Till Örebro universitet

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, coopetition has emerged as a powerful strategy for organizations seeking sustainable growth and competitive advantage. Coopetition is a blend of cooperation and competition between inside or within firms, or across industries (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014). The increased interest in coopetition research stems from its widespread existence as a common industry practice and its inherent paradoxical nature (Gernsheimer et al., 2024; Leite et al., 2018). This special issue is inspired by the different themes and approaches to coopetition research, focusing on its multiple implications. Although there is a substantial advancement on coopetition, both theoretically and management- like, still exist gaps that require further development. These gaps include delving into the societal impacts of coopetition, its role to generate sustainable development, the dynamics of multimarket coopetition, the intra-firm coopetition, and its consequences within firms, as well as the complex processes to implement coopetitive strategies within firms’ networks.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion on how multinational company (MNC) headquarters (HQs) can manage the existing coopetition paradox to ensure innovation within the MNC. In contrast to the rather scarce previous research, the authors argue that HQ needs to solve the coopetition paradox under the sway of a parenting paradox. Hence, HQ faces a dual paradox.

Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on the literature on HQ's role during MNCs' innovation processes, this conceptual paper revisits the previously suggested HQ measures to enable coopetition among subsidiaries. By applying a sheer ignorance perspective, the authors contribute with a more nuanced understanding of the HQ's role in innovation activities.

Findings: The article identifies four challenges as the HQ faces a parenting paradox that hinders its ability to solve the coopetition paradox: context specificity of subsidiaries' innovation work, normative expectations of subsidiary managers, potential opportunistic behavior of HQ manager and HQ underestimation of needed resources. The article suggests that HQ needs to become more informed and preferably even embedded in the local innovation networks of its most important subsidiaries and that coopetition should not be managed solely on an HQ level.

Originality/value: Advocating a sheer ignorance perspective, the article pioneers in discussing the role that HQ plays in managing coopetition among subsidiaries in innovation activities.

Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) are recognised as important and powerful strategic agents for providing momentum to the United Nation’s (UN’s) Agenda 2030 through their ability to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) internationally. However, we can also learn from the mistakes of MNEs that cause socio-ecological destruction in their host countries. This chapter develops an understanding of the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) legitimisation strategies adopted by an MNE after a crisis event, namely Vale’s Córrego do Feijão mine collapse complex in Brazil, which claimed the lives of over 270 people and caused huge socio-ecological damage. The chapter contributes to growing research on CSR and MNEs by elaborating on the importance of local CSR legitimisation strategies for MNEs to regain legitimacy in the immediate aftermath of crisis events in the affected communities. This requires MNEs moving beyond communicating CSR as empty rhetoric from a more pragmatic legitimacy stance, which serves a global legitimisation function, towards MNEs acting upon their CSR promises in local contexts for legitimacy to be regained. Additionally, the chapter suggests the potential for local crisis events to shape global CSR strategies in industries that positively contribute to the SDGs through the learnings made.  

PurposeIn this paper, the authors contribute with insights on competition and cooperation in multinational enterprises with a focus on challenges related to these governance mechanisms in a knowledge development context. The mechanisms have been widely recognized as important for developing knowledge, but their contradicting nature implies considerable complexity when it comes to governance. The complexity is further increased as a result of the headquarters-subsidiary relationships. The aim of this paper is to contribute with theoretical and empirical insights on these aspects by focusing on the research question: How and why does competition and cooperation in an MNE emerge over time?Design/methodology/approachA manufacturing MNE with headquarters (HQ) in Sweden is analyzed on both HQ and subsidiary levels. Interviews with 24 managers in Sweden and India have been performed.FindingsThe study illustrates that competition and cooperation are integral aspects in HQ-subsidiary relationships. The results show that both competition and cooperation depend on environmental, organizational and object-related conditions and that these conditions influence the dynamics of the interplay. The importance of including a subsidiary perspective and the interdependencies in an MNE setting are emphasized.Originality/valueThe authors add to the discussion on the interplay between competition and cooperation as they play an important role for knowledge development in MNEs. The results indicate that they do not take place simultaneously, and therefore, the authors suggest that the dynamic can be better understood by focusing on the interplay and analyze the concepts separately.

Despite significant investments in promoting entrepreneurship, there has been a decline in the number of successful innovative firms in Europe and North America. Universities are crucial for transforming research into commercially viable innovations, and various support ecosystems have emerged to facilitate this process. This study investigates the early-stage activities at Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) and incubators within university innovation support ecosystems, exploring the potential misalignments and inconsistencies that may hinder the overarching goal of commercializing academic knowledge. Employing a qualitative case study method, we conducted an in-depth examination of the Swedish academic entrepreneurial ecosystem. Our findings indicate the presence of tensions, conflicts, and contradictions among different stakeholders, each with their unique interests, values, and perspectives. This study contributes to the understanding of these complex relationships and emphasizes the importance of aligning goals and fostering collaboration within the academic ecosystem to effectively commercialize university research.

Innovation networks are organized and shaped by their members. This study investigates actors’ roles influencing innovation for smart city development. Combining actors’ roles with the innovation network literature and insights gained from two cases of smart city innovation, our empirical analysis shows four roles associated with smart city innovation network activities: i) coordinators, ii) contributors, iii) facilitators and iii) builders. These actor patterns recognize how actors collaborate in networks characterized by heterogeneous actors (public and private), the coexistence of individual and collective motivations, a high degree of openness, and users’ participation. Furthermore, actors' ability to change their network position is dependent on a shared interpretation of network roles between the network actors. Hence, scholars and practitioners of innovation networks learn that the understanding of role patterns in smart city development can contribute to the building, utilization, and coordination of an open innovation network that positively impacts both business and society.

Innovation networks are organized and shaped by their members. This study investigates actors’ roles influencing innovation for smart city development. Combining actors’ roles with the innovation network literature and insights gained from two cases of smart city innovation, our empirical analysis shows four roles associated with smart city innovation network activities: i) coordinators, ii) contributors, iii) facilitators and iii) builders. These actor patterns recognize how actors collaborate in networks characterized by heterogeneous actors (public and private), the coexistence of individual and collective motivations, a certain degree of openness, and users’ participation. Furthermore, actors' ability to change their network position is dependent on a shared interpretation of network roles between the network actors. Hence, scholars and practitioners of innovation networks learn that the understanding of role patterns in smart city development can contribute to the building, utilization, and coordination of an open innovation network that positively impacts business and society.