Sustainability-driven co-opetition in supply chains as strategic capabilities: drivers, facilitators, and barriers

Figures & data

Table 1. Review of publications on co-opetition for sustainability.

	Reference (from latest to oldest)	Method	Theoretical perspective	Industry/scope of sustainability (Environmental and/or social)	Scope and key highlights/ findings	Highlights of the gaps in the reference addressed by this paper
1	Jalali et al. (2021)	Modelling	Game Theory	Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of Electronics/ Environmental	Studying co-opetition on recovering electronics via return of used items in a closed-loop supply chain, between an OEM (Dell) and a social collector (Goodwill agencies). Co-opetition is not always beneficial, and benefits from it exists for the OEM depending on the quality of returned item and markup costs.	The research is based on modelling and by nature does not explain the process and mechanisms of co-opetition as qualitative case studies does. Focus is on return logistics and not forward logistics or SC operations.
2	Narayan and Tidström (2020)	Literature review	Implicitly followed the Transaction Cost Economics	Not specified/ Environmental	The paper proposes how using tokens in blockchain system can enable co-opetition as a way of transforming to circular economy. The paper proposes that shifting toward a decentralised network which enables access to identity of products and their history will enable opportunities for refurbishment, remanufacturing and recycling of products.	The paper is conceptual, based on literature review, which cannot provide real insights based on implemented co-opetition. This is highlighted as a limitation of the study by its authors.
3	Trapp et al. (2020)	Mathematical modelling using data from two UK retailers	Game Theory	Container shipping in retail supply chains/ Environmental	The study shows limited economic advantages from co-opetition based on their model and data. Greatest benefits from co-opetition takes place when the price of fuels and social costs of CO2 emissions (e.g. costs related to climate change) increase.	Mathematical modelling based on calculating transport costs and emissions level is used, which due to its quantitative nature does not lead to explanations on the drivers, facilitators and process of co-opetition, and mainly provides quantified outcomes. This paper via explorative case studies addresses these areas.
4	Manzhynski and Figge (2020)	Conceptual	Resource-based View	Not specified/ environmental	Linking organisational and societal outcomes of co-opetition by assuming two firms and scenarios for their type of relationship. Identifying the trade-offs which can occur in coopetition for sustainability by considering the three perspectives of firm, resource and societal.	Lack of empirical data with real practical insights/implications (research based on conceptual examples), which makes the study limited in providing sufficient explanations about the co-opetition process. Lack of focus on mechanism and drivers, barriers and facilitators of co-opetition.
5	Christ, Burritt, and Varsei (2017)	Case study based on publicly available information	Implicitly followed a combination of Resource-Based View and Game Theory	Wine industry (focusing on logistics aspects)/ environmental	Identifying potential benefits and problems with sustainability-based co-opetition, based on an example of two competing Australian wine producers who agreed to collaborate on logistics. Findings show increasing profitability and reduced emissions. Change in the market, affecting competitiveness levels, leads to stopping co-opetition. Co-opetition strategies need to be incorporated in standards and guidelines addressing environmental sustainability management. Linking corporate co-opetition and corporate sustainability can help policy makers move industries toward sustainability.	Using publicly available information as data source, which limits the depth of exploration compared to using primary research data. The study highlighted the need for research areas and scopes as necessary for the field, which are addressed in this paper: Explorative case studies involving collaborative engagement of participants. Research on long-term successful and unsuccessful (short-term) co-opetitive projects. There is a demand for inductive case studies of environmental sustainability. Exploring dynamics of sustainability-driven co-opetition.
6	Stadtler and Van Wassenhove (2016)	Multiple case studies	Implicitly followed a combination of Social Network Theory and Game Theory	Education system/social	Co-opetition between information and communication technology (ICT) companies, in collaboration with governments and civil-society actors used in the context of Jordanian and Egyptian educational systems. The paradoxical competitive and collaborative elements of co-opetition can lead to tensions between companies and governments (as intermediaries) have a role in managing the relationship between the companies.	The focus is not on operations, logistics and SCM. The study highlights a demand for further empirical studies on design mechanisms for managing inter-organisational relationships in sustainability-driven competition – which is addressed in this paper.
7	Luo, Chen, and Wang (2016)	Modelling	Game theory	Manufacturing (not specified)/ environmental	Examining the role of co-opetition in achieving low carbon manufacturing. Co-opetition, compared to pure competition, leads to more profit and less total carbon emission, however it is subject to higher product prices and carbon emissions per produced item.	The research is modelling and by nature does not explain the process and mechanisms of co-opetition through empirical studies. The scope of the paper is limited to only two companies in the manufacturing, and a study with a broader scope on the supply chain is highlighted as a necessary further research area.
8	Scandelius and Cohen (2016)	Multiple case studies	Implicitly followed a combination of Network theory, and Resource-based View	Food and drink value chains/ environmental	The study aims to provide solutions based on holistic and industry-wide collaborative ways to improve sustainability in value chains through collaboration. The focus is on communication between firms and stakeholders in value chains including suppliers, employees and industry colleagues.	The study does not focus on mechanisms of co-opetition in supply chains. The paper highlights the need for studies on co-opetition which include perspectives of multiple companies, and a need for studies on sustainability-driven co-opetition in the context of industries other than food and drinks.
9	Volschenk, Ungerer, and Smit (2016)	Case study	Stakeholder Theory	Recycling of wine glasses/ Environmental & Economic	The paper studied dynamics of value creation and appropriation in co-opetition considering the perspectives of producers and users of glasses and government in the context of South African wine industry. Environmental focus by improving recycling of wine bottles, which can lead to reducing the cost of production for wine producers.	Limited focus on logistics and SCM. Focus on only one product.
10	Limoubpratum, Shee, and Ahsan (2015)	Structural equations modelling, path analysis of survey data	Resource-based view	Newspaper supply chain partners/ Environmental	The paper studies if a co-opetition strategy would have any significant implications on logistics of newspapers in Thailand which lead to sustainability improvements. The study shows co-opetition can lead to sustainability improvements; however, relationship management is key in success of co-opetition.	Due to its quantitative nature, the study does not provide explanations on the process of co-opetition. The study focuses mainly on benefits of co-opetition and not on barriers and challenges of it. The study highlights that further research in form of case study is needed to improve the understanding on the role of co-opetition in sustainability practices in SCs.

Figure 1. Main stages of this research.

A sequential flow chart of research process in four boxes. Stage one on literature review is shown in box one. Stage two on interviews is shown in box two. Stage three on focus groups is shown in box three. Stage four on case study is shown in box four.

Table 2. Primary and secondary data collected on the cases.

					Data
Cases (co-opetitive networks)	Length of co-opetition	Sustainability aspect	Type of network	Companies involved in each case	Primary data sources	Secondary data sources
Case 1 – Two leading food manufacturers	Long-term and ongoing	Environmental and economic	Dyad	Nestlé Pladis	6 in-depth interviews with managers from both companies (2 before and 4 after the survey). A semi-structured survey completed by 12 respondents from both companies (8 from Nestlé and 4 from Pladis). A focus group with 6 participants including lead project managers from both companies.	Official websites of Nestlé, Pladis and the facilitator of the relationship. Press releases including 19 articles (more than 130 pages). Other online documentation and archival records (more than 250 pages).
Case 2 – A national network of manufacturers and logistics service providers	Short-term	Primarily social and economic; Secondarily environmental, (leading to reducing the emissions)	Network	The consulting company who orchestrated the relationship (Company C) Logistics service provider (Company D)	4 in-depth interviews with the representatives of two companies, i.e. the consulting company who orchestrated and managed the relationship as a third-party, and a leading logistics service provider.	Official websites of the companies and facilitators of their relationships. Press releases including 16 articles (more than 90 pages) Online documentation and archival records (more than 170 pages).

Table 3. Interviews conducted for both case studies.

Case	Interview #	Position	Type of organisation	Duration	Type (face-to-face/telephone)
Case 1	1	Head of Logistics	Nestlé	2 hours	Face-to-face
	2	Head of Distribution	Pladis	2 hours	Face-to-face
	3	Head of Distribution	Nestlé	1 hour	Telephone
	4	Head of Supply Chain	Nestlé	1 hour	Telephone
	5	Transport Operations Manager	Pladis	1 hour	Telephone
	6	National Transport Controller	Pladis	1 hour	Telephone
Case 2	7	Consultant/broker of transportation pooling	Company C	1.5 hours	Telephone
	8	Logistics Manager	Company D	1 hours	Telephone
	9	Distribution Manager	Company D	1.5 hours	Telephone
	10	Project Manager	Company D	1 hours	Telephone

Table 4. Completeness, clarity, and credibility of method and results.

	Method	Results
Completeness	The ways of obtaining data for this research, including the list of participants in different stages of the study are explained in detail (a summary of the stages of the study and data collection procedures in each is provided in Figure 1).	Unit of analysis of case studies is introduced. Size of samples of respondents for each stage of the study and data collection are provided.
Clarity	Details are provided on the measures used in the study, e.g. interview questions, and instrument used for collecting data using survey and focus group. The keywords used for coding the qualitative data, selected according to the research questions are provided.	The research questions of the study are clearly answered in the findings. The propositions explain drivers, facilitators and barriers of co-opetition, and the capabilities which are needed by companies to pursue sustainability of their SCs via co-opetition.
Credibility	The sampling procedure and selection criteria for cases, and respondents of interviews and surveys are detailed.	Direct quotes from the interviewees and participants in the focus group are provided; draft case study sent to key informants for review and approval to ensure correctness of interpretation.

Table 5. Dimensions of the co-opetitive relationship.

Case	Partners and focus of collaboration	Strategic capability and social/ environmental benefits	Drivers	Key resources to utilise and share	Improved capabilities of companies as an outcome of co-opetition
Case 1	Two British food manufacturers in the UK, Nestlé and Pladis, are sharing trucks when transporting finished goods from factories to distribution centres.	Environmental sustainability Cost reduction New capability utilisation	Route and vehicle optimisation Reduce carbon footprint Increase CSR Encouragement and facilitation by a third-party	Cheaper service Simplicity of service and management Management systems discipline to segregate the information on transport from retail Operational synergy	Consolidated deliveries Reduced geographical supply and demand imbalances Exploiting operational synergies
Case 2	Manufacturers and transport service providers working together to reduce costs and improve competitive position.	Market share improvement for Northern Irish products in the UK market Reducing logistics cost Reducing delays and complexities Profitability improvement Conformance to anti-trust legislation Relationship building o encouraging trust o overcoming resistance Improving the filling rate of vehicles and reducing carbon footprints of transported goods	Consolidating the supply base Balancing the product flows Better utilisation of vehicle space Making NI products more competitive in the UK market (as a result of reducing logistics cost through this co-opetition)	Shared knowledge of small ‘top up’ transportation spaces External manager/facilitator key to mobilising support and cooperation Shared customers and routes	‘Level the playing field’ for manufacturing customers Control branding Control of routes and volumes Power to control market rates Achieving full loads in both directions Opportunity to reduce costs and increase earnings
Cross-case synthesis	Competing companies collaborate on logistics operations to improve economic, environmental, and social performance of their supply chains.	Environmental improvements and social contribution besides considerable improvements in logistics efficiency in economic terms, e.g. fill rate of trucks and reduction in total transportation. Building strategic capabilities for organisations for being flexible in terms of inter-organisational collaboration, even with competing companies.	In both cases environmental sustainability (reducing emissions and total ton-kilometers of transport) is a key driver. In Case 2 social sustainability, i.e. making the Northern Irish products generally more competitive in the UK market, is also a sustainability-related driver. Therefore case 1 is on economic and environmental aspects. However, Case 2 covers all 3BL aspects – economic, environmental and social sides of sustainability – improved via co-opetition.	Sharing transportation resources, e.g. spaces on trucks, and also customers and supply chain knowledge.	Reducing total cost of logistics and supply chain management. Improving branding via being known as socially responsible companies. Improving profitability. Gaining competitive capability of being able to engage in co-opetition, by having the experience of how to get engaged in this relationship and knowing about the measures and mechanisms to follow for successful engagement in co-opetition. They include setting clear boundaries, protecting sensitive information and working within anti-trust regulations.

Figure 2. Theoretical framework of sustainability-driven co-opetition in supply chains.

Two arrowed boxes facing each other in opposite directions. Box one includes three main groups of factors affecting co-opetition and its outcomes – Drivers, Facilitators, and Capabilities created – and six related propositions. Box two includes one group of factors preventing co-opetition – Barriers – and two related propositions.

Figure 3. Management roadmap of sustainability-driven co-opetition in supply chains.

A flow chart showing three linked layers of management decision in relation to sustainability-driven co-opetition management. First layer showing four key processes of co-opetition. Second layer showing some main questions of co-opetition in relation to each key processes. Third layer showing remedies to problems of co-opetition.

Jalali, H., A. Ansaripoor, V. Ramani, and P. De Giovanni. 2021. “Closed-Loop Supply Chain Models with Coopetition Options.” International Journal of Production Research, 1–29. doi:10.1080/00207543.2021.1910871.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Narayan, R., and A. Tidström. 2020. “Tokenizing Coopetition in a Blockchain for a Transition to Circular Economy.” Journal of Cleaner Production 263: 121437.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trapp, A. C., I. Harris, V. S. Rodrigues, and J. Sarkis. 2020. “Maritime Container Shipping: Does Coopetition Improve Cost and Environmental Efficiencies?” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 87: 102507.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Manzhynski, S., and F. Figge. 2020. “Coopetition for Sustainability: Between Organizational Benefit and Societal Good.” Business Strategy and the Environment 29 (3): 827–837.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Christ, K. L., R. L. Burritt, and M. Varsei. 2017. “Coopetition as a Potential Strategy for Corporate Sustainability.” Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (7): 1029–1040.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stadtler, L., and L. N. Van Wassenhove. 2016. “Coopetition as a Paradox: Integrative Approaches in a Multi-Company, Cross-Sector Partnership.” Organization Studies 37 (5): 655–685.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luo, Z., X. Chen, and X. Wang. 2016. “The Role of Co-Opetition in Low Carbon Manufacturing.” European Journal of Operational Research 253 (2): 392–403.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scandelius, C., and G. Cohen. 2016. “Sustainability Program Brands: Platforms for Collaboration and Co-Creation.” Industrial Marketing Management 57: 166–176.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Volschenk, J., M. Ungerer, and E. Smit. 2016. “Creation and Appropriation of Socio-Environmental Value in Coopetition.” Industrial Marketing Management 57: 109–118.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Limoubpratum, C., H. Shee, and K. Ahsan. 2015. “Sustainable Distribution Through Coopetition Strategy.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 18 (5): 424–441.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The dataset of this paper can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author Prof. Qile He.