This study taps into managers' perceptions of coopetition antecedents to better understand why firms adopt coopetition. By analyzing and synthesizing findings from systematic reviews of coopetition literature we integrate knowledge on coopetition antecedents. We develop and validate a scale measuring behavioral coopetition antecedents: strategic rationale and coopetition mindset. Based on a random sample of 368 Polish tourism firms, we run exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to find that antecedents used in coopetition literature converge into two latent, behavioral constructs. Our data substantiate the view that coopetition is an intentional strategy, driven by a strategic rationale. Managers are found to pursue coopetition in order to reach clearly defined benefits with fitting partners. Moreover, three elements are found to converge in the coopetitive mindset latent construct: orientation to cooperation, trust, and experience in coopetition. We contribute to the methodological advancement of measurement instruments with applicability potential in future research examining the behavioral antecedents of coopetition. We also advance the behavioral stream of research in strategy by empirically identifying the connection between rational and behavioral antecedents of firms' coopetitive strategic behavior.

Failure is not the outcome which entrepreneurs strive for when they start their businesses. However, thousands of entrepreneurs fail each year, experiencing painful and damaging consequences in their professional and private lives. Current knowledge on entrepreneurial failure is quite fragmentary. Our study aims at integrating knowledge on the effects of entrepreneurial failure. Departing from a systematic literature review, we develop a multilevel framework of entrepreneurial failure effects which categorises: (1) their manifestations over time; (2) the directness of the link to the failure event; (3) the degree of impact on the failed entrepreneur; and (4) the level of long‐term outcomes generated. Our findings reveal a broad scope of multilevel impacts of entrepreneurial failure.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the specific types of coopetition between small and medium-sized craft breweries and related businesses, as well as its drivers and outcomes. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative research was carried out using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 18 different small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) combined with site visits and secondary data analysis. Findings The results reveal that craft breweries are engaging in coopetition in several different ways. Mutual benefit, trust, commitment, and sympathy are the crucial drivers for coopetition; whereas innovation development, market reach and marketing, as well as firm growth represent the key shared outcomes of coopetition. Research limitations/implications This study suffers from two main limitations, including the focus on coopetition of craft breweries operating in German-speaking countries only and the risk of subjectivity in analysis and interpretation due to the qualitative, explorative nature of the research. Originality/value The findings reveal insights into the uniqueness of SMEs – specifically craft brewers – regarding coopetition, which is currently of strong cooperative nature. This study completes prior coopetition knowledge by revealing the importance of coopetition for small, micro and resource-constrained firms operating in dynamic and innovative but traditional (here craft) industries; presenting the cooperation-based type of coopetition as a good competition strategy under fierce competition from large, more established and global business rivals; and identifying sympathy as an important coopetition driver.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a comprehensive and useful typology of innovation ecosystems. While recent conceptual efforts have been allocated to delineating innovation ecosystems from other phenomena, much less systematic attention has been given to the diversity found within the innovation ecosystem realm. We run a thematic analysis of systematic literature reviews and collect 34 specific types of innovation ecosystems. We expand this list with criteria-derived complementary types and propose a set of 50 distinct innovation ecosystem varieties. Next, we identify the 14 typology criteria used so far in the literature, thematically analyse them and aggregate them into a set useful for further rigorous scrutiny and for the incremental collection of empirical findings. Innovation ecosystems can thus be categorized into (1) life cycle, (2) structure, (3) innovation focus, (4) scope of activities, and (5) performance.

No abstract