing on competition and cooperation between horizontal actors. The case study method provides the opportunity to gather a lot of data on a small number of study objects,

FIGURE 1. Different types of coopetitive relationships between competitors

417

which in turn makes possible multifaceted descriptions of competition (cf., [53]). Such an approach is needed if new propositions about relationships between competi- tors are to be generated and if understanding for the inter- action among competitors is to be increased (cf., [54]). Furthermore, individual interpretations of competition and the way that individuals relate their own actions to those of their competitors are important aspects of com- petition [21]. These interpretations can be accessed through interviews or conversations with managers in the studied companies, which necessitates establishing a close relationship between researcher and representatives from the studied companies. These requirements can be fulfilled by the case study method.

To identify different types of coopetitive relationships between competitors different industries have been se- lected. First, two Swedish industries were selected to in- crease the variety of relationships; the brewery industry (selling to consumers) and the lining industry (selling to industrial buyers). Second a Finnish industry, the dairy industry, was selected to make possible comparisons be- tween countries. Introductory interviews were conducted with CEO’s in each industry, and they were asked to de- scribe their firm, its history, and the relationships to other competing firms within the industry. Interviews were analyzed to identify distinct coopetitive relation- ships that the firms were and had been involved in. The coopetitive relationships identified were selected for fur- ther attention.

Personal interviews have been carried out with busi- ness managers at different levels in several companies in different lines of business involved in the relationship. The interviews conducted are schematically illustrated in Table 1. Twenty-one interview s in total were carried out in firms within three industries.

A semistandardized interview guide was used, and all the interviews were taped and transcribed. Each inter- view lasted from 30 to 90 minutes. The interviewees were asked to describe the cooperative or competitive in- teraction that they were involved in, how firms interacted in specific activities, and in what way the firm was af-

fected by the interaction. If, for example, a sales manager competed with a competitor in the interaction with cus- tomers, he was asked to describe not only his own but also his competitor’s actions and reactions in that specific activity, as well as how the interaction affected the firm in terms of for example loss in market share or stimula- tion to become better than the competitor. If the sales manager was involved in a cooperation with the competi- tor around a specific activity, he was asked similar ques- tions about this cooperative interaction with the competitor.

COOPETITION IN THREE INDUSTRIES—ONE FINNISH AND TWO SWEDISH

The Three Studied Industries

One manufacturing industry in Sweden and two con- sumer oriented industries, one in Sweden and one in Fin- land, have been studied. The Swedish manufacturing in-

It is hence necessary to analyze competition

beyond mere structural characteristics.

TABLE 1 Interviews Conducted in the Different Industries

Firm CEO Marketing Managers*

Product, R&D, or Quality Manager

The lining industry (Sweden) five interviews

Skega Ltd. 1 1 1 Trellex Ltd. 1 1

The brewery industry (Sweden) nine interviews

Spendrups Ltd. 1 Falcon Ltd. 1 Pripps Ltd. 1 Zeunerets Ltd. 1 2 Fors Ltd. 1 Brewery association 1 1

The dairy industry (Finland) five interviews

Milka Ltd. 2 Valio Ltd. 1 Ingman Ltd. 1 1

Arla Ltd. 1 1

*Or, for the dairy industry; marketing or purchasing managers.

418

dustry is represented by the lining industry. Lining products are made in rubber to protect mills, screens, etc. from wear and tear and they are sold to the mining indus- try. The competitors within the industry consist of a num- ber of local foreign manufacturers and of two Swedish companies, Trellex Ltd. (a unit within Trelleborg Ltd. until 1990 and after that a unit within Svedala Industries) and Skega Ltd. Skega Ltd was acquired by Svedala In- dustries in 1995, and the two firms Trellex and Skega were integrated. Until 1995, they both competed inten- sively with each other, and at the same time cooperated with each other, hence the firms were involved in a coo- petitive relationship. This coopetitive relationship will be described in this article. The two Swedish companies were and are world leaders in mill-lining.

The Swedish brewery industry is the Swedish con- sumer-oriented industry included in this study. The in- dustry consists of three large breweries that dominate the market (holding 70 to 80% of the market share), a num- ber of middle-sized breweries, and approximately 30 mini and microbreweries who operate mainly in local re- gions. The large breweries sell their beer nationwide, whereas the middle-size breweries just recently have started to expand their business outside the own region. Both the medium-sized and the mini and microbreweries have their main markets in the local region. The Swedish Brewers’ Association plays an important role in the coo- petitive relationship between the competitors that will be described in the next section. Almost all breweries are members in the association, but it is primarily the large firms that have the possibility to influence the work done by the association.

The Finnish dairy industry is dominated by one large actor, and the rest can be classified as medium-sized firms. Traditionally the companies within the dairy in- dustry has been owned and managed by the farmers in an attempt to secure the demand for dairy products at the highest possible price. The market has been protected as a part of the government’s agriculture program. During the 1990s and especially after the Finnish membership in EU, the market has started to open up as foreign dairy companies have penetrated the market. A majority of these companies are from Sweden. The main products of- fered by these new entrants are cheese and yogurt, as milk and cream are regarded as bulk products that are not profitable to export.

Division Between Cooperation and Competition Due to the Degree of Closeness to Customers

Coopetitive relationships, where the proximity of an activity to its customer seems to be of importance for the division between cooperative and competitive interac- tions, have been present in all three industries. In these relationships, competitors cooperate with activities far from the customer and compete in activities close to the customer. The three examples are summarized in Figure 2 and will be described in the following.

The first example of a coopetitive relationship where the cooperative and the competitive parts of the relation- ship were separated due to activity proximity/distance to customers was found in the lining industry before Trellex Ltd. (Svedala Ltd.) acquired Skega Ltd. in 1995. The two companies cooperated in their development of material

FIGURE 2. Degree of closeness to customers

419

and competed in product development and market pene- tration. The two companies, Skega Ltd. and Trellex Ltd. competed intensively with each other for individual in- stallations of linings both in Sweden and abroad. De- scriptions of the competition of the time given at Trellex Ltd. reveal that both companies tried to conceal from each other that they were working with a specific cus- tomer. If the customer installed a lining manufactured by one competitor, the other would offer to install their own linings in half of the mill to give the customer the oppor- tunity of judging for itself the quality of the competing companies’ products. From the knowledge gained of which lining the competitor installed, it became possible to install a lining with a longer product life. They com- peted for practically every individual installation, as they were represented in the same markets.

The cooperative aspect of the relationship was totally different, as both companies were mutually interested in the results of the development. They used each other’s laboratories to run mutual development projects to lower R&D costs and to gain advantages from combining the unique competence of both companies. Skega Ltd. and Trellex Ltd. informed each other continuously about their individual development processes. Social exchanges also took place as the individuals collaborating in R&D projects met at a social club at least twice a year. The two companies trusted each other in the cooperative part of the relationship. There were clear norms for the interac- tion partly based on formal agreement and partly on so- cial contracts. One of the managers at Skega Ltd. pointed out that,

We have a very good cooperative atmosphere in the tech- nical area. Competition and enmity exist only on the mar- ket side. We cofinance development projects and have de- veloped a program for our development work. We work with four academic organizations, and we often present our results in international journals.

Invisible norms existed that allow total openness about the development of material. Tacit agreement dictated that the cooperative interaction would cease when devel-

opment processes approached product related develop- ment.

Individuals at the material development departments at both companies cooperated with each other, while indi- viduals in the marketing and product development de- partments competed with each other. Goals were jointly stipulated in their cooperation, but not, of course, in their competition. A change in the competitors’ relative posi- tions was seen as a competitive goal for both companies, which can be illustrated by the following quotation by one respondent at Trellex Ltd., “When we have taken a customer from Skega Ltd., we buy a cake to celebrate”.

Another example is when cooperative and competitive interactions were separated between different parts of the value chain can be found in the Swedish brewery indus- try. The competitors compete in the distribution of beer to wholesalers but cooperate in bottle returns, though the distance and the means of transport are the same. It is im- portant for the companies to deliver personally, as this gives them the possibility to expose their own products in the store (an important competitive tool). It is not uncom- mon for the breweries to “hide” the competitors’ beer at the back of the shelf, and to use the front of the shelf to expose their own products. It is therefore crucial to de- liver more regularly than the competitors to receive the best exposure. The return of empty bottles is not impor- tant in the direct interaction with customers. It has there- fore been possible to develop cooperative relationships between the breweries concerning the return of empty bottles. The competitors have also developed a common system of packing that makes cooperation in bottle return easier. The competitors are very positive to the coopera- tion, as they can achieve a more rational and cost effi- cient way of solving the problem with the nationwide collection of empty bottles.

The Swedish Brewers’ Association plays a vital role in the above cooperation between the breweries in that it co- ordinates and controls the flow of empty bottles. The As- sociation also suggested that a system for the outward distribution of beer (i.e., full bottles) should be devel- oped, as the only difference in distribution is that the bot-

Horizontal relationships can be formed in

many different ways.

420

tles are full one way and empty the other. However, none of the competitors wanted to participate in such a cooper- ation, because the distribution of beer is an activity that is too close to the customer, and therefore an important competitive tool.

A similar example can be found in the Finnish dairy industry, where all the actors have implemented a joint system of transport containers for the distribution of products. The dairy industry in Finland consists of a few actors, most of them owned by the farmers. The dominat- ing actor and market leader is Valio, followed by Ingman Foods. The remaining dairies are relatively small, and normally operate in specific geographical areas. It is in- teresting to note that Swedish speaking Finns have their own dairy, Milka, which has a strong market position in certain bilingual and Swedish speaking areas. The largest foreign competitor is Arla, the largest dairy in Sweden. All these companies have founded a pool to share the transport containers needed for distribution of the prod- ucts. The system is similar to the one described in the Swedish brewing industry as each dairy handles the dis- tribution of their products from their factories to the buy- ers, that is, an important activity close to the buyer. Every dairy has committed resources to the pool, usually a cer- tain number of transport containers. Usually the transport containers are not marked so a dairy delivering products to a wholesaler or retailer can at the same time collect any empty transport containers. If one dairy is short of transport containers, it can contact a competitor and bor- row a container.

Division Between Cooperation and Competition Between Different Business Units

The examples given above show that competition of- ten takes place close to customers while competitors can cooperate in activities more distant from the customer. In our empirical study, however, some examples of the op- posite situation also have been found. In such situations, the cooperative and competitive parts of the relationship are separated between different business units. Competi- tors cooperate in some markets or product areas whereas they compete in others. Such relationships have been identified in the dairy industry in Finland. The market leader in Finland, Valio, and one of the smaller dairies Milka cooperate at the same time as competing. Coopera- tion is based on Milka’s need for a full product line as the company does not produce yogurt or orange juice. Milka markets Valio’s products in their own geographical area

instead. Moreover, Milka keeps Valio’s products in stock so they can deliver them at the same time they deliver their own products. The benefits to Milka are quite obvi- ous as the company can strengthen its relationships with customers. Without a full line of products, the customer needs to place an order first with Milka and then with the competitor Valio for yogurt and juice. It is therefore much easier for the customer to buy all his products from one supplier, that is, Valio. It is more difficult to see the benefits that Valio gains from the cooperation. The un- derlying factor is that Milka is a market leader in the Swedish speaking and bilingual areas in Finland. Though the cooperation, Valio gains the possibility of entering a market that differs from the rest of the country.

THE DIVISION OF INTERACTIONS AND ADVANTAGES OF COOPETITION

It has been argued in the first section of this article that one prerequisite for the establishment and maintenance of a coopetitive relationship is that the cooperative and the competitive part of the relationship can be separated in one or the other way. The empirical examples given also show that firms divided the two parts of the relation- ship in different ways. In this section, some explanations to why and how the division can be made will be pro- posed. First, it is argued that many of the reasons behind the different kinds of interaction can to be found in the structure of the competitive network and in the competi- tors relative advantages used in their interactions with customers. The dependence that exists between competi- tors in a competitive network can explain why firms choose to cooperate in some activities and cooperate in others. Second, the inherent conflict that between the two different logics of interaction that is present in a coopeti- tive relationship also effect the division between cooper- ation and competition, and finally, the advantages pro- vided by the two types of interaction is of importance for the division.

Dependence Due to Heterogeneity in Resources and to Connectedness of Positions

The first structural characteristic of a business net- work, heterogeneity due to unique resources, can partly explain the dependence that characterizes a business net- work. Barney and Hoskisson [55] are of the opinion that companies have unique characteristics, and that compa- nies, through their own efforts, can develop new re-

421

sources and new preconditions for competition. Person- nel knowledge and skill, as well as the type of machinery and products etc., are not homogeneous across the popu- lation of competitors. Through specific resources, a firm can create a competitive advantage and be able to serve customers better than its competitors. Heterogeneity can hence be means in the development of competitive rela- tionships within an industry. The need for external re- sources is also, however, the main driving force behind establishing long-term cooperative relationships to se- cure access to unique resources [56, 57]. Through coop- eration, two companies can gain access to the other firm’s unique resources or share the cost of developing new unique resources. Accordingly, our first and gener- ally formulated proposition is:

Proposition 1: Heterogeneity in resources can foster coo- petitive relationships, as unique resources can be advanta- geous both for cooperation and competition.

The heterogeneity that exists within a business network can hence explain why competitors develop direct rela- tionships with each other, and also that the relationships include not only links, but also ties and bonds between competitors. Håkansson and Snehota [58] describe inter- action between actors in a network as activities that are linked in one way or another, resources that are tied to each other, and actors that are connected through bonds to each other that affect the way they perceive each other. Links can develop between competitors when they com- pete with each other, and moves taken by one competitor are followed by countermoves from other competitors. Competitors can also develop ties between themselves if they develop shared assets that tie the competitors’ re- sources to each other (such as shared distribution systems developed by industry associations). Finally, bonds can arise if the cooperation is intense, as in the lining case. The competitors’ resources are not just tied to each other, as financial, technical, and social bonds are also included in the cooperative part of the relationship. It is, however, important to remember that a single actor is not able to create a new activity chain. A single actor can normally influence his direct relationships in the business network, while it is more problematic to influence indirect rela- tionships, especially if they are weak in character.

Both competition, that develops links between com- petitors, and cooperation, that develops ties and bonds between competitors, can, as already mentioned, be in- cluded in one and the same relationship, but it is not pos- sible to both cooperate and compete around the same

unique resource within one and the same activity. Conse- quently, two firms involved in a coopetitive relationship need to have unique resources that serve as a means for competition and at the same time have other unique re- sources that enhance and develop both firms simulta- neously. In the studied industries, competitors cooperated with each other in activities around unique shared re- sources that were far from the customers. Common sys- tems for bottle returns and collective transport containers are examples of shared assets that make possible the re- duction of costs and an increase in efficiency in distribu- tion, which would have been impossible without the co- operation between the competitors. In the lining industry, the two competitors shared the personnel skills of the other competitor in their development of new material, and they also shared the cost for the development. The cooperative interaction can be explained by the possibil- ity to develop shared assets or unique resources.

In contrast firms competed in activities close to the customers by using unique resources and competencies in the individual firm’s possession. In the brewery indus- try, each firm developed its own distribution system and gained the advantage provided by the possibility to ex- pose and rearrange the exposition of its own products in the market. A well-developed nationwide distribution system, provided some breweries with competitive ad- vantages whereas others used the advantage of the loy- alty to the company that was present in certain regions. The same was true in the lining industry, in that it was possible to adjust and promote their products to the cus- tomers, due to personal and close relationships to them, and thereby create a competitive advantage. The compet- itive interaction can be explained by the possibility to use unique resources in the struggle with competitors within the market. The reasoning so far leads us to our second proposition.

Proposition 2: The cooperative and competitive parts of a coopetitive relationship are divided due to the closeness of an activity to the customer, in that firms compete in ac- tivities close to the customer (output activities) and coop- erate in activities far from the customers (input activities).

The second characteristic of a business network is the connectedness of relationships within the network. Hå- kansson & Snehota [58] define a network as the aggre- gate structure formed by exchange relationships due to the connectedness between them. A dyadic relationship is affected and affects other dyadic relationships in the network structure, as they all are connected to each other

422

and part of the same social structure, thereby creating in- terdependence between the actors’ relationships. A change in the content of one relationship will probably have effects on the focal actor’s relationships with other actors, as the relationships are embedded in the context. Embeddedness implies that the “economic action and outcomes, like all social action and outcomes, are af- fected by actors’, dyadic relationships and by the struc- ture of the overall network of relations” [59]. Conse- quently, a focal firm must take into account how a change in one relationship will affect its other relation- ships.

Håkansson [60] argues that striving for control over a network can explain the interaction within a vertical net- work. Control over activities gives power. Contrary to power in vertical relationships, power in relationships be- tween competitors is primarily connected to relative posi- tions. Therefore, we argue that striving for increased rela- tive strength and better positions in the network can explain the interaction that takes place in a business net- work. Competitor positions are connected to each other, not just as dyadic connections between the positions of two competitors, but as an aggregated structure of con- nected positions. In the cooperative relationship, a com- pany can control resources and activities within the value chain, but that does not mean that it wields power in the relationship. Power related to a partner’s relative compet- itive position and strength is even more important. The reason for cooperation and competition can better be un- derstood if all the competitors’ positions and the connect- edness between them are included in the analysis.

If we return to the examples given earlier, Valio’s mo- tive to cooperate with Milka can be understood in the light of the structure of relative positions present in the Finnish dairy industry. Valio’s position and strength rela- tive to Milka is very strong. To understand why Valio chose to cooperate with Milka in spite of its relative strength, the entire network needs to be included in the

analysis. As Valio is market leader, it would be possible to gain market shares from Milka by initiating a price if it only had to pay attention to the dyadic relation between Milka and Valio. In fact, Valio would be able to drive Milka out of business. Valio is probably afraid that the Swedish speaking customers would turn to another sup- plier, if they damage Milka. Our third proposition is ac- cordingly the following:

Proposition 3: The decision to either cooperate or com- pete in a specific product or market area needs to be made with regard to all the competitors’ positions and the con- nectedness between them, as a change in one relationship within the network may effect the other competitors’ rela- tionships and positions.

Conflicting Logic of Interaction

The totally different nature of the two types of interac- tions combined in coopetitive relationships are of impor- tance, apart from the characteristics of the industrial network, for the division between competition and coop- eration. The logics of interaction that cooperation and competition rest on are in conflict with each other, but the conflict can appear in different settings. Traditionally, the conflict is argued in theories on competition at the market and on cooperation in strategic alliances, the con- flict is argued to be externalized. The two logics of inter- action are divided between relationships and the conflict appears in the market when two competitors cooperate with each other to compete with a third company. This principle of division explains why the one type of inter- action is argued to threaten the other.

The conflict between cooperative and competitive log- ics of interaction in the relationships that have been re- ported in this article differ, however, from the traditional description, in that the conflict is internalized within the coopetitive relationship, and hence within the two organi- zations involved in the relationship. The internal conflict

Competition is traditionally defined as the conflicting and rivaling relationship

between competitors.

423

can be explained by the fact that the meaning that individ- uals ascribe to their own operations can differ from one in- dividual to another, as individuals exist and act in different contexts that can be more or less competitive or coopera- tive (cf., [61, 62]) This can lead to the development of sub- optimized goals in different functions of the organization. [63, 64] amongst others argue that organizations must be seen as a systems of shared meanings, which indicates that consensus is required for collective strategic action to oc- cur and to prevent suboptimizing behavior, and accord- ingly coopetitive relationships are almost impossible.

In this article, however, it is argued that the conflict not need be seen as a threat, instead it must be accepted and as issue for managerial considerations within the or- ganization. This argument rests both on our empirical ob- servations and on previous research. For example, Weick [65] is of the opinion that both differentiated interests and experiences and common collective action can exist si- multaneously. The goals of individuals can be similar even if different means are used to achieve these ends. In accordance with his reasoning, some individuals can use competition as a means to obtain common organizational goals whereas other can use cooperation as a mean to ob- tain the same goals. Therefore, it is of great importance to make the individuals within the organization aware of the advantages of cooperation and competition, respectively, to help them accept that different individuals contribute to the coopetitive relationship in different ways, and that they together enhance the business of the firm. The fol- lowing proposition about the management of a coopeti- tive relationship can hence be formulated.

Proposition 4: The conflict between cooperative and com- petitive logics of interaction is internalized in organiza- tions involved in coopetitive relationships, and, hence, the acceptance of the conflict and consensus about organiza- tional goals are managerial issues of great importance for the establishment and maintainance of a coopetitive rela- tionship.

Even though organizations can internalize the conflict described above, it is difficult for individuals to do the

same. An organization’s interaction in cooperation and in competition therefore has to be divided between individ- uals. In the lining companies, individuals within the mar- ket division and the division for material development participated in different types of interaction, and Milka separated individuals that competed with Valio in the marketing of milk from those that cooperated with Valio in the marketing of juice and yogurt. The division be- tween cooperation and competition to not force individu- als to internalize contradicting logics of interaction can either be made between different functional units in ac- cordance with the value chain or between different prod- uct and market units.

In some cases, the same individuals may, however, be involved in both cooperative and competitive activities, as, for example, in the Swedish brewery industry, where the individuals that distribute beer also handle the collec- tion and return of empty bottles (one activity in coopera- tion and the other in competition with competitors). In such a case, an intermediate actor, for example, a collec- tive association (such as the Swedish brewery associa- tion), is needed to coordinate and define how to compete or how to cooperate with each other. The intermediate actor thereby exhibits a formal logic of interaction collec- tively agreed upon. The forming of a strategic alliance around one or the other of the to activities could also be a alternative whereby one of the two parts of the relation- ship is detached from the hierarchy. It is thereby possible for individuals within the hierarchy and individuals in the alliance to participate in one or other part of the relation- ship and together to contribute to the maintenance of the coopetitive relationship. The following proposition is de- rived from the reasoning above.

Proposition 5: Individuals can not cooperate and compete with each other simultaneous, and therefore the two logics of interactions need to be separated. The two logics of in- teraction inherent in coopetition can be divided between different units within the firm, but if that is not possible the conflict can instead be controlled and coordinated by a intermediate organization.

The different self-interests are in conflict

with each other.

424

Advantages Provided by the Different Interactions

Finally, something needs to be said about why firms engage in the complex and multifaceted coopetitive rela- tionships described in this article. The obvious reason is that the relationship is advantageous. Through competi- tion, competitors are forced to undertake measures not al- ways demanded by customers to gain a better position relative to their competitors. Competition thereby give rise to a pressure to develop new products and markets [19, 28, 66]. The advantage of cooperation is also related to development, but the function of cooperation is rather access to resources than a driving force or pressure to de- velop (c.f., [43]). Through cooperation, a company can gain time, competence, market knowledge, reputation, and other resources of importance for its business [45]. New products can also be developed more cost effi- ciently, as each actor contributes with its own core com- petence. Extended, this means that actors can stay within their core business and still offer a wider range of prob- lem solutions to their customers than if one company was to stand alone. The final proposition derived from this study is the following:

Proposition 6: The advantage of coopetition is the combina- tion of a pressure to develop within new areas provided by competition and access to resources provided by cooperation.

CONCLUSIONS

In relationships consisting of simultaneous coopera- tion and competition, the closeness of activities to the buyer seems to matter, as our empirical findings point out that the firms tend to more frequently cooperate in activi- ties carried out at a greater distance from buyers and compete in activities closer to buyers. The driving force behind this behavior is the heterogeneity of resources, as each competitor holds unique resources that sometimes give a competitive advantage and sometimes are best uti- lized in combination with other competitors’ resources. From a strategic point of view, this means that R&D ac- tivities can be carried out in cooperation with a competi- tor, but when it comes to launching a new product, com- petitors choose to compete to distinguish the products from each other.

Today’s business networks are complex gatherings of different kinds of relationships, which means that the tra- ditional neoclassical way of analyzing competition is no longer valid. A focal firm can be, and usually is, involved

in several different relationships at the same time in order to defend its position in the business network. Some hor- izontal relationships consist of pure competition, others of pure cooperation, and between the two extremes, there are relationships consisting of a mix of both, where some business units cooperate with the competitor’s corre- sponding business units while other business units com- pete in the traditional way. As a focal firm is embedded in a business network, a change in one relationship will cause changes in other relationships. These different rela- tionships are essential for a company’s strategic actions as they will secure the company’s position in the business network. A mix of relationships with different content, both horizontal and vertical, is therefore required. Coop- eration is important for utilizing the company’s limited resources in the most efficient way. Consequently, coo- petition can be regarded as an effective way of handling both cooperation and competition between competitors. The benefits of cooperation are among others: (1) the cost for developing new products are divided among the cooperating companies, (2) the lead times are shorten, (3) each company can contribute with its core competence. Through competition, the competitors are forced to fur- ther develop their products and carrying out their activi- ties in the most efficient way.

This explorative study based on personal interviews with business leaders in different lines of business has shed some light on the complex issue of coopetitive rela- tionships between competitors. As we can see from the empirical findings, the flows of cooperation and competi- tion can take many different forms. Both qualitative and quantitative studies are needed to penetrate this area of research deeper, as the findings in this study cannot be generalized into a common pattern for all industries. An interesting research question would be to see if the pre- paredness to cooperate and compete is the same in differ- ent lines of business, or if manufacturing industries alone can benefit most from coopetitive relationships. Another important question is when the competitive advantage of using unique resources in activities close to the buyer is lost, as the buyers cannot distinguish between the focal firm and the competitor.

REFERENCES

1. Hammarkvist, Karl-Olof., Håkansson, Håkan, Mattsson, Lars-Gunnar:

Marknadsföring för konkurrenskraft (Marketing for Competitiveness)

, Liber, Malmö, 1982.

425

2. Gadde, Lars-Erik, Mattsson, Lars-Gunnar: Stability and Change in Net- work Relationships.

International Journal of Research in Marketing

4

, 29–41 (1987).

3. Holmlund, Maria, Kock, Sören: Buyer Percieved Service Quality in Indus- trial Networks.

Industrial Marketing Management

24

, 109–121 (1995).

4. Scherer, F M.:

Industrial Market, Structure and Economic Per-formance

, Rand McNally College Pub., Chicago, 1980.

5. Tirole, J.:

The Theory of Industrial Organization

, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.

6. Schmalensee, R.: Industrial Economics: An Overview.

The Economic Journal

September,

643–681 (1988).

7. Ring, Peter S., Van de Ven, Andrew H.: Structuring Cooperative Relation- ships between Organisations.

Strategic Management Journal

13

, 483–498 (1992).

8. Gomes-Casseres, Benjamin: Group Versus Group: How Alliance Net- works Compete.

Harvard Business Review

July-August

, 62–74 (1994).

9. Cauley de la Sierra, Margaret:

Managing Global Alliances. Key Steps for Successful Collaboration

, Addison-Wesley, Workingham, England, 1994.

10. Yoshino, Michael Y., Rangan, U. Srinivasa:

Strategic Alliances—An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization

, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1995.

11. Sheth, Jagdish, Parvatiyar, Atul: Towards a Theory of Business Alliance Formation.

Scandinavian International Business Review

1,

71–87 (1992).

12. Hunt, Shelby D.:

Competing Through Relationships: Grounding Relation- ship Marketing in Resource-Advantage Theory.

Paper presented at the Fourth International Colloquium on Relationship Marketing, September 23–24, Helsinki, 1996.

13. Caves, Richard, Porter, Michael E.: From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barri- ers: Conjectured Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competi- tion.

Quarterly Journal of Economics

,

91,

241–267 (1977).

14. Porter, Michael E.: The Structure Within Industries and Companies Per- formance.

Review of Economics and Statistics

,

May,

214–227 (1979).

15. Harrigan, Kathyrin R.: An Application for Clustering for Strategic Group Analysis.

Strategic Management Journal

6,

55–73 (1985).

16. Thomas, Howard, Venkatraman, N.: Research on Strategic Groups: Progress and Prognosis.

Journal of Management Studies

November,

537– 555 (1988).

17. Hunt, M S.:

Competition in the Major Home Appliance Industry 1960– 1970

, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Boston, 1972.

18. D’Aveni, Richard, Gunter Robert:

Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering

, The Free Press, New York, 1994.

19. Ilinitch, Anne Y., D Aveni, Richard A., Lewin, Arie Y.: New Organiza- tional Forms and Strategies for Managing in Hypercompetitive Environ- ments.

Organization Science

7,

211–220 (1996).

20. Porter, Michael E.:

The Competitive Advantages of Nations

, Macmillan, London, 1990.

21. Porac, Joseph F., Thomas, Howard, Baden-Fuller, Charles: Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities: The Case of Scottish Knitwear Manu- facturers.

Journal of Management Studies

26,

397–410 (1989).

22. Bogner, William C., Thomas, Howard: The Role of Competitive Groups in Industry Formulation: A Dynamic Integration of Two Competing Mod- els.

Journal of Management Studies

30,

51–67 (1993).

23. Granovetter, Mark S.: Economic Action and Social Structure the Problem of Embeddedness.

American Journal of Sociology

91,

481–510 (1985)

24. Easton, Geoffrey, Arajou, Luis: Non-Economic Exchange in Industrial Network, in

Industrial Networks—A New View of Reality

, Björn Axelsson and Geoffrey Easton, eds., Routledge, London, 1992.

25. Håkansson, Håkan, Johanson, Jan: Formal and Informal Co-operation Strategies in International Industrial Networks, in

Co-operative Strategies in International Business

Farok J. Contractor and Peter Lorange, eds, Lex- ington Books, Lexington, MA, 1987.

26. Morgan, Robert M., Hunt, Shelby D.: The Commitment—Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.

Journal of Marketing

,

58,

20–38 (1994).

27. Burke, Terry, Genn-Bash, Angela, Haines, Brian:

Competition in Theory and Practice

, Croom Helm, London, 1988.

28. Bengtsson, Maria:

The Climate and Dynamics of Competition

, Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 1998.

29. Bucklin, Louis P., Sengupta, Sanjit: Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances.

Journal of Marketing

57,

32–46 (1993).

30. Kanter, Rosabeth M.: Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances.

Harvard Business Review

July–August,

96–108 (1994).

31. David, Lei, Slocom, John W. Jr.: Global strategy, Competence-Building and Strategic Alliances.

California Management Review

35,

81–97 (1992).

32. Mason, Julie Cohen: Strategic Alliances: Partnering for Success.

Manage- ment Review

82,

16–22 (1993).

33. Flanagan, Patrick: Strategic Alliances Keep Customers Plugged in.

Man- agement Review

82,

10–15 (1993).

34. Berg, Sanford V., Duncan, Jerome, Friedman, Philip: Joint Venture Strate- gies and Corporate Innovation. Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

35. Hamel, Gary, Prahalad, C.K.: Collaborate with Your Competitors—And Win.

Harvard Business Review

67,

133–139 (1989).

36. Doz, Yves L.: Technology Partnerships between Larger and Smaller Firms: Some Critical Issues, in

Cooperative Strategies in International Business

, F.J. Contractor and P. Lorange, eds., Lexington Books, Lexing- ton, MA, 1988, pp 317–338.

37. Hamel, Gary: Competition for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning within International Strategic Alliances.

Strategic Management Journal

12,

83–103 (1991).

38. Prahalad, C.K., Doz, Yves L.: The Multinational Mission. Free Press, New York, 1987.

39. Harrigan, Kathryn R.: Strategic Alliances and Partner Asymmetries, in

Cooperative Strategies in International Business

, F.J. Contractor, P. Lor- ange, editors, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1988, pp 141–158.

40. Killing, J. Peter: How to Make a Global Joint Venture Work.

Harvard Business Review

60,

120–127 (1982).

41. Lewis, Jordan D.: The New Power of Strategic Alliances.

Planning Review

20,

45–46 (1992).

42. Jorde, T.M., Teece, D.J.: Competition and Cooperation: Striking the Right Balance.

California Management Review

31,

25–37 (1989)

43. Mattsson, Lars-Gunnar, Lundgren, Anders: En Paradox? Konkurrens i industriella nätverk (A Paradox? Competition in Business Networks).

MTC Kontakt

8,

8–9 (1992).

44. Wilkinson, Ian F., Young, Louise C.: Business Dancing—The Nature and Role of Interfirm Relations in Business Strategy.

Asia-Australia Market- ing Journal

2,

67–79 (1995).

45. Bengtsson, Maria, Kock, Sören:

Co-operation and Competition among Horizontal Actors in Business Networks.

Paper presented at the 6th Work- shop on Interorganizational Research, Oslo, August 23–25, 1996.

46. Nalebuff, Barry, Brandenburger, Adam: Co-opetition, ISL Förlag AB, Oskarshamn, 1996.

47. Hobbes, Thomas: (1651) Leviathan, London, 1651, 1973.

426

48. Smith, Adam: An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776, in The Glasgow edition of works and correspondence of Adam Smith. R.H. Campbell, A.S. Skinner, eds., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1776, 1976.

49. Abrahamsson, Bengt: Varför finns organisationer? Kollektiv handling, yttre krafter och inre logik (Why do we have Organizations? Collective Action, External Power and Internal Logic). Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1992.

50. Axelrod, Robert: The Evolution of Co-operation. Basic Books, New York, 1982.

51. Giddens, Antony: The Construction of Society, Cambridge Policy Press, Cambridge, 1984.

52. Håkansson, Håkan: Industrial Technological Development: A Network Approach. Croom Helm, London, 1987.

53. Glaser, Barney G., Strauss, Anselm L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gryter, New York, 1967.

54. Normann, Richard: På spaning efter en metodologi. SIAR, Stockholm, 1976.

55. Barney, Jay B., and Hoskisson, Robert E.: Strategic Groups: Untested Assertions and Research Proposals. Managerial and Decisions Economies 11, 187–198 (1990).

56. Hägg, Ingemund, Johanson, Jan: Företag i nätverk (Firms in Networks). SNS, Stockholm, 1982.

57. Kock, Sören: A Strategic Process for Gaining External Resources through Long-lasting Relationships—Examples from two Finnish and two Swedish Firms. Multiprint, Helsingfors, 1991.

58. Håkansson, Håkan, Snehota, Ivan: Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Rutledge, London, 1995.

59. Grabher, Gernot: Rediscovering the Social in the Economics of Interfirm Relations, in The Embedded Firm, Gernot Grabher, ed., Routledge, Lon- don, 1993.

60. Håkansson, Håkan: Evolution Processes in Industrial Networks, in Indus- trial Networks—A New View of Reality, Björn Axelsson and Geoffrey Eas- ton, eds., Routledge, London, 1992.

61. Burns, Tom, Stalker, George M.: The Management of Innovation, Tavis- tock, London, 1961.

62. Lowerence, Paul, Loarch Jay: Organization and Environment. Managing Differentiation and Integration. Harvard University Press, Boston, 1967.

63. Louis, Meryl: A Cultural Perspective in Organizations: The Need for and Consequences of Viewing Organizations as Culturebearing Mileux. Human Systems Management 2, 246–258 (1981).

64. Smircich, Linda: Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 339–359 (1983).

65. Weick, Karl E.: The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979.

66. Sölvell, Örjan, Bengtsson, Maria: Innovative Performance in Industries— The Role of Industry Structure, Climate of Competition and Cluster Strength, Presented at EIBA conference in Stockholm and in RP 97/8 Insti- tute of International Business at Stockholm School of Economics, 1996.