Coopetition and the social order of markets: a possible dialogue?

BRANDÃO, MAICOM SERGIO; GODINHO FILHO, MOACIR; CANDIDO, SILVIO EDUARDO ALVAREZ; CAMPANINI, PEDRO REINALDO; FOGAÇA, DIEGO RORATO

doi:10.1590/0101-31572025-3410

ABSTRACT

In economic sociology, markets are understood to be embedded in the social network, meaning that exchanges are subject to various factors, including norms, conventions, values, institutional dynamics, and power relations. The construction of a social order in markets refers to the coordination problems involving value, cooperation and competition that must be resolved. This literature can be related to studies on coopetition in supply chain management, which address legitimate business strategies involving cooperation among competing firms within a market. Although coopetition acknowledges the influence of social aspects in the dynamics it investigates, these aspects are approached in a fragmented and unsystematic manner. In order to connect these topics, this study carried out a systematic review and content analysis to identify the relationship between the social factors of coopetition in supply chain management and the economic sociology regarding the social order of markets. As a result, seven key factors were identified that can either contribute to or threaten the social order of markets in contexts where coopetitive strategies are adopted. This analysis contributes to the development of strategies aimed at market stabilization through the adoption of coopetition in supply chain management.

KEYWORDS:
Coopetition; supply chain management; sociology of markets; coordination; social order

RESUMO

Na sociologia econômica, entende-se que mercados são incrustados no tecido social, fazendo com que as trocas estejam submetidas, dentre outros fatores, às normas, convenções, valores, dinâmicas de poder e institucionais. A construção de uma ordem social nos mercados remete a problemas de coordenação entre valor, cooperação e competição, que precisam ser resolvidos. Essa literatura pode ser relacionada com os estudos sobre a coopetição na gestão de cadeias de suprimentos, que lidam com estratégias empresariais lícitas envolvendo a cooperação entre empresas competidoras em um mercado. Ainda que a coopetição reconheça a influência de aspectos sociais nas dinâmicas que estuda, os mesmos são abordados de maneira fragmentada e pouco sistemática. Para propor conexões entre essas literaturas, este estudo realizou uma revisão sistemática e uma análise de conteúdo identificando o relacionamento entre os fatores sociais da coopetição na gestão da cadeia de suprimentos e propostas da sociologia econômica acerca da ordem social dos mercados. Como resultado, foram identificados sete principais fatores que podem tanto contribuir como ameaçar a ordem social dos mercados dentro de um contexto em que a estratégia coopetitiva é adotada. Essa análise contribui para a construção de estratégias de estabilização dos mercados a partir da adoção da coopetição na gestão das cadeias de suprimentos.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Coopetição; gestão da cadeia de suprimentos; sociologia dos mercados; coordenação; ordem social

1. INTRODUCTION

Economic sociology is a relatively recent branch of sociology that addresses the relationship between the economy and society. Scholars in this field advocate for the application of sociological perspectives to the analysis of economic phenomena. The area gained momentum particularly from the 1980s onward, through the work of authors from the United States and Europe, such as Mark Granovetter, Neil Fligstein, Pierre Bourdieu, among others (Smelser & Swedberg, 2005). The notion that economic processes are embedded in social systems, as proposed by Polanyi (2013), is foundational to contemporary debates in the field (Krippner & Alvarez, 2007). These debates also revisit classical social science authors such as Weber and Durkheim, who were largely neglected by economics throughout much of the twentieth century (Raud-Mattedi, 2005). Economic sociology is characterized by its broad thematic, theoretical and methodological scope (Beckert, 1996). Among its key topics are the creation and maintenance of markets (Lie, 1997; Fligstein & Dauter, 2007; King & Pearce, 2010; Sandberg, 2012; Beckert & Wehinger, 2013; Schneider, 2016); the financialization of the economy (Krippner, 2005; Davis & Kim, 2015; Gibson, 2020); and the role of social relations in economic action (Granovetter, 2017; Diekmann & Przepiorka, 2019; Klebaner & Montalban, 2020). Much of the sociology of markets focuses on the construction of the social order of markets, which Beckert (2009) approaches through coordination problems related to value, competition and cooperation. Given the uncertainty inherent in market exchanges, when these problems remain unresolved, market stability and, consequently, market existence are weakened. Some studies have drawn on the coordination problems outlined by Beckert (2009) to understand the dynamics of unlikely markets, such as illegal ones (Beckert & Wehinger, 2013; Tzanetakis, 2018), where traditional mechanisms of institutional control are virtually absent (Granovetter, 2017).

Considering the social context of market exchanges, the concept of supply chains emphasizes the collaborative aspect of inter-organizational relationships in the transformation of resources, recognizing that organizations do not operate in isolation but as members of business networks. In this sense, firms seek stable strategic alliances to enable value creation throughout the production process, from primary raw material suppliers to final product delivery to consumers. In the absence of a central actor capable of controlling all firms in a given market, supply chain management is characterized by processes that coordinate financial, informational and material flows among firms, and is grounded in collaboration among partners and competition with rivals. To this end, specific supply chain processes, such as supplier relationship management, order cycle management and demand management, are defined and coordinated (Alves Filho et al., 2004; Candido et al., 2017; Lambert & Enz, 2017; Raud-Mattedi, 2005).

However, the concept of coopetition challenges the idea of separate macrostructures proposed by Beckert (2009), i.e., value, cooperation and competition, as well as the foundational assumptions of supply chain management regarding the selection of partners for collaboration. The concept of coopetition emerges in strategic organizational discourse to address situations in which market actors simultaneously compete and cooperate (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1995). In the case of supply chains, these actors are those that make up the supply chain structure and typically assume roles such as suppliers, focal firms, distributors and customers (Alves Filho et al., 2004; Lambert & Enz, 2017). Rooted in game theory and predominantly associated with mainstream economic theory (Smelser & Swedberg, 2005), coopetition has received limited attention within economic sociology (Wilhelm, 2011; Paché, 2013; Tomlinson & Fai, 2013), despite addressing central themes of economic dynamics and influencing the coordination problems established by Beckert (2009).

Given the paradoxical nature of coopetition within supply chains (Wilhelm & Sydow, 2018), does it support the social stability of markets, or does it pose a threat by introducing additional coordination problems arising from this relational form? This question remains underexplored in both coopetition studies (Paché, 2013) and sociology of markets. By focusing on the supply chain, this study prioritizes scenarios in which coopetition occurs within the context of operations, drawing on the distinct roles that firms must assume within the network and the market to enable this type of relationship. This work examines the literature on the topic as it relates to the supply chain, aiming to identify the relationship between coopetition and the coordination problems associated with the social order of markets. A systematic literature review was conducted following the structured procedures for data retrieval and analysis proposed by Lima et al. (2018). Content analysis was then performed on eighty articles published between 2002 and 2021 (Krippendorff, 2018). We identified coopetitive factors that influence coordination problems, at times contributing to and at times potentially threatening the social stability of markets.

The following sections briefly present an overview of the social order of markets and of coopetition, including their methodological paths and applied contexts. Next, the research method is presented, followed by the results and discussion, which are organized according to coordination problems. The final section presents the conclusions.

2. KEY CONCEPTS: SOCIAL ORDER OF MARKETS, SUPPLY CHAINS AND COOPETITION

In economic sociology, market exchanges occur within a context of social interaction involving norms, conventions, values, power dynamics and institutions that shape how exchanges take place (DiMaggio & Louch, 1998; Smelser & Swedberg, 2005; Fligstein & Dauter, 2007; Aspers & Beckert, 2011; Beckert & Wehinger, 2013; Granovetter, 2017; Tzanetakis, 2018). This perspective challenges the core assumption of traditional economics: that rational, self-interested behavior in markets tends to unfold spontaneously and peacefully.

Beyond the existence of illegal markets being a counterexample to this view (Gistri et al., 2009; Sandberg, 2012; Beckert & Wehinger, 2013; Tzanetakis, 2018), even in legal markets there are social elements that generate tensions and affect their very existence (Schneider, 2016; Granovetter, 2017). The life insurance market is a classic example used to illustrate this scenario. For instance, Fligstein & Dauter (2007) highlight the role of governments in creating regulations to ensure a minimum level of trust between companies and customers, as small and young firms tend to offer low-priced insurance policies to raise capital; however, when customers file claims, the owners declare bankruptcy and disappear.

This illustrates another key aspect in the study of markets: stability and change, which, according to Fligstein & Dauter (2007), has sparked broad debate in the literature. From the perspective of population ecology, the authors point out that market formation is especially critical due to its novelty and scale, as there is often neither a clear understanding of the main interdependencies nor an established capacity to deliver value to customers. In vulnerable moments, competition plays a strong and decisive role in the survival of the firms committed to structuring the market. Levine (1999) compares market creation to the launch of new products, where it is necessary to deal with consumer unfamiliarity while simultaneously competing, for example, for shelf space in supermarkets against products in a mature stage of their life cycle. Other authors believe that markets exist in a state of constant flux, something akin to a dynamic equilibrium (Audretsch, Baumol & Burke, 2001; Powell et al., 2005; Fligstein & Dauter, 2007).

Beckert (2009) proposes a conceptual model explaining how social order helps address uncertainty in economic outcomes and stabilizes market expectations in contexts of legitimate, material markets (Tzanetakis, 2018). His model focuses on three coordination problems: value, competition and cooperation. The underlying assumption is that market exchanges occur not as a result of agents’ natural inclinations, but rather through institutional structures, social networks, and shared meaning systems in which market actors are embedded (Dobbin, 2004; Beckert, 2009; Granovetter, 2017). This model has been used in recent studies on markets, reflecting growing scholarly interest in the topic (Hanser, 2010; Beckert & Wehinger, 2013; McKague, Zietsma & Oliver, 2015; Przepiorka, Norbutas & Corten, 2017; Tzanetakis, 2018).

Still within the discussion of the social order of markets, Beckert (2009) describes several contingencies involving the ability to find suppliers who can provide materials at competitive prices, fulfill established agreements - whether contractual or not - or deliver products that meet expected criteria and specifications. In this regard, the concept of the supply chain aligns as an approach focused on managing the relationship between buyers and suppliers, precisely to reduce potential instabilities in market exchanges.

The concept of the supply chain gained prominence in the late 1990s, in parallel with the rise of globalization and the financialization of organizations. During this period, many companies were restructured into smaller, less vertically integrated units, retaining control over the segments considered most profitable. At the same time, as these firms became more fragmented, they realized they could no longer control all other actors and, in order to remain competitive in the market, needed to move beyond traditional forms of simple market exchange and adopt a more cooperative and stable posture with their partners. As a result, a set of interfunctional and intraorganizational processes was developed to define what came to be known as supply chain management (Alves Filho et al., 2004; Lambert & Enz, 2017).

These processes involve five main activities related to the transformation of materials in operations: planning, production, sourcing, delivery, and return. More specifically, Lambert & Enz (2017) identify supply chain processes such as: customer relationship management; supplier relationship management; customer service management; demand management; order fulfillment; manufacturing flow management; product development and commercialization; and returns management. As evident, there is a clear effort to develop mechanisms that strengthen relationships and foster cooperation with partners and customers.

However, in a way that runs counter to the traditional view of cooperation with suppliers/customers and competition with competitors, the concept of coopetition emerges in the field of strategy. It refers to legitimate scenarios in which cooperation occurs among competitors. Coopetition is defined as a mindset, process or phenomenon that combines cooperation and competition, where one of its key dynamics is the idea of cooperating to expand the overall size of a market while simultaneously competing for market share within it (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1995; Lejeune & Yakova, 2005; Luo, 2005; Paché, 2013).

Popularized by Nalebuff & Brandenburger (1995), the concept of coopetition began to receive more attention in academic literature in the early 2000s. Due to its origin being associated with game theory, most studies use mathematical models traditionally accepted in mainstream economics to describe and predict economic outcomes (e.g., Gurnani, Erkoc & Luo, 2007; Sepehri & Fayazbakhsh, 2011; Hafezalkotob, 2017; Asadabadi & Miller-Hooks, 2018; Niu et al., 2019; Qin, Liu & Tian, 2020). Other authors, however, have sought to understand coopetition dynamics based on social interaction between firms and individuals (e.g., Luo, 2005; Kovacs & Spens, 2010; Sodhi & Tang, 2013; Christ, Burritt & Varsei, 2017; Zacharia et al., 2019), which proves to be an insightful methodological approach for exploring imminent coordination tensions.

Over the years, studies have demonstrated the possibility of coopetition in a variety of supply chains across several industries, such as automotive (Choi et al., 2002; Wilhelm, 2011; Wilhelm & Sydow, 2018; Zacharia et al., 2019; Brandes et al., 2007), agriculture/food (Paché, 2013; Beckeman, Bourlakis & Olsson, 2013; Christ, Burritt & Varsei, 2017), consumer goods (Witek-Hajduk & Napiórkowska, 2017), luxury and fashion (Sodhi & Tang, 2013; Depeyre, Rigaud & Seraidarian, 2018; Strauss, 2019) and technology (Luo, 2005; Wang et al., 2010; Heikkila et al., 2016; Cygler & Sroka, 2017). Each of these presents specificities in terms of actor relationships, the role of local cultures, meaning systems, norms and power asymmetries (Fligstein, 2007).

3. METHODS

The systematic review process followed the traditional steps outlined by Tranfield, Denyer & Smart (2003), which include the planning, conducting and reporting phases. The process was guided by a predefined protocol and designed to be replicable, ensuring verifiable rigor in this type of research (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015). In the planning stage, the research questions, objectives and protocol were established, as described below. Considering the conducting stage of the review, a search string was developed to broadly retrieve studies addressing the topic of coopetition in the supply chains. For the term coopetition, the variants “coopet*” and “co-opet*” were used (Bouncken et al., 2015; Gast et al., 2015; Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Dorn, Schweiger & Albers, 2016; Devece, Ribeiro-Soriano & Palacios-Marqués, 2019), as these represent alternative and complementary forms found in the literature. For supply chains, in addition to “supply chain*,” other commonly used terms were included, namely: “demand chain*” (Childerhouse, Aitken & Towill, 2002; Juttner, Christopher & Baker, 2007), “value chain*” (Fabinyi, 2016) and “net chain*” (Macchion, Danese & Vinelli, 2015; Carter, Rogers & Choi, 2015).

In addition to defining the search string, another element of the research protocol involved selecting the databases. Three databases were chosen based on their relevance to research in operations and supply chain management: Web of Knowledge, Scopus (Thomé et al., 2012; Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016; Lima et al., 2018; Devece, Ribeiro-Soriano & Palacios-Marqués, 2019) and Scielo, which was included to incorporate studies from Latin America. As of the date of this study, i.e., 2020, the search string returned 102 results from Web of Knowledge, 96 from Scopus, and 22 from Scielo. A first exclusion filter was applied to remove duplicate records, resulting in a total of 173 articles. A second filter, of a conceptual nature, was then applied. At this stage, the abstracts of all remaining articles were read and those that did not effectively address coopetition (Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016) or that referred to coopetition in contexts unrelated to supply chain management, such as purely sales, human resources, or finance, were excluded.

As a reference for the perspective of supply chain roles and processes, studies such as Croxton et al. (2001), Lambert, García-Dastugue & Croxton (2005) and the Supply Chain Reference Model (SCOR, e.g., Huan, Sheoran & Wang (2004)) were used. After applying this second conceptual filter, a final sample of 80 articles was selected for analysis. The analysis was conducted through open coding based on full-text readings, resulting in a set of first-order codes (Božič, Siebert & Martin, 2020). These codes were then grouped by similarity into more abstract concepts that formed the so-called coopetitive factors.

In parallel, based on the chosen theoretical framework, which is Beckert’s (2009) coordination problems for establishing the social order of markets, three classification codes were defined: “value problem,” “cooperation problem,” and “competition problem,” following Krippendorff’s (2018) approach. Using the identified coopetitive factors as reference, the texts in which they emerged were classified within this theoretical structure, that is, “value problem”, “cooperation problem” and “competition problem”, thereby identifying the conceptual relationship between these two dimensions. The results of this classification are presented in the following section.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the analysis are outlined in Figure 1. On the left are the identified social coopetitive factors and on the right are the coordination problems described by Beckert (2019).

Figure 1:
Relationship between coopetitive factors and coordination problems in the social order of markets

The arrows illustrate the identified relationships, showing that coopetition, although not explicitly mentioned as one of the central coordination problems, influences value, cooperation and competition within the social context of market exchanges. The following sections describe each of these factors based on the initial theoretical framework.

4.1. THE VALUE PROBLEM

Beckert (2009) presents the problem of value from the customer’s perspective in the market across three dimensions. The first refers to the different values attributed to various products in a market, often compared in terms of technical performance or quality. The second concerns the value assigned to products within a specific category, such as automobiles or wine, which is influenced by normative and cultural factors. The third dimension relates to the value assigned to a specific product or supplier that carries a certain level of social prestige, as is often the case with luxury goods.

In the context of coopetition in supply chains, these perspectives coexist and relate to the concept of “added value.” Added value is understood as an abstraction of a market actor’s importance: the more relevant an actor is to a particular market, the greater their added value in generating value for the customer. One example provided by the literature is Nintendo’s role in the video game market, where it played a central role in value creation for both the market’s inception and its expansion (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1995).

Still within the perspective of value attribution, Beckert (2009) notes that products can be categorized according to levels of complexity, where technical or quality attributes become more or less objective in the assessment of value by a given group or society. One market identified in the analyzed studies that aligns with this aspect is that of remanufactured products (Chen & Chang, 2012; Chen, 2014; Papachristos & Adamides, 2014), which are commonly found in items such as mechanical/aerospace parts, as well as electronic devices (Lee et al., 2017). Within this context, coopetition may be seen as a strategy that helps overcome barriers to establishing value for the customer, at least by enabling the offer of such products.

The value problem in the remanufactured goods market highlights a set of uncertainties related to supply and demand, which in turn affect the stability of both the formation and maintenance of such markets. On the supply side, a key dilemma involves whether to lead the production process or collaborate with a third-party firm that may eventually compete in the market with a similar new product (Chen & Chang, 2012). On the demand side, even though some studies attempt to isolate consumer preference in terms of technical and functional aspects (Chen & Chang, 2012; Chen, 2014; Papachristos & Adamides, 2014), latent social factors also play a role. For instance, the concept of quality is often reinterpreted and shaped by the cultural context of a given society. After all, the development of this market varies significantly across countries (Lee et al., 2017). Another value-related appeal in remanufactured goods markets is the promise of reduced environmental impact (Kerr & Ryan, 2001). This topic is also influenced by consumer perceptions and the relevance of awareness around environmental issues to a particular group or society.

A second aspect is how social perceptions influence the value attributed to a given product in a segment. For example, the value attributed to Chinese products within a market segment tends to be lower due to the historical association of Chinese-made goods with low prices, even though decades of industrial development have enabled these products to functionally compete with those from other countries (Hanser, 2010; Khan & Ahmed, 2016). This disparity in socially constructed perceptions becomes even more pronounced when the brand itself is Chinese, rather than simply a supplier to an established brand. In the studies reviewed, coopetition can be useful in addressing the value problem in this context. As noted by Sodhi & Tang (2013), the explicit display of the lesser-known brand name - such as that of the supplier - alongside a reputable and credible brand signals trust to the market, facilitating the entry of the lesser-known brand.

Finally, within the third perspective of value, where there is a more significant detachment from the functional aspects of products, the role of coopetition in value creation in the case of luxury goods stands out. Depeyre, Rigaud & Seraidarian (2018) conducted a study in this market and identified various coopetition configurations. However, one configuration particularly stands out: when a luxury brand’s supplier seeks to compete with its client in the market. In this sense, value creation - anchored in social prestige - is the central challenge, along with the difficulty of managing the ongoing relationship with current clients, i.e., major luxury brands, without creating competitive tensions that may jeopardize that relationship. Indeed, the creation of socially constructed value in the luxury market derives from a complex set of requirements, regarded in the market as critical success factors, among which are: product quality; brand reputation; style and design; country of origin; lifestyle creation; and emotional appeal (Brun et al., 2008; Caniato et al., 2011). However, as pointed out in the study by Depeyre, Rigaud & Seraidarian (2018), many suppliers end up having to develop coopetitive behavior more out of a financial necessity to sustain the business than as a marketing strategy. This is because, being generally small, these companies face strong power asymmetries in the supply chain and leverage the knowledge gained from exchanges with clients (Rodrigues, Maccari & Riscarolli, 2007) to advance in offering value to other levels of the supply chain. Nevertheless, by addressing the value problem, coopetition can help well-established brands continue to offer products that reduce value-related uncertainty, even if this entails losing part of their revenue due to competition with lesser-known brands originating from their coopetitive suppliers.

4.2. THE COOPERATION PROBLEM

Cooperation is another macrostructure that composes the social order of markets. Exchanges occur through cooperation among actors who deal with the risks associated with asymmetries in available information. This process is clearly exemplified in the insurance market, where, on one side, the buyer tends to withhold certain information to reduce the cost of the service, while on the other, the seller understands that the claims investigation process may uncover circumstances of negligence, potentially resulting in the denial of payment. For this reason, the concept of trust is relevant to the cooperation dimension of the social order of markets, serving as a key foundation in several strands of economic sociology (DiMaggio, 1999; Smelser & Swedberg, 2005; Granovetter, 2007; Beckert, 2009; Beckert & Wehinger, 2013; Granovetter, 2017).

In the context of coopetition, cooperation among competitors is an essential element to be analyzed. However, the reviewed studies reveal a prevailing view that cooperation among competitors, within societies grounded in competitive ideals, may be problematic and associated with bad-faith behaviors (such as collusion or cartel formation) or perceived weakness (Choi et al., 2002; Brandes et al., 2007; Wilhelm, 2011). Thus, a central challenge of coopetition is dealing with antitrust laws, which are deeply rooted in the economic and political histories of different countries and markets (Williamson, 1975; Dobbin, 1994; Dobbin & Dowd, 2000; Hammer, 2007). Another regulatory challenge involves conditions that limit competition, such as restricting or reducing customers’ access to comparative information on price or quality (Karray, 2015) or the coordination of prices itself (Strauss, 2019).

On the other hand, in certain contexts, coopetition is encouraged by various institutions, including governments. In the airline industry, cooperation among competitors is sometimes viewed as beneficial and even promoted, particularly regarding the sharing of best practices in safety (Strauss, 2019). Since safety concerns are central for customers in the airline market (Dean & Whitaker, 1982; Fennell, 2017), coopetition may help maintain market stability by generating benefits not only for individual companies but for the industry as a whole.

Similar conditions occur in other contexts, such as the socio-environmental domain. Competitors may cooperate in environmental and social practices while continuing to compete in the market as usual. In these cases, beyond legal requirements imposed by national and international institutions, cooperation becomes a means of advancing emerging agendas and socially circumventing criticism, thereby helping to ensure market stability (King & Pearce, 2010; Limoubpratum, Shee & Ahsan, 2015; Christ, Burritt & Varsei, 2017; Jiang, Lu & Xu, 2019).

Additionally, coopetition can be seen as an important strategy within the industrial policy of countries with low labor costs, especially China. Several studies on coopetition in supply chains highlight the Chinese case, including historical analyses of how these practices were adopted (Sodhi & Tang, 2013). In short, by facilitating the entry of foreign firms attracted by low labor costs, the local industry was able to accelerate technological development through information and knowledge exchange, as well as by associating with well-known brands. As a result, Chinese firms were able to build market reputation and compete first locally, and later internationally (Sodhi & Tang, 2013). Moreover, with a domestic market capable of absorbing high volumes of products, coopetition continued to serve as a development strategy. As labor costs rose, the increase in tariffs on imported goods encouraged foreign companies to maintain their operations domestically, further contributing to national industry development (Niu, Mu & Chen, 2019).

Although coopetition is institutionally encouraged in some contexts, the reviewed studies show that it also occurs under other conditions. One such condition involves the distribution of power in supply chains. Power is a recurrent topic in both economics and supply chain management (Granovetter, 2017; Candido et al., 2017; Reimann & Ketchen, 2017). Several analyzed studies highlight that exchange relationships in the supply chain are surrounded by asymmetric power distributions, leading to greater pressure either on one level (e.g., supplier) or another (e.g., buyer) (Tomlinson & Fai, 2013; Galdeano-Gómez, Pérez-Mesa & Aznar-Sánchez, 2016; Wallenburg & Schäffler, 2016; Depeyre, Rigaud & Seraidarian, 2018). A common coopetitive practice involves cooperation among small suppliers to increase their bargaining power in negotiations with a dominant buyer. Although most of the reviewed studies approach this theme using game theory (Lu et al., 2013; Li & Du, 2015; Gao et al., 2018), which Beckert (2009) critiques for its assumption of rational action, the topic is more realistically embedded in social relationships rather than in isolated decision-making (Rickenbach, 2009; Paché, 2013; Jerônimo et al., 2015). As Wallenburg & Schäffler (2016) suggest, such alliances form through “social contracts”, characterized by norms, assumptions, beliefs or mediating elements that are perceived as fair or appropriate within the given relationship.

On the other hand, in some contexts, suppliers are compelled to cooperate directly or indirectly with their competitors, as shown in studies by Wilhelm (2011) and Wilhelm & Sydow (2018) on the automotive industry. These authors describe situations in which automakers, leveraging their power over suppliers’ dependence, organize workshops to gain detailed knowledge of suppliers’ cost structures or operational processes, and eventually use that information opportunistically in future negotiations. Additionally, some practices from specific suppliers are collected and shared with others as a form of benchmarking or for comparing operational performance across suppliers. Although these practices may aim to improve efficiency, they can also erode trust between suppliers and their clients, heightening tensions and generating reluctance to cooperate, which in turn may destabilize the market.

In this sense, it is possible to advance the discussion on the topic of trust for cooperation within coopetition. Granovetter (2017) reinforces the view that trust serves as the lubricant of relationships, helping to reduce monitoring and control costs. However, trust placed in a competitor is inherently unique and counterintuitive. Based on the notion that trust presumes refraining from harming the other when one has the opportunity to do so (Granovetter, 2017), coopetition often brings concerns about opportunism or bad-faith behavior. As a result, coopetitive relationships are associated with higher control costs compared to traditional cooperation (i.e., among non-competitors), and little is understood about how social relations might improve trust in such contexts (Beckeman, Bourlakis & Olsson, 2013; Paché, 2013; Wallenburg & Schäffler, 2016; Cygler & Sroka, 2017; Lopes, Ferrarese & Carvalho, 2017; Monticelli, Silveira & Silva, 2018; Niu et al., 2019; Fathalikhani, Hafezalkotob & Soltani, 2020).

4.3. THE COMPETITION PROBLEM

The problem of competition involves the role of social structures in ensuring market stability and profitability, as well as how these structures change over time. Beckert (2009) illustrates the classic and paradoxical situation in which competition, while serving as a mechanism for ensuring the market’s existence, simultaneously threatens the ability to generate profit. In the context of market creation and stability, Beckert (2009) also highlights the role of the state as a regulatory institution that, to varying degrees, protects both competition and local industries.

In the context of coopetition, competition generally takes place through the same practices observed in non-coopetitive settings, such as price (Sepehri & Fayazbakhsh, 2011; Lu, Kuo & Lin, 2013; Yu-Chen & Xiao-Lan, 2013; Sodhi & Tang, 2013; Chen, 2014; Niu, Wang & Guo, 2015), service level (Sodhi & Tang, 2013; Ding et al., 2018; Niu, Dai & Zhuo, 2019) or access to scarce resources (Luo, 2005; Cygler & Sroka, 2017; Fathalikhani, Hafezalkotob & Soltani, 2020). However, a form of competition more specific to this phenomenon arises from the benefits generated by the coopetitive relationship itself, adding an extra layer of uncertainty and instability to the interaction among coopetitors. This may lead to conflict among supply chain actors and intensify aggressive price competition, ultimately destabilizing the market (Lei & Zhao, 2014; Gao et al., 2018; Wilhelm & Sydow, 2018; Jiang, Lu & Xu, 2019).

For this reason, an important aspect mentioned in the studies is the ability that agents possess, or develop, to manage the coopetitive relationship, which relates to the social skill introduced by Fligstein (2007). This involves the relational capacity of organizational actors to navigate cooperative and competitive practices in accordance with the context’s needs, thereby mitigating potential conflicts (Walley & Custance, 2010; Paché, 2013). It includes, but is not limited to, the ability to define clear and shared objectives with competitors (Shockley & Fetter, 2015), to balance shifting roles in the supply chain - sometimes as supplier, sometimes as competitor - so as to maintain the stability of the existing supply chain structure (Depeyre, Rigaud & Seraidarian, 2018), to build social relationships that foster synergy and trust (Wakolbinger, Fabian & Kettinger, 2013), and to communicate clearly and effectively (Li, Liu & Liu, 2011; Paché, 2013; Cygler & Sroka, 2017; Christ, Burritt & Varsei, 2017).

Finally, a social implication within the competition problem is the case in which one actor is responsible for supplying part of a competitor’s product portfolio, while the latter seeks to diversify its own portfolio (Chen, Wang & Xia, 2019; Wallenburg & Schäffler, 2016; Witek-Hajduk & Napiórkowska, 2017). Portfolio diversification is an organizational strategy discussed by Fligstein (2004), often associated with sales and marketing structures that aim to increase revenue by expanding the product mix. However, little research has examined the implications of this type of coopetitive relationship in contexts such as mergers and acquisitions, where variables like market share are evaluated (Onto, 2017). For instance, when a company is supplied by a competitor, how is the buyer’s market share reconfigured?

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study aimed to review the existing literature on coopetition in supply chains and link its developments to the coordination problems underlying the social order of markets, based on Beckert’s (2009) framework, which considers three macrostructures: value, cooperation, and competition. Through the systematization of the literature, seven key themes emerged in studies of coopetition in supply chains. These themes were associated with the main macrostructures: reduction of entry barriers in new markets, social construction of product value, creation of value for supply chain tiers, trust, presence of institutional incentives, power asymmetries in the supply chain, and social skill in managing coopetitive relationships within supply chains.

Regarding the value problem, this study presented examples in which coopetition in supply chains contributes to lowering entry barriers in new markets, thereby generating value in those markets. Also, in the remanufactured products market, coopetition can be understood as a strategy that helps overcome a barrier to establishing customer-perceived value, making it at least possible to offer this type of product. In turn, regarding the cooperation macrostructure, coopetition may increase instability when the relationship among competitors incorporates illicit practices and the benefits of coopetition in creating market value are outweighed by its negative effects. For this reason, government involvement in regulation - for example, antitrust laws in the United States, or in providing incentives, as in China’s recent industrial leap - becomes a central aspect in resolving this type of issue within a market. Cooperation can also be a source of instability when it occurs through the exertion of power by one supply chain actor over others, as illustrated in cases from the automotive supply chain. Finally, the problem to be addressed in the domain of competition concerns how the additional resources resulting from coopetition are distributed among coopetitors, as conflicts arising from this distribution may affect the structure of the supply chain and, consequently, the market structure itself.

Thus, the present study builds an initial bridge between the literature on coopetition in supply chains and economic sociology, particularly through Beckert’s (2009) concept of social order of markets. In this sense, contributions become possible for both areas. On the one hand, addressing the coordination problems of three macrostructures helps expand theoretical and practical efforts to resolve issues observed in various supply chains, as documented in the literature. It also offers a conceptual triad that may serve as a basis for analyzing coopetition in other supply chains. On the other hand, this approach introduces the concept of coopetition into the sociology of markets, overlapping two of its core macrostructures and generating new problems for analysis and understanding of how such relationships may increase or decrease stability in markets where they are present.

Despite the contributions presented, several areas remain for future research. Future studies should consider analyzing the role of trust from the perspective of economic sociology (Granovetter, 2017), particularly in contrast to the rationalist assumptions of game theory, which influenced early coopetition research and continue to have a strong presence in the literature. In this regard, investigating how different sources of trust (whether based on rational calculation, interpersonal relationships, network embeddedness, or other mechanisms) create a multifaceted understanding of this fundamental concept could shed light on how trust shapes the formation and continuity of coopetitive interactions. Another recommendation for future research would be to explore more deeply the role of power in supply chains as a mechanism of coordination in the formation of coopetition - as some of the reviewed studies suggest - but also as a factor that can either enhance or undermine stability, depending on how and in what context it is exercised.

STATEMENT ABOUT DATA AVAILABILITY

Research data is only available upon request to the researcher.

REFERENCES

Alves Filho, A. G., Cerra, A. L., Maia, J. L., Sacomano Neto, M., & Bonadio, P. V. G. (2004). Pressupostos da gestão da cadeia de suprimentos: evidências de estudos sobre a indústria automobilística. Gestão & Produção, 11, 275-288.
Asadabadi, A., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2018). Co-opetition in enhancing global port network resiliency: A multi-leader, common-follower game theoretic approach. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 108, 281-298.
Aspers, P., & Beckert, J. (2011). Value in markets.
Audretsch, D. B., Baumol, W. J., & Burke, A. E. (2001). Competition policy in dynamic markets. International journal of industrial organization, 19(5), 613-634.
Beckeman, M., Bourlakis, M., & Olsson, A. (2013). The role of manufacturers in food innovations in Sweden. British food journal.
Beckert, J. (1996). What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action. Theory and society, 25(6), 803-840.
Beckert, J. (2009). The social order of markets. Theory and society , 38(3), 245-269.
Beckert, J., & Wehinger, F. (2013). In the shadow: Illegal markets and economic sociology. Socio-Economic Review, 11(1), 5-30.
Božič, B., Siebert, S., & Martin, G. (2020). A grounded theory study of factors and conditions associated with customer trust recovery in a retailer. Journal of Business Research, 109, 440-448.
Brandes, O., Brege, S., Brehmer, P. O., & Lilliecreutz, J. (2007). Chambre separée in product development: vertically mediated coopetition in the automotive supply chain. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 7(2-3), 168-183.
Brun, A., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Castelli, C., Miragliotta, G., Ronchi, S., ... & Spina, G. (2008). Logistics and supply chain management in luxury fashion retail: Empirical investigation of Italian firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 554-570.
Candido, S. E. A., Soulé, F. V., & Sacomano, M. (2017). Power and culture in supply chains: contributions of the strategic action fields approach. Production, 27.
Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Castelli, C., & Golini, R. (2011). Supply chain management in the luxury industry: a first classification of companies and their strategies. International Journal of Production Economics , 133(2), 622-633.
Chen, J. M., & Chang, C. I. (2012). The co-opetitive strategy of a closed-loop supply chain with remanufacturing. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(2), 387-400.
Chen, L. T. (2014). The dynamic co-opetitive approach of a closed loop system with remanufacturing for deteriorating items in e-markets. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 33(1), 166-176.
Chen, X., Wang, X., & Xia, Y. (2019). Production coopetition strategies for competing manufacturers that produce partially substitutable products. Production and Operations Management, 28(6), 1446-1464.
Choi, T. Y., Wu, Z., Ellram, L., & Koka, B. R. (2002). Supplier-supplier relationships and their implications for buyer-supplier relationships. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 49(2), 119-130.
Christ, K. L., Burritt, R. L., & Varsei, M. (2017). Coopetition as a potential strategy for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 26(7), 1029-1040.
Croxton, K. L., Garcia-Dastugue, S. J., Lambert, D. M., & Rogers, D. S. (2001). The supply chain management processes. The international journal of logistics management, 12(2), 13-36.
Cygler, J., & Sroka, W. (2017). Coopetition disadvantages: The case of the hightech companies. Engineering Economics, 28(5), 494-504.
Davis, G. F., & Kim, S. (2015). Financialization of the Economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 41.
Dean, R. D., & Whitaker, K. M. (1982). Fear of flying: Impact on the US air travel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 21(1), 7-17.
Depeyre, C., Rigaud, E., & Seraidarian, F. (2018). Coopetition in the French luxury industry: Five cases of brand-building by suppliers of luxury brands. Journal of Brand Management, 25(5), 463-473.
Diekmann, A., & Przepiorka, W. (2019). Trust and reputation in markets. In The Oxford Handbook of Gossip and Reputation (pp. 383-400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DiMaggio, P. (1999). Trust and Governance. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 731.
DiMaggio, P., & Louch, H. (1998). Socially embedded consumer transactions: for what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks?. American Sociological Review, 619-637.
Ding, Y., Ma, L., Zhang, Y., & Feng, D. (2018). Analysis of evolution mechanism and optimal reward-penalty mechanism for collection strategies in reverse supply chains: the case of waste mobile phones in China. Sustainability, 10(12), 4744.
Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. Cambridge University Press.
Dobbin, F. (2004). Introduction: the sociology of the economy. Introduction: The Sociology of the Economy.
Dobbin, F., & Dowd, T. J. (2000). The market that antitrust built: Public policy, private coercion, and railroad acquisitions, 1825 to 1922. American Sociological Review , 631-657.
Fathalikhani, S., Hafezalkotob, A., & Soltani, R. (2020). Government intervention on cooperation, competition, and coopetition of humanitarian supply chains. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 69, 100715.
Fennell, D. A. (2017). Towards a model of travel fear. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 140-150.
Fligstein, N. (2004). From The Transformation of Corporate Control. The New Economic Sociology: A Reader, 407-432.
Fligstein, N. (2007). Habilidade social e a teoria dos campos. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 47(2), 61-80.
Fligstein, N., & Dauter, L. (2007). The sociology of markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 33, 105-128.
Galdeano-Gómez, E., Pérez-Mesa, J. C., & Aznar-Sánchez, J. A. (2016). Internationalisation of SMEs and simultaneous strategies of cooperation and competition: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(6), 1114-1132.
Gao, T., Wang, Q., Huang, M., Wang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2018). A Co-Opetitive Automated Negotiation Model for Vertical Allied Enterprises Teams and Stakeholders. Entropy, 20(4), 286.
Gibson, C. W. (2020). Local Agencies in Global Markets: Financialization of the Economy and Public Water Governance (Doctoral dissertation, UC Irvine).
Gistri, G., Romani, S., Pace, S., Gabrielli, V., & Grappi, S. (2009). Consumption practices of counterfeit luxury goods in the Italian context. Journal of Brand Management , 16(5), 364-374.
Granovetter, M. (2017). Society and economy. Harvard University Press.
Gurnani, H., Erkoc, M., & Luo, Y. (2007). Impact of product pricing and timing of investment decisions on supply chain co-opetition. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(1), 228-248.
Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). Competition, cooperation, and coopetition of green supply chains under regulations on energy saving levels. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , 97, 228-250.
Hammer, P. J. (2007). The Architecture of Health Care Markets: Economic Sociology and Antitrust Law. Hous. J. Health L. & Pol’y, 7, 227.
Hanser, A. (2010). Uncertainty and the problem of value: Consumers, culture and inequality in urban China. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(3), 307-332.
Heikkila, M., Sajasalo, P., Heikkilä, J., & Pohjola, M. (2016). Management dilemmas in innovative supplier networks. International Journal of Procurement Management, 9(5), 616-635.
Huan, S. H., Sheoran, S. K., & Wang, G. (2004). A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply chain management: An international Journal, 9(1), 23-29.
Jerônimo, F. B., Pedrozo, e. A., Fensterseifer, J. E., & Silva, T. N. (2005). Redes de cooperação e mecanismos de coordenação: a experiência da rede formada por sete sociedades cooperativas no Rio Grande do Sul. Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural. SOBER, Ribeirão Preto, 24.
Jiang, W., Lu, W., & Xu, Q. (2019). Profit distribution model for construction supply chain with cap-and-trade policy. Sustainability, 11(4), 1215.
Karray, S. (2015). Cooperative promotions in the distribution channel. Omega, 51, 49-58.
Kerr, W., & Ryan, C. (2001). Eco-efficiency gains from remanufacturing: A case study of photocopier remanufacturing at Fuji Xerox Australia. Journal of cleaner production, 9(1), 75-81.
Khan, L. M., & Ahmed, R. (2016). A comparative study of consumer perception of product quality: Chinese versus non-Chinese products. Pakistan Journal of Engineering, Technology & Science, 2(2).
King, B. G., & Pearce, N. A. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology , 36(1), 249-267.
Klebaner, S., & Montalban, M. (2020). Cross-Fertilizations Between Institutional Economics and Economic Sociology: The Case of Régulation Theory and the Sociology of Fields. Review of Political Economy, 32(2), 180-198.
Kovacs, G., & Spens, K. M. (2010). Knowledge sharing in relief supply chains. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 7(2-3), 222-239.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
Krippner, G. R. (2005). The financialization of the American economy. Socio-economic review, 3(2), 173-208.
Krippner, G. R., & Alvarez, A. S. (2007). Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. , 33(1), 219-240.
Lambert, D. M., & Enz, M. G. (2017). Issues in supply chain management: Progress and potential. Industrial marketing management, 62, 1-16.
Lee, C. M., Woo, W. S., & Roh, Y. H. (2017). Remanufacturing: Trends and issues. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 4(1), 113-125.
Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, S. J., & Croxton, K. L. (2005). An evaluation of process-oriented supply chain management frameworks. Journal of business Logistics, 26(1), 25-51.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. G. (2014). Study on the Gaming-Oriented Competition Relationship between Independent E-Retailers and Product Suppliers. In Advanced Materials Research (Vol. 933, pp. 897-901). Trans Tech Publications Ltd.
Lejeune, M. A., & Yakova, N. (2005). On characterizing the 4 C’s in supply chain management. Journal of operations Management, 23(1), 81-100.
Levine, S. H. (1999). Products and ecological models: A population ecology perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 3(2-3), 47-62.
Li, K., & Du, T. C. (2015). Building a boundary-spanning service for coopetition. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(22), 8413-8422.
Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2011). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of operations Management , 29(1-2), 128-142.
Lie, J. (1997). Sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology , 23(1), 341-360.
Lima, F. R. P., Da Silva, A. L., Godinho Filho, M., & Dias, E. M. (2018). Systematic review: resilience enablers to combat counterfeit medicines. Supply chain management: An international Journal .
Limoubpratum, C., Shee, H., & Ahsan, K. (2015). Sustainable distribution through coopetition strategy. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 18(5), 424-441.
Lopes, A. P. V. B. V., Ferrarese, A., & Carvalho, M. M. D. (2017). Inovação aberta no processo de pesquisa e desenvolvimento: uma análise da cooperação entre empresas automotivas e universidades. Gestão & Produção , 24, 653-666.
Lu, I. Y., Kuo, T., & Lin, T. S. (2013). Coopetition and Recompense between suppliers and retailers in a Duopoly Petroleum Market. 品質學報, 20(2), 233-250.
Luo, Y. (2005). Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: A perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40(1), 71-90.
McKague, K., Zietsma, C., & Oliver, C. (2015). Building the social structure of a market. Organization Studies, 36(8), 1063-1093.
Monticelli, J. M., Silveira, A. B., & Silva, L. M. (2018). The process of coopetitive strategy: A case study of microbreweries in Porto Alegre. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 19.
Nalebuff, B., & Brandenburger, A. (1995). Coopetition. Crown Business.
Niu, B., Dai, Z., & Zhuo, X. (2019). Co-opetition effect of promised-delivery-time sensitive demand on air cargo carriers’ big data investment and demand signal sharing decisions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , 123, 29-44.
Niu, B., Li, J., Zhang, J., Cheng, H. K., & Tan, Y. (2019). Strategic analysis of dual sourcing and dual channel with an unreliable alternative supplier. Production and Operations Management , 28(3), 570-587.
Niu, B., Mu, Z., & Chen, K. (2019). Quality spillover, tariff, and multinational firms’ local sourcing strategies. International Transactions in Operational Research, 26(6), 2508-2530.
Niu, B., Mu, Z., Chen, L., & Lee, C. K. (2019). Coordinate the economic and environmental sustainability via procurement outsourcing in a co-opetitive supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 17-27.
Niu, B., Wang, Y., & Guo, P. (2015). Equilibrium pricing sequence in a co-opetitive supply chain with the ODM as a downstream rival of its OEM. Omega, 57, 249-270.
Onto, G. G. (2017). O agente econômico e suas relações: identificando concorrentes na política antitruste. Tempo Social, 29(1), 109-130.
Paché, G. (2013). Coopetitive supply chains: Toward a social ties perspective. Management: journal of contemporary management issues, 18(2), 125-140.
Papachristos, G., & Adamides, E. D. (2014). Internal supply-chain competition in remanufacturing: operations strategies, performance and environmental effects. International journal of logistics systems and management, 19(2), 187-211.
Polanyi, K. (2013). A grande transformação: as origens da nossa época. Elsevier Brasil.
Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American journal of sociology, 110(4), 1132-1205.
Przepiorka, W., Norbutas, L., & Corten, R. (2017). Order without law: Reputation promotes cooperation in a cryptomarket for illegal drugs. European Sociological Review, 33(6), 752-764.
Qin, X., Liu, Z., & Tian, L. (2020). The strategic analysis of logistics service sharing in an e-commerce platform. Omega, 92, 102153.
Raud-Mattedi, C. (2005). A construção social do mercado em Durkheim e Weber: análise do papel das instituições na sociologia econômica clássica. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 20, 127-142.
Reimann, F., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2017). Power in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(2), 3-9.
Rickenbach, M. (2009). Serving members and reaching others: the performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative. Forest policy and economics, 11(8), 593-599.
Rodrigues, L. C., Maccari, E. A., & Riscarolli, V. (2007). Arquitetura e coopetição em redes interorganizacionais. JISTEM-Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 4, 175-196.
Sandberg, S. (2012). The importance of culture for cannabis markets: Towards an economic sociology of illegal drug markets. British journal of criminology, 52(6), 1133-1151.
Schneider, S. (2016). Mercados e agricultura familiar. Construção de Mercados e Agricultura Familiar: desafios para o desenvolvimento rural. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 93-140.
Sepehri, M., & Fayazbakhsh, K. (2011). A quantitative examination of competition, coopetition and cooperation in supply chains. South African Journal of Business Management, 42(3), 61-70.
Shockley, J., & Fetter, G. (2015). Distribution co-opetition and multi-level inventory management performance: An industry analysis and simulation. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(1), 51-63.
Smelser, N. J., & Swedberg, R. (2005). Introducing economic sociology. The handbook of economic sociology, 2, 3-25.
Sodhi, M. S., & Tang, C. S. (2013). Strategies and tactics of Chinese contract manufacturers and western OEMs (2001-2011). International Journal of Production Economics , 146(1), 14-24.
Strauss, S. (2019). So you want your supply chain to adopt sustainable and green practices: how complicated could that be?. In Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis (Vol. 179, pp. 53-64). Elsevier.
Tomlinson, P. R., & Fai, F. M. (2013). The nature of SME co-operation and innovation: A multi-scalar and multi-dimensional analysis. International Journal of Production Economics , 141(1), 316-326.
Tzanetakis, M. (2018). Social order of anonymous digital markets: Towards an economic sociology of cryptomarkets. Place, Space and Time in European Drug Use, Markets and Policy, 61-80.
Wakolbinger, T., Fabian, F., & Kettinger, W. J. (2013). IT-enabled interorganizational information sharing under co-opetition in disasters: A game-theoretic framework. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 33(1), 5.
Wallenburg, C. M., & Schäffler, T. (2016). Performance measurement in horizontal LSP cooperation as a field of conflict: the preventive role of collaborative processes. Logistics Research, 9(1), 7.
Walley, K., & Custance, P. (2010). Coopetition: insights from the agri-food supply chain. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 10(3), 185-192.
Wang, R., Ji, J. H., & Ming, X. G. (2010). R&D partnership contract coordination of information goods supply chain in government subsidy. International journal of computer applications in technology, 37(3-4), 297-306.
Wilhelm, M. M. (2011). Managing coopetition through horizontal supply chain relations: Linking dyadic and network levels of analysis. Journal of operations Management , 29(7-8), 663-676.
Wilhelm, M., & Sydow, J. (2018). Managing coopetition in supplier networks-a paradox perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 54(3), 22-41.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Witek-Hajduk, M. K., & Napiórkowska, A. (2017). A Framework of Retailer-Manufacturer Cooperation and Coopetition: Consumer Durable Goods Retailers’ Case Studies. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 5(1), 59.
Yu-Chen, H., & Xiao-Lan, H. (2013). Research on the coopetition relationship of cluster enterprises based on the network view-taking central-satellite type industry cluster as example. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(8), 1332-1338.
Zacharia, Z., Plasch, M., Mohan, U., & Gerschberger, M. (2019). The emerging role of coopetition within inter-firm relationships. The international journal of logistics management .

JEL Classification:
L1; L23; L24; L25; L6; M11; Z13.

Publication Dates

Publication in this collection
14 Nov 2025
Date of issue
2025

History

Received
02 Jan 2023
Accepted
24 Feb 2025

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

[1] Alves Filho, A. G., Cerra, A. L., Maia, J. L., Sacomano Neto, M., & Bonadio, P. V. G. (2004). Pressupostos da gestão da cadeia de suprimentos: evidências de estudos sobre a indústria automobilística. Gestão & Produção, 11, 275-288.

[2] Asadabadi, A., & Miller-Hooks, E. (2018). Co-opetition in enhancing global port network resiliency: A multi-leader, common-follower game theoretic approach. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 108, 281-298.

[3] Aspers, P., & Beckert, J. (2011). Value in markets.

[4] Audretsch, D. B., Baumol, W. J., & Burke, A. E. (2001). Competition policy in dynamic markets. International journal of industrial organization, 19(5), 613-634.

[5] Beckeman, M., Bourlakis, M., & Olsson, A. (2013). The role of manufacturers in food innovations in Sweden. British food journal.

[6] Beckert, J. (1996). What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action. Theory and society, 25(6), 803-840.

[7] Beckert, J. (2009). The social order of markets. Theory and society , 38(3), 245-269.

[8] Beckert, J., & Wehinger, F. (2013). In the shadow: Illegal markets and economic sociology. Socio-Economic Review, 11(1), 5-30.

[9] Božič, B., Siebert, S., & Martin, G. (2020). A grounded theory study of factors and conditions associated with customer trust recovery in a retailer. Journal of Business Research, 109, 440-448.

[10] Brandes, O., Brege, S., Brehmer, P. O., & Lilliecreutz, J. (2007). Chambre separée in product development: vertically mediated coopetition in the automotive supply chain. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 7(2-3), 168-183.

[11] Brun, A., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Castelli, C., Miragliotta, G., Ronchi, S., ... & Spina, G. (2008). Logistics and supply chain management in luxury fashion retail: Empirical investigation of Italian firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 554-570.

[12] Candido, S. E. A., Soulé, F. V., & Sacomano, M. (2017). Power and culture in supply chains: contributions of the strategic action fields approach. Production, 27.

[13] Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Castelli, C., & Golini, R. (2011). Supply chain management in the luxury industry: a first classification of companies and their strategies. International Journal of Production Economics , 133(2), 622-633.

[14] Chen, J. M., & Chang, C. I. (2012). The co-opetitive strategy of a closed-loop supply chain with remanufacturing. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(2), 387-400.

[15] Chen, L. T. (2014). The dynamic co-opetitive approach of a closed loop system with remanufacturing for deteriorating items in e-markets. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 33(1), 166-176.

[16] Chen, X., Wang, X., & Xia, Y. (2019). Production coopetition strategies for competing manufacturers that produce partially substitutable products. Production and Operations Management, 28(6), 1446-1464.

[17] Choi, T. Y., Wu, Z., Ellram, L., & Koka, B. R. (2002). Supplier-supplier relationships and their implications for buyer-supplier relationships. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 49(2), 119-130.

[18] Christ, K. L., Burritt, R. L., & Varsei, M. (2017). Coopetition as a potential strategy for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 26(7), 1029-1040.

[19] Croxton, K. L., Garcia-Dastugue, S. J., Lambert, D. M., & Rogers, D. S. (2001). The supply chain management processes. The international journal of logistics management, 12(2), 13-36.

[20] Cygler, J., & Sroka, W. (2017). Coopetition disadvantages: The case of the hightech companies. Engineering Economics, 28(5), 494-504.

[21] Davis, G. F., & Kim, S. (2015). Financialization of the Economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 41.

[22] Dean, R. D., & Whitaker, K. M. (1982). Fear of flying: Impact on the US air travel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 21(1), 7-17.

[23] Depeyre, C., Rigaud, E., & Seraidarian, F. (2018). Coopetition in the French luxury industry: Five cases of brand-building by suppliers of luxury brands. Journal of Brand Management, 25(5), 463-473.

[24] Diekmann, A., & Przepiorka, W. (2019). Trust and reputation in markets. In The Oxford Handbook of Gossip and Reputation (pp. 383-400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[25] DiMaggio, P. (1999). Trust and Governance. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 731.

[26] DiMaggio, P., & Louch, H. (1998). Socially embedded consumer transactions: for what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks?. American Sociological Review, 619-637.

[27] Ding, Y., Ma, L., Zhang, Y., & Feng, D. (2018). Analysis of evolution mechanism and optimal reward-penalty mechanism for collection strategies in reverse supply chains: the case of waste mobile phones in China. Sustainability, 10(12), 4744.

[28] Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. Cambridge University Press.

[29] Dobbin, F. (2004). Introduction: the sociology of the economy. Introduction: The Sociology of the Economy.

[30] Dobbin, F., & Dowd, T. J. (2000). The market that antitrust built: Public policy, private coercion, and railroad acquisitions, 1825 to 1922. American Sociological Review , 631-657.

[31] Fathalikhani, S., Hafezalkotob, A., & Soltani, R. (2020). Government intervention on cooperation, competition, and coopetition of humanitarian supply chains. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 69, 100715.

[32] Fennell, D. A. (2017). Towards a model of travel fear. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 140-150.

[33] Fligstein, N. (2004). From The Transformation of Corporate Control. The New Economic Sociology: A Reader, 407-432.

[34] Fligstein, N. (2007). Habilidade social e a teoria dos campos. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 47(2), 61-80.

[35] Fligstein, N., & Dauter, L. (2007). The sociology of markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 33, 105-128.

[36] Galdeano-Gómez, E., Pérez-Mesa, J. C., & Aznar-Sánchez, J. A. (2016). Internationalisation of SMEs and simultaneous strategies of cooperation and competition: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(6), 1114-1132.

[37] Gao, T., Wang, Q., Huang, M., Wang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2018). A Co-Opetitive Automated Negotiation Model for Vertical Allied Enterprises Teams and Stakeholders. Entropy, 20(4), 286.

[38] Gibson, C. W. (2020). Local Agencies in Global Markets: Financialization of the Economy and Public Water Governance (Doctoral dissertation, UC Irvine).

[39] Gistri, G., Romani, S., Pace, S., Gabrielli, V., & Grappi, S. (2009). Consumption practices of counterfeit luxury goods in the Italian context. Journal of Brand Management , 16(5), 364-374.

[40] Granovetter, M. (2017). Society and economy. Harvard University Press.

[41] Gurnani, H., Erkoc, M., & Luo, Y. (2007). Impact of product pricing and timing of investment decisions on supply chain co-opetition. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(1), 228-248.

[42] Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). Competition, cooperation, and coopetition of green supply chains under regulations on energy saving levels. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , 97, 228-250.

[43] Hammer, P. J. (2007). The Architecture of Health Care Markets: Economic Sociology and Antitrust Law. Hous. J. Health L. & Pol’y, 7, 227.

[44] Hanser, A. (2010). Uncertainty and the problem of value: Consumers, culture and inequality in urban China. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(3), 307-332.

[45] Heikkila, M., Sajasalo, P., Heikkilä, J., & Pohjola, M. (2016). Management dilemmas in innovative supplier networks. International Journal of Procurement Management, 9(5), 616-635.

[46] Huan, S. H., Sheoran, S. K., & Wang, G. (2004). A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply chain management: An international Journal, 9(1), 23-29.

[47] Jerônimo, F. B., Pedrozo, e. A., Fensterseifer, J. E., & Silva, T. N. (2005). Redes de cooperação e mecanismos de coordenação: a experiência da rede formada por sete sociedades cooperativas no Rio Grande do Sul. Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural. SOBER, Ribeirão Preto, 24.

[48] Jiang, W., Lu, W., & Xu, Q. (2019). Profit distribution model for construction supply chain with cap-and-trade policy. Sustainability, 11(4), 1215.

[49] Karray, S. (2015). Cooperative promotions in the distribution channel. Omega, 51, 49-58.

[50] Kerr, W., & Ryan, C. (2001). Eco-efficiency gains from remanufacturing: A case study of photocopier remanufacturing at Fuji Xerox Australia. Journal of cleaner production, 9(1), 75-81.

[51] Khan, L. M., & Ahmed, R. (2016). A comparative study of consumer perception of product quality: Chinese versus non-Chinese products. Pakistan Journal of Engineering, Technology & Science, 2(2).

[52] King, B. G., & Pearce, N. A. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology , 36(1), 249-267.

[53] Klebaner, S., & Montalban, M. (2020). Cross-Fertilizations Between Institutional Economics and Economic Sociology: The Case of Régulation Theory and the Sociology of Fields. Review of Political Economy, 32(2), 180-198.

[54] Kovacs, G., & Spens, K. M. (2010). Knowledge sharing in relief supply chains. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 7(2-3), 222-239.

[55] Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.

[56] Krippner, G. R. (2005). The financialization of the American economy. Socio-economic review, 3(2), 173-208.

[57] Krippner, G. R., & Alvarez, A. S. (2007). Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. , 33(1), 219-240.

[58] Lambert, D. M., & Enz, M. G. (2017). Issues in supply chain management: Progress and potential. Industrial marketing management, 62, 1-16.

[59] Lee, C. M., Woo, W. S., & Roh, Y. H. (2017). Remanufacturing: Trends and issues. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 4(1), 113-125.

[60] Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, S. J., & Croxton, K. L. (2005). An evaluation of process-oriented supply chain management frameworks. Journal of business Logistics, 26(1), 25-51.

[61] Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. G. (2014). Study on the Gaming-Oriented Competition Relationship between Independent E-Retailers and Product Suppliers. In Advanced Materials Research (Vol. 933, pp. 897-901). Trans Tech Publications Ltd.

[62] Lejeune, M. A., & Yakova, N. (2005). On characterizing the 4 C’s in supply chain management. Journal of operations Management, 23(1), 81-100.

[63] Levine, S. H. (1999). Products and ecological models: A population ecology perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 3(2-3), 47-62.

[64] Li, K., & Du, T. C. (2015). Building a boundary-spanning service for coopetition. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(22), 8413-8422.

[65] Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2011). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of operations Management , 29(1-2), 128-142.

[66] Lie, J. (1997). Sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology , 23(1), 341-360.

[67] Lima, F. R. P., Da Silva, A. L., Godinho Filho, M., & Dias, E. M. (2018). Systematic review: resilience enablers to combat counterfeit medicines. Supply chain management: An international Journal .

[68] Limoubpratum, C., Shee, H., & Ahsan, K. (2015). Sustainable distribution through coopetition strategy. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 18(5), 424-441.

[69] Lopes, A. P. V. B. V., Ferrarese, A., & Carvalho, M. M. D. (2017). Inovação aberta no processo de pesquisa e desenvolvimento: uma análise da cooperação entre empresas automotivas e universidades. Gestão & Produção , 24, 653-666.

[70] Lu, I. Y., Kuo, T., & Lin, T. S. (2013). Coopetition and Recompense between suppliers and retailers in a Duopoly Petroleum Market. 品質學報, 20(2), 233-250.

[71] Luo, Y. (2005). Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: A perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40(1), 71-90.

[72] McKague, K., Zietsma, C., & Oliver, C. (2015). Building the social structure of a market. Organization Studies, 36(8), 1063-1093.

[73] Monticelli, J. M., Silveira, A. B., & Silva, L. M. (2018). The process of coopetitive strategy: A case study of microbreweries in Porto Alegre. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 19.

[74] Nalebuff, B., & Brandenburger, A. (1995). Coopetition. Crown Business.

[75] Niu, B., Dai, Z., & Zhuo, X. (2019). Co-opetition effect of promised-delivery-time sensitive demand on air cargo carriers’ big data investment and demand signal sharing decisions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , 123, 29-44.

[76] Niu, B., Li, J., Zhang, J., Cheng, H. K., & Tan, Y. (2019). Strategic analysis of dual sourcing and dual channel with an unreliable alternative supplier. Production and Operations Management , 28(3), 570-587.

[77] Niu, B., Mu, Z., & Chen, K. (2019). Quality spillover, tariff, and multinational firms’ local sourcing strategies. International Transactions in Operational Research, 26(6), 2508-2530.

[78] Niu, B., Mu, Z., Chen, L., & Lee, C. K. (2019). Coordinate the economic and environmental sustainability via procurement outsourcing in a co-opetitive supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 17-27.

[79] Niu, B., Wang, Y., & Guo, P. (2015). Equilibrium pricing sequence in a co-opetitive supply chain with the ODM as a downstream rival of its OEM. Omega, 57, 249-270.

[80] Onto, G. G. (2017). O agente econômico e suas relações: identificando concorrentes na política antitruste. Tempo Social, 29(1), 109-130.

[81] Paché, G. (2013). Coopetitive supply chains: Toward a social ties perspective. Management: journal of contemporary management issues, 18(2), 125-140.

[82] Papachristos, G., & Adamides, E. D. (2014). Internal supply-chain competition in remanufacturing: operations strategies, performance and environmental effects. International journal of logistics systems and management, 19(2), 187-211.

[83] Polanyi, K. (2013). A grande transformação: as origens da nossa época. Elsevier Brasil.

[84] Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American journal of sociology, 110(4), 1132-1205.

[85] Przepiorka, W., Norbutas, L., & Corten, R. (2017). Order without law: Reputation promotes cooperation in a cryptomarket for illegal drugs. European Sociological Review, 33(6), 752-764.

[86] Qin, X., Liu, Z., & Tian, L. (2020). The strategic analysis of logistics service sharing in an e-commerce platform. Omega, 92, 102153.

[87] Raud-Mattedi, C. (2005). A construção social do mercado em Durkheim e Weber: análise do papel das instituições na sociologia econômica clássica. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 20, 127-142.

[88] Reimann, F., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2017). Power in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(2), 3-9.

[89] Rickenbach, M. (2009). Serving members and reaching others: the performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative. Forest policy and economics, 11(8), 593-599.

[90] Rodrigues, L. C., Maccari, E. A., & Riscarolli, V. (2007). Arquitetura e coopetição em redes interorganizacionais. JISTEM-Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 4, 175-196.

[91] Sandberg, S. (2012). The importance of culture for cannabis markets: Towards an economic sociology of illegal drug markets. British journal of criminology, 52(6), 1133-1151.

[92] Schneider, S. (2016). Mercados e agricultura familiar. Construção de Mercados e Agricultura Familiar: desafios para o desenvolvimento rural. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 93-140.

[93] Sepehri, M., & Fayazbakhsh, K. (2011). A quantitative examination of competition, coopetition and cooperation in supply chains. South African Journal of Business Management, 42(3), 61-70.

[94] Shockley, J., & Fetter, G. (2015). Distribution co-opetition and multi-level inventory management performance: An industry analysis and simulation. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(1), 51-63.

[95] Smelser, N. J., & Swedberg, R. (2005). Introducing economic sociology. The handbook of economic sociology, 2, 3-25.

[96] Sodhi, M. S., & Tang, C. S. (2013). Strategies and tactics of Chinese contract manufacturers and western OEMs (2001-2011). International Journal of Production Economics , 146(1), 14-24.

[97] Strauss, S. (2019). So you want your supply chain to adopt sustainable and green practices: how complicated could that be?. In Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis (Vol. 179, pp. 53-64). Elsevier.

[98] Tomlinson, P. R., & Fai, F. M. (2013). The nature of SME co-operation and innovation: A multi-scalar and multi-dimensional analysis. International Journal of Production Economics , 141(1), 316-326.

[99] Tzanetakis, M. (2018). Social order of anonymous digital markets: Towards an economic sociology of cryptomarkets. Place, Space and Time in European Drug Use, Markets and Policy, 61-80.

[100] Wakolbinger, T., Fabian, F., & Kettinger, W. J. (2013). IT-enabled interorganizational information sharing under co-opetition in disasters: A game-theoretic framework. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 33(1), 5.

[101] Wallenburg, C. M., & Schäffler, T. (2016). Performance measurement in horizontal LSP cooperation as a field of conflict: the preventive role of collaborative processes. Logistics Research, 9(1), 7.

[102] Walley, K., & Custance, P. (2010). Coopetition: insights from the agri-food supply chain. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 10(3), 185-192.

[103] Wang, R., Ji, J. H., & Ming, X. G. (2010). R&D partnership contract coordination of information goods supply chain in government subsidy. International journal of computer applications in technology, 37(3-4), 297-306.

[104] Wilhelm, M. M. (2011). Managing coopetition through horizontal supply chain relations: Linking dyadic and network levels of analysis. Journal of operations Management , 29(7-8), 663-676.

[105] Wilhelm, M., & Sydow, J. (2018). Managing coopetition in supplier networks-a paradox perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 54(3), 22-41.

[106] Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

[107] Witek-Hajduk, M. K., & Napiórkowska, A. (2017). A Framework of Retailer-Manufacturer Cooperation and Coopetition: Consumer Durable Goods Retailers’ Case Studies. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 5(1), 59.

[108] Yu-Chen, H., & Xiao-Lan, H. (2013). Research on the coopetition relationship of cluster enterprises based on the network view-taking central-satellite type industry cluster as example. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(8), 1332-1338.

[109] Zacharia, Z., Plasch, M., Mohan, U., & Gerschberger, M. (2019). The emerging role of coopetition within inter-firm relationships. The international journal of logistics management .