Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Figures & data

Figure 1. Search results, selection, and exclusion of articles.

Table 1. Overview of the publications under review.

Source	The role of trust	Methodology	Empirical context	Coopetition focus
Baruch and Lin (2012)	As a means to manage coopetition	Quantitative	IT	Coopetition in virtual teams and its influence on team outcomes (knowledge sharing and team performance)
Bouncken and Fredrich (2012)	As a means to manage coopetition	Quantitative	IT	Coopetition and innovation performance
Bouncken et al. (2016)	As a means to manage coopetition	Quantitative	Medical Devices	Vertical coopetition and innovation performance
Castaldo and Dagnino (2009)	Trust co-evolves with coopetition	Conceptual		Coopetition evolution (coopetition co-evolves with trust)
Chiambaretto et al. (2019)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	IT (Video Game Industry)	Managing tensions stemming from internal coopetition and the role of knowledge brokers in encouraging knowledge and innovation sharing
Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino (2017)	As an antecedent to coopetition	Quantitative	Tourism	Partnering context, behavior and success in network coopetition
Chin et al. (2008)	As a critical success factor of coopetition	Mixed Method	Manufacturing	Critical success factors for coopetition strategy
Crick (2019)	As a means to manage coopetition	Conceptual		Moderators affecting the relationship coopetition – performance
Cusin and Loubaresse (2018)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Wine Sector	Inter-cluster coopetition, challenges and trust-building mechanisms
Czakon and Czernek (2016)	As an antecedent to coopetition	Qualitative	Tourism	Network coopetition formation and trust-building mechanisms
Czernek and Czakon (2016)	As an antecedent to coopetition	Qualitative	Tourism	Dyadic coopetition formation and trust-building mechanisms
Damayanti, Scott, and Ruhanen (2018)	As an antecedent to coopetition	Qualitative	Tourism	Engaging in and maintaining coopetition in the informal tourism economy
de Araujo and Franco (2017)	As an antecedent to coopetition	Qualitative	Mechanical Engineering	Dyadic coopetition formation by examining both sides of the relationship
Della Corte and Aria (2016)	As an antecedent to coopetition	Quantitative (Interviews first)	Tourism	Coopetition among SMEs as source of sustainable competitive advantage
Eriksson (2008)	As a means to manage coopetition	Conceptual	Construction (case as illustration)	Governance of buyer-supplier coopetition
Fernandez and Chiambaretto (2016)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Space	Management of information tensions in dyadic coopetition
Grafton and Mundy (2017)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Independent Publishing Sector	Risk management in multi-partner coopetition involving both vertical and horizontal coopetition
Huang and Chu (2015)	As a means to manage coopetition	Quantitative	Accounting	Antecedents and consequences of coopetition among SMEs
Idrees et al. (2018)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Tourism	Network coopetition and knowledge sharing across five star hotels
Kraus et al. (2019)	As an antecedent of coopetition	Qualitative	Craft Beer Industry	Forms, antecedents, and outcomes of coopetition among SMEs
Morris et al. (2007)	As a means to manage coopetition	Quantitative	SMEs	Coopetition among SMEs and firm performance
Osarenkhoe (2010)	As a critical success factor of coopetition	Qualitative	Food court, IT, Wood Processing	Outcomes and key success factors of network coopetition
Peters and Pressey (2016)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Construction	Coordination in temporary organisations involving coopetition
Porto Gomez et al. (2016)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Metal industry	The role of intermediaries in supporting network coopetition implementation (among SMEs)
Pressey and Vanharanta (2016)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Illegal Cartels	Nature of opportunism and dark tensions in price-fixing cartels (network coopetition)
Pressey, Vanharanta, and Gilchrist (2014)		Qualitative	Collusive Industrial Networks	Illegal forms of coopetition. Price-fixing cartels as a type of network coopetition
Ratzmann et al. (2016)	As a means to manage coopetition	Quantitative	IT	Coopetition and innovation performance
Thomason et al. (2013)	As a critical success factor of coopetition	Conceptual		Multi-level (individual, firm, dyad, triad) determinants of successful coopetition among SMEs
Tidström (2014)	As a means to manage coopetition	Qualitative	Steel, Natural Products	Tensions in (multi-partner) network coopetition

Table 2. Key contributions on the role of trust in coopetition formation.

Trust as an antecedent to coopetition	Source
Trust-building mechanisms facilitating dyadic coopetition
Calculation-based trust Emotional bond-based trust Reputation-based trust Trust based on social network embeddedness	Czernek and Czakon (2016)
Mutual dependence Previous experience and reputation Awareness of the risks of opportunistic behaviour Contractual agreement Dynamic process	de Araujo and Franco (2017)
Trust-building mechanisms facilitating network coopetition
Prediction (reputation and prior experience) Transference (legitimisation of coopetition importance of public actor involvement)	Czakon and Czernek (2016)
Interpersonal trust is important for the formation of coopetition among SMEs	Kraus et al. (2019)
Mutual trust is a facilitator of coopetitive behavior	Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino (2017)
Trust is found to be one of the most influential factors on the decision to collaborate	Della Corte and Aria (2016)
Assessment of the partner’s trustworthiness matters. It is found that a firm ‘will consider the other actor’s credibility as a fair and trustworthy collaborator before cooperating. An actor will cooperate with another if he believes that they are trustworthy; that the actor will compete fairly according to the rules and will not attempt to cheat them in the course of the interaction’ (pp. 778–779).	Damayanti et al. (2018)

Table 3. Key contributions on the role of trust in coopetition implementation.

Trust as a means to manage coopetition	Source
Enhancing coordination and joint action
Competence-based (swift) trust is a mechanism enabling coordination of coopetitive temporary organisations despite the existence of uncertainty stemming from the absence of familiarity between the members.	Peters and Pressey (2016)
‘partner trust would weaken the formation of price competitive action and non-price competitive action; meanwhile, it would strengthen the formation of joint action’ (p. 827).	Huang and Chu (2015)
Facilitating interfirm exchange
Mutual trust between coopetitors positively moderates the relationship between coopetition and firm performance as trust is related to assurance of honesty. ‘If managers trust their competitors, they might be more likely to engage in resource and capability-sharing activities to their full-extent, and in turn, improve company performance’ (p. 524).	Crick (2019)
Trust, commitment, and mutual benefit make coopetition beneficial for firm performance (trust by itself is not enough), as smooth interfirm exchange takes place.	Morris et al. (2007)
As a core element of social capital, trust facilitates knowledge sharing via cooperation and competition (coopetition in a virtual context).	Baruch and Lin (2012)
Dealing with tensions and conflicts
Trust is a key determinant of informal control mechanisms for managing information tension in dyadic coopetition.	Fernandez and Chiambaretto (2016)
Trust may reduce the potential for tensions.	Tidström (2014)
‘Trust is considered control mechanisms that dissuade individuals from behaving opportunistically against their co-workers, reducing team competitive conflict’ (p. 1158).	Baruch and Lin (2012)
Dealing with uncertainty and risks
Three trust-generating mechanisms facilitate management of inter-cluster coopetition: (i) internal, (ii) formal external and (iii) informal external management of coopetition, because these help firms dealing with the following challenges: diverse strategic visions, the risk of identity loss, lack of relational proximity and fear of negative consequences.	Cusin and Loubaresse (2018)
Relational governance based on trust improves product innovativeness in vertical alliances involving coopetition. ‘Trust increases performance in coopetition, particularly for the fluid and uncertain innovation development in need of flexible and open knowledge transfers’ (p. 80).	Bouncken et al. (2016)
Trust and dependency moderate the relationship between coopetition and innovation performance as ‘In an environment of high trust and high dependency, firms will also use coopetition for incremental innovations that are fraught with lesser risks of opportunism than under low trust and low dependency’ (p. 8).	Bouncken and Fredrich (2012)
Trust ‘conditions the relationship between coopetition and both innovation types [i.e. incremental and breakthrough]’ (p. 4597), as not all risks and collaboration issues can be managed with contracts.	Ratzmann et al. (2016)
Trust is the underlying mechanism of cooperative governance structures, which decrease the risk of opportunism in supplier-buyer coopetition.	Eriksson (2008)
Trust ‘acts as an alternative to information exchange and is a preferable mode of control in bilateral B2B cartels’ (p. 1447)	Pressey et al. (2014)
A balance between trust and mistrust is needed for network coopetition management (price-fixing cartels). ‘One method of dealing with uncertainty is to establish some mechanisms that control members' activities, which would encourage network longevity and reduce the importance of trust through reducing the possibility of ‘cheating’ by participants’ (p. 47).	Pressey and Vanharanta (2016)
The role of third parties in facilitating trust in coopetition
This paper attempts to validate the role of trust builders in promoting firms’ open innovation in a local innovation system in the Basque Country (Spain).	Porto Gomez et al. (2016)
In internal coopetition, neutral and trustworthy knowledge brokers encourage and foster trust in solutions created by competing teams, which is an important driver of knowledge transfer and innovation sharing.	Chiambaretto et al. (2019)
Does trust really matter to coopetition management?
Trust does not matter to managing risks stemming from coopetition. ‘Our findings thus support economics- based arguments that the concept of “trust” can obscure the variety, nature, and extent of safeguards that manage inter-firm relations [… and] we suggest that the concept of “trust” adds neither to explanations nor predictions about the management of risks within the alliance, indicating that it is more appropriately described as an ex post labelling of personal affect by those involved in economic exchange’ (p. 38)	Grafton and Mundy (2017)
In multi-partner coopetition, trust is not a necessary condition for interpartner knowledge exchange. ‘Trust is not a pre-requisite to cooperation nor to related knowledge sharing’ (p. 1369)	Idrees et al. (2018)

Table 4. Key contributions on the role of trust as a critical success factor.

Trust as a critical success factor of coopetition	Source
Trust is found to be one of the most critical success factors for coopetition strategy, as it reduces interpartner problems, facilitates the articulation of common goals and supports adoption of mutual organisational cultures. ‘A successful coopetition strategy can be best maintained when trust exists’ (p. 451).	Chin et al. (2008)
Development of trust is a key success factor of network coopetition (along with managerial leadership) as successful cooperative dimension of coopetition is based on trust.	Osarenkhoe (2010)
Trust, commitment and mutual benefit are key determinants of a successful coopetitive relationship among SMEs. ‘Firms that perceive greater levels of trust in other firms are more concerned with building and maintaining those relationships’ (p. 23).	Thomason et al. (2013)

Table 5. Promising research avenues and key topics and questions.

Research avenue	Key research topics and questions
1. Types and dimensions of trust and distrust and the relation between them in different coopetitive contexts	Do trust and distrust consist of different dimensions? When and why does this matter to coopetition? Exploring the differences in trust building and distrust management processes in coopetition Exploring the discrete influences of absence of trust and of existence of distrust on coopetition formation Consider different types of trust, the influence of different dimensions of trustworthiness, and their role in the choice of the partner for coopetition Closer attention to types of trust, types of distrust and their distinct (and synergistic) influence on the continuation of coopetition Whether, how, why, and when calculus-based trust as an outcome of coopetition influences continuation of coopetition in a different manner than identification-based trust Studying the distinct roles and underlying mechanisms of types of trust and types of distrust at different phases of coopetition The roles of trust and distrust in different intensities of coopetition, types of coopetition, and in different contexts Do trust and distrust have different behavioural manifestations in coopetition?
2. Trust and distrust in light of uncertainty and risks in coopetition	How do trust and distrust enable management of uncertainty in coopetition? How are types and dimensions of (dis)trust linked to different types of risks or different facets of uncertainty in coopetition? Considering the distinction between risk and uncertainty and studying the distinct roles of trust and distrust Risk and uncertainty in phases of coopetition, and the distinct functions and synergistic implications of trust and distrust Partner opportunism management and the beneficial role of distrust
3. Trust and distrust in light of competing demands and tensions in coopetition	How do trust and distrust facilitate balancing in or of coopetition? Types of competing demands stemming from coopetition and the distinct roles of trust and distrust Conflict management, tension embracement and the dynamics of trust and distrust Trust, distrust and different responses to competing demands of coopetition
4. The dark side of trust and the bright side of distrust in coopetition	Utilizing coopetition as a unique context to challenge the normative view on trust Under what conditions can trust be detrimental in coopetition? What are the bright and dark sides of both trust and distrust in different phases of coopetition? Comparing the strength of the influence of the bright side of trust and dark side of distrust on coopetition formation, management, and evolution Bright and dark sides of types of trust and distrust depending on the type, level or phase of coopetition Do asymmetrical trust and asymmetrical distrust (partner A has different trust and distrust perceptions than partner B) have a discrete influence on coopetition processes? Studying both sides of a relationship to explore implications of the partners’ asymmetric perceptions of trust and distrust Do the dark sides of trust and distrust take over the bright sides if partners’ perceptions are asymmetric?
5. Coevolution of trust and distrust in both the cooperative and competitive arenas of coopetition	Explaining coopetition dynamics based on how trust, competition, distrust and cooperation interrelate How, when and why does trust matter to the competitive interaction between partners? How, when and why does distrust matter to cooperation between competitors? Types of trust and distrust and their unique functions in the cooperative and/or competitive arenas of coopetition Discussing the importance of trust repair processes and distrust management processes for the cooperative and competitive interactions Coevolution of types of trust and distrust and coopetition on multiple levels
6. Trust, distrust and the microfoundations of coopetition	Drawing on trust literature to understand the role of individuals’ perceptions, actions and interactions in coopetition Exploring the multi-level nature of trust, distrust, and coopetition, and how the different levels interrelate How does interpersonal (dis)trust take the form of interorganizational (dis)trust in coopetition? Drawing on other bodies of literature (e.g. discussing mixed-motive interactions) to bring insights into how coopetitive dynamics can be managed

Baruch, Y., & Lin, C. P. (2012). All for one, one for all: Coopetition and virtual team performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 1155–1168.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bouncken, R. B., & Fredrich, V. (2012). Coopetition: Performance implications and management antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(5), 1–28.

 Google Scholar

Bouncken, R. B., Clauß, T., & Fredrich, V. (2016). Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: Singular or plural governance? Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 77–90.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Castaldo, S., & Dagnino, G. B. (2009). Trust and coopetition: The strategic role of trust in interfirm coopetitive dynamics. In G. B. Dagnino, & E. Rocco (Eds.), Coopetition strategy (pp. 94–120). New York, NY: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Chiambaretto, P., Massé, D., & Mirc, N. (2019). All for one and one for all?”-knowledge broker roles in managing tensions of internal coopetition: The ubisoft case. Research Policy, 48(3), 584–600.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chim-Miki, A. F., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2017). Partnering based on coopetition in the interorganizational networks of tourism: A comparison between Curitiba and Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil. Revista brasileira de gestão de negócios, 19(64), 219–235.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chin, K. S., Chan, B. L., & Lam, P. K. (2008). Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4), 437–454.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Crick, J. M. (2019). Moderators affecting the relationship between coopetition and company performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(2), 518–531.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cusin, J., & Loubaresse, E. (2018). Inter-cluster relations in a coopetition context: The case of Inno'vin. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 30(1), 27–52.

 Google Scholar

Czakon, W., & Czernek, K. (2016). The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into network coopetition: The case of tourism networks in Poland. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 64–74.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Czernek, K., & Czakon, W. (2016). Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tourism Management, 52, 380–394.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Damayanti, M., Scott, N., & Ruhanen, L. (2018). Space for the informal tourism economy. The Service Industries Journal, 38(11-12), 772–788.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Araujo, D. v. B., & Franco, M. (2017). Trust-building mechanisms in a coopetition relationship: A case study design. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(3), 378–394.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Della Corte, V., & Aria, M. (2016). Coopetition and sustainable competitive advantage. The Case of Tourist Destinations. Tourism Management, 54, 524–540.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eriksson, P. E. (2008). Achieving suitable coopetition in buyer–supplier relationships: The case of AstraZeneca. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 15(4), 425–454.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fernandez, A. S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2016). Managing tensions related to information in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 66–76.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grafton, J., & Mundy, J. (2016). Relational contracting and the myth of trust: Control in a co-opetitive setting. Management Accounting Research, 36, 24–42.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang, H. C., & Chu, W. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of co-opetition strategies in small and medium-sized accounting agencies. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(6), 812–834.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Idrees, I. A., Vasconcelos, A. C., & Ellis, D. (2018). Clique and elite: Inter-organizational knowledge sharing across five star hotels in the Saudi Arabian religious tourism and hospitality industry. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1358–1378.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kraus, S., Klimas, P., Gast, J., & Stephan, T. (2019). Sleeping with competitors: Forms, antecedents and outcomes of coopetition of small and medium-sized craft beer breweries. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(1), 50–66.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morris, M. H., Koçak, A., & Özer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(1), 35.

 Google Scholar

Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation– A coopetition strategy. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3-4), 201–221.

 Google Scholar

Peters, L. D., & Pressey, A. D. (2016). The co-ordinative practices of temporary organisations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(2), 301–311.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Porto Gomez, I., Otegi Olaso, J. R., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2016). Trust builders as open innovation intermediaries. Innovation, 18(2), 145–163.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pressey, A. D., & Vanharanta, M. (2016). Dark network tensions and illicit forbearance: Exploring paradox and instability in illegal cartels. Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 35–49.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pressey, A. D., Vanharanta, M., & Gilchrist, A. J. (2014). Towards a typology of collusive industrial networks: Dark and shadow networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1435–1450.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ratzmann, M., Gudergan, S. P., & Bouncken, R. (2016). Capturing heterogeneity and PLS-SEM prediction ability: Alliance governance and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4593–4603.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thomason, S. J., Simendinger, E., & Kiernan, D. (2013). Several determinants of successful coopetition in small business. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 15–28.

 Google Scholar

Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261–271.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar