Extant studies assessing determinants of peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation prices have mainly focused on individual listing-level analysis, with a less attention to inter-regional dynamics between cooperation and competition. While Airbnb has announced how to set a pricing strategy tool called “smart pricing” to help hosts gauge rental rates, many hosts find that its suggesting prices are too low, failing to offer a robust picture of their destination market (Jiang et al., 2022). This calls for a research on how P2P accommodation hosts can benefit from coopetitive pricing strategy – a hybrid behavior of cooperation and competition that occurs among hosts or regions (Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2018).

Firms cooperate not only with complementary partners such as their suppliers and customers, but also increasingly with their competitors which can result in a simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition – coopetition (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 2011). Coopetition is a paradox as it involves firms interacting with two contradictory logics – cooperation and competition, which their contradictory, yet interrelated, demands seem logical in isolation, but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously (Peng et al., 2017). The extant research on the role of the competitor as an NPD partner also throws conflicting results; positive and negative NPD performance. This variance could be related to the firm’s internal capability to manage the partnership in NPD activities. This research aims to investigate these issues: Part I examines ‘the paradox of coopetition’ by investigating how firm’s experience of coopetitive relationship influence on firm’s coopetition capability. Part II investigates the key antecedents and outcomes of coopetition capability on the competitor partnership for new product development. The findings suggest a balanced-strong coopetition and alliance management capability are useful to build coopetition capability. In turn, coopetition capability has direct and indirect effects on NPD performances.

Introduction This paper presents an exploratory investigation into the use of coopetition by fashion supply chains (FSCs) as a sustainable, risk-reduction strategy and enabler for competitive advantage. Bengtsson and Kock (2000) proposed coopetition as a state where two companies cooperate in some activities, such as a strategic alliance, while at the same time competing with each other in other activities. While coopetition is usually considered as a horizontal integration strategy (Hingly et al., 2011), it might also be used vertically in a supply chain and possibly including third-parties to alleviate issues of confidentiality (Dari, 2010). Such lose relationships and partnerships may also be undertaken between companies for joint product development, to share research and development (R&D) costs, to restore corporate image, to increase environmental responsiveness of suppliers, for differentiation, to reduce costs, to reduce supply chain waste, and to develop sustainable materials, alternative or substitutes (Caniato et al. 2012). In a dynamic business environment such as fashion the ability to integrate processes across the functional boundaries of a company is considered a key to competitive advantage (Sull and Turconi, 2008). It is also important for companies in FSCs to share a common goal and work in the same direction to achievement supply chain integration (Fernie and Grant 2015). De Brito et al. (2008) suggested that the best performing companies effectively manage internal and external relationships between functions and organizations through improved coordination and highlighted a need for partnering with supply chain partners and different stakeholders including working groups in the industry, relationships management, having highly skilled people, and resource sharing especially in transport equipment and warehousing and the use of coordination tools such as collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR). While such alliances build up relationships and partnerships for the betterment of all partners (Lacoste, 2014), many companies remain reluctant to share too much for fear of affecting their trade secrets or competitive advantage, and so maintain a corporate transactional mindset (Grant, 2005). Thus, there is a need to investigate whether FSC firms are aware of or using coopetition principles, and if not whether they have a propensity to do so. Research Design Our investigation was exploratory as it addresses the how and why questions consistent with criteria for qualitative research (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Our unit of analysis for conducting this study was seven UK FSC case companies (CCs). Our sample was selected based on criteria of having in the UK a manufacturing or sourcing base and a retail or wholesale presence and some major operations such as customer service, distribution and warehousing and a brief description of each CC is provided in Table 1 below (Yin, 2014). Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 68 people across the seven CCs. These were supported further supported by a number of means, for example, visits to the manufacturing sites, head offices and other important operational places, navigating around the working environment, specifically the factory or shop floor and distribution centers, making observations and chatting to workers in the factory cafes, car parks and surrounding areas. Both within-case and cross-case analysis analyses were conducted and three themes emerged: capacity sharing, cooperation for risk reduction or a response to an adverse event, and information sharing to build relationships. We now discuss details pertaining to each theme in detail. Findings Capacity sharing: Time-based competition, demand volatility, increased disruptions and retailer pressures are some of the reasons that stimulated fashion companies and supply chains to share capacity. However, the case companies also believed high supply chain cost led fashion supply chains to benefit from each other’s resources and leave competition for the shop floor or better customer service. CC1 respondents mentioned that at a particular time they had to replace their ‘plasticisers’ and during this replacement process CC1 used competitor ‘plasticisers’ and hides. CC1, CC2 and CC4 respondents mentioned that their companies also gets help from its competitors in the international market to source skilled labor force in case of full capacity. They further mentioned the use of machines, sharing raw materials, technology, warehouse, containers, testing facilities and other facilities at competitors’ plants in different countries: “We can’t do everything on our own, especially on a global basis, so we talk to our colleagues and if they have those facilities we will ask their help; we will pay less and they will get what they have invested for” (CC1 supply chain manager). CC2, CC3, CC4 and CC6 respondents further mentioned that departments which were formerly perceived as competing each other are now sharing workforce according to demand. Respondents also suggested that problems of quotas, price fluctuations, raw material shortages, customs and distribution could be overcome by sharing materials and capacity with competitors: “If China goes over their export quotas we could be left with fibers stuck in China indefinitely until the quotas have re-balanced so in the interim its managed by sharing materials with competitors here in the UK or in our suppliers’ markets” (CC2 sourcing manager). CC2 and CC4 respondents also mentioned how in the past their companies managed to retain a cluster by offering people a business space in their premises. CC4 also offers apprenticeships to other manufacturers and suppliers, reflecting the company’s belief that the industry needs to pool resources. CC3 and CC5 respondents mentioned that sometimes their companies derives benefits of economies of scale in terms of raw materials and some sub-processes by sharing capacity with competitors: “We buy in bulk to get economies of scale, sometimes just to make sure we don’t run out of supply but there are quite a lot of businesses in our product category so we always have someone to share to get rid of dead money” (CC3 sourcing manager). CC5 and CC7 also mentioned that their companies also use supply chain partners’ facilities such as quality checks, storing products at their sites and arranging capacity for CC5 and CC7. Cooperation for risk reduction: Respondents from CC6 described many instances where coopetition emerged when supply risk or disruptions occurred. One disruption shut down trading but CC6 was able to resume trading in just two days, partly due to the help from its competitors, customers and outside service providers. Respondents mentioned that a high street retailer offered space in its warehouse, another sent its workforce to help evacuate materials and another sent containers, while a service provider converted all standard orders into next day delivery. Within CC6 itself, drivers were willing to work extra hours, even at the weekends and some other departments also sent their workforce to help the logistics and distribution functions, which were affected most by this incident. Respondents also mentioned the frequent use of containers, materials, suppliers, factories and vehicles of competitors and some facilities at main sources: “If they’ve got a container let’s say 60% and we have got the other 40%, we don’t want another whole container; we will join the retailer, historically, you wouldn’t even talk to them because they are competitors, you know, compete on shop front” (supply chain manager). Information sharing to build relationships: Increasing sustainability risks and motives for costs savings, resource development, to avoid legal penalties, to be pro-active and to develop supply chain knowledge drove the case companies to information sharing, building relationships even with competitors and with organizations outside the industry. Case companies shared many practices and processes where they demonstrated an increased move to share information and relationship building with competitors. Respondents from CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4 and CC6 mentioned their companies have established close relationships and constantly share information with companies that were perceived as biased towards the industry or competitors in the past, such as NGOs, companies on CSR, external companies for testing and auditing, working groups in the industry and material and service providers. Respondents mentioned that this has helped them to manage issues such as legislation, working standards, ethics, national and international regulations, country laws and law on chemical use, testing and auditing, to develop supply chain knowledge, to identify sustainability risks and to design their mitigation strategies. Respondents further mentioned that, over the years, their companies have increased information sharing and relationship building with competitors who helped the company with market analysis and to re-shape its business strategies: “I think information sharing with some of those forces, where it was once perceived as a threat is now considered essential, you will manage most of your risks beforehand” (CC2 project manager). CC3 and CC5 respondents maintained that fashion in general and fast fashion in particular requires having as many sources of information as possible, as this will help businesses to increase the number of options. This will further help their companies to explore alternatives and substitutes, ultimately minimizing risks such as dependency and improving customer service: “You need to talk to your partners, talk to your competitors, talk to those who have the slightest relevance to what you do; you need to be open minded; this will increase your options and then you can say yes, I can sustain, I can continue” (CC3 ethical compliance manager). CC2 and CC4 respondents mentioned building relationships with some European premium quality manufacturers who were perceived as competitors in the past. Respondents mentioned that the company is also trying to build strong relationships with small and medium companies of its type in the UK so that a common strategy can be developed for the government to help revive the UK textile and garment industry: “As an industry we’re joining together, whether we are joining together with our competitors or what could be perceived to be a competitor or not, it doesn’t really matter, the fact is we are joining together to pool our resources in terms of trying to attract new people into the industry and get some help from the government”(CC4 supply chain manager). However, CC5 respondents expressed concern about sharing trends or design related information to some competitors of its size but admitted that CC5 also gets help from its competitors: “He (supply chain manager) will pick up the phone and let them know which trend is in demand, which colour customers like; in the beginning I found it unusual but then I saw some of them coming to us and asking for some units to try” (CC5 design manager). CC6 respondents mentioned that a recent disruption has demonstrated how important it is to have relationships, even with competitors. Respondents reported that their service providers converted standard deliveries into next day just because they perceived CC6 as a family and it was good relationships with them that enabled CC6 to provide good customer service and maintain its image as a responsible online fashion retailer: “We had relationships with them so they were willing to go to the extra mile; we see them as a family organization although some might say competitors” (CC6 supply chain manager). Conclusions The literature asserted the need for coopetition in order to survive and compete in a demand driven and volatile market place however issues of maintaining confidentiality and competitive advantage may inhibit companies in FSCs from adopting coopetition principles. However, our study found that due to increased uncertainties, disruptions and risk the seven CCs we investigated have embraced coopetition in some way as a strategy mechanism to manage their supply chains. Thus, we conclude that coopetition appears to be a driver to stimulate organizational capacity sharing, risk reduction and information sharing to build relationships with multiple stakeholders even if they are competitors. However, we note that this study was exploratory and only investigated seven FSC companies in the UK and hence the findings may not be generalized across all companies. Further research should expand this line of enquiry to do so.

Our study aims to investigate the mechanisms leading to focal firm’s innovation performance through the coopetitive relationships. Specifically, we argue focal firm’s two capabilities, coopetition capability and NPD capability, play a crucial role as a mediator of interfirm coopetition and its innovation performance. In order to provide new evidence on this subject, we contribute to this stream by developing a conceptual model. We argue that coopetitive behaviors of partners will influence the focal firm’s coopetition capability, which will then influence the focal firm’s NPD capability, although we assume NPD capability will have an impact on coopetition capability as well. We also argue NPD capability will not only lead to new product advantages, NPD process advantages as well, as a result of them, financial performance at the end. This paper reports the development of this model.