Some scholars and practitioners argue that markets have become hypercompetitive, decreasing the opportunities for sustainable competitive advantage. We test for increasing competition in a panel of 266 Danish firms from 7 industries over the period 1980-2017. We find no support for the argument that the market across industries has become hypercompetitive over this period. The durability of abnormal business returns has remained stable. Dynamism only changed in the 1980s, and levels of munificence are also stable. We do, however, find a small decrease in the survival probability rate of firms over time. Our results lead us to caution against the use of hypercompetition as a universal label for the state of contemporary competition.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review and understand the dimensionality of hypercompetition, factors causing a hypercompetitive environment and the consequences of hypercompetition on markets. Thereby, the purpose of the study is to cover the main contributors in the research field of hypercompetition and explore their findings and different views on hypercompetition. Design/methodology/approach Systematically review 131 conceptual and empirical studies published or presented at a conference in the past 25 years, with the focus on the definitions, causes and consequences (or presumed effects) of hypercompetition. In the paper, I follow the well-known systematic literature review method by Tranfield et al. (2003). Findings The contribution of the study is to advance the knowledge of researchers and managers, in such a way that it becomes easier for them to select relevant variables to measure hypercompetition and identify strategies for gaining temporary competitive advantages in hypercompetitive environments. The construct of hypercompetition required a consolidation of commonalities in the definitions and characteristics used by scholars, to ensure that proper assumptions and variables are being used to measure hypercompetition in future research. Several ways to measure the effects of hypercompetition on firms, industries and individuals have been proposed, but the field still lacks of a clear definition on how to directly measure the construct. Practical implications In this paper, I highlight three managerial implications of hypercompetition as follows: action-based strategy, the determinants of hypercompetition and the importance for managers of accurately establishing their firm’s competitive situation. Originality/value Previous reviews in the area have either focussed on specific components or effects of hypercompetition. The present study collectively takes into consideration the definitions, causes and consequences of hypercompetition on firms, industries and individuals. The contribution of the paper is to indicate future opportunities and challenges within research on hypercompetition.

Hypercompetition theory states that incumbent firms must restructure their organizations, resources, and product portfolios, as competitive advantages cannot be sustained over time. Yet, hypercompetition is rarer than many scholars and practitioners suggest. In this paper, we suggest that if managers misperceive the true state of competition in their industry, they run two potential risks. The first is to underestimate the competitive dynamics and to therefore focus too much on incremental changes to their existing business model. The second is to overestimate the dynamics and to waste resources on unnecessary radical business model innovation. In this chapter we discuss these risks in light of recent research on both hypercompetition and on incumbent business model innovation.