Typology and Effects of Co-opetition in Buyer-Supplier Relationships: Evidence from the Chinese Home Appliance Industry. 供应链关系中竞合分类及其影响:来自中国家电业的实证研究
基于225对供应商-买家配对样本，将买卖双方关系分为四种竞合类型，发现竞争增加交易成本、降低关系收益，合作提升关系收益但仅在低竞争时影响交易成本。
Building on the co-opetition perspective, this study takes a unified approach to examine relationship benefits and transaction costs in buyer–supplier relationships. We argue that buyer–supplier vertical dyads fall into one of four distinct co-opetition types based on their respective degrees of cooperation and competition. Each co-opetition situation then corresponds to unique levels of relationship benefits and transaction costs. A sample of 225 supplier–buyer dyads from the Chinese home appliance industry confirms that competition has a positive effect on transaction costs and a negative effect on relationship benefits, while cooperation stimulates greater relationship benefits but affects transaction costs mainly at low competition levels. The results advance prior research on buyer–supplier relationships and co-opetition and offer valuable avenues for future research. 基于竞合的观点，本文采用了一个整合的模型对供应链关系中的关系收益和交易成本进行了研究。本文认为，依据双方合作和竞争程度的不同，买卖双方间的交易关系可以划分为四种不同的竞合关系类型，且每种竞合类型分别对应不同的关系收益和交易成本水平。利用来自中国家电行业225对买卖双方的配对样本，本文发现，买卖双方间的竞争对交易成本有正向作用，对关系收益有负面影响；而双方间的合作会促进关系收益的提高，但只在竞争水平较低时，合作才会对交易成本产生影响。本文研究发展了以往关于买卖双方关系和竞合的相关文献，并指明了有价值的未来研究发展方向。 Securing partnership benefits while reducing governance transaction costs is a persistent challenge in the management of buyer–supplier relationships (Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Dahlstrom & Nygaard, 1999; Kotabe, Martin, & Domoto, 2003). On one hand, firms seek to form vertical relationships in pursuit of economic rewards, knowledge transfer, and efficiency (Geyskens, Steenkamp, & Kumar, 1999; Jap, 1999; Terpend, Tyler, Krause, & Handfield, 2008). Achieving such benefits is enhanced by factors that stimulate information and knowledge exchange, such as relationship satisfaction (Gassenheimer & Ramsey, 1994), justice perceptions (Luo, 2007a), and relationship duration (Heide & Stump, 1995). On the other hand, vertical relationship partners are subject to multiple transaction costs associated with forming, monitoring, and evaluating partnerships (Buvik & Reve, 2001; Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Dahlstrom & Nygaard, 1999). Problems stem from behavioural or environmental uncertainties, as well as from the potential for building non-reciprocated relationship-specific capital, introducing dangerous lock-in or value appropriation by one partner at the expense of the other (Williamson, 1985). Meanwhile, in an emerging line of research, scholars recognize that the broader challenge of managing both the generation of benefits and the reduction of costs in business relationships is often holistically captured by co-opetition – simultaneous cooperation and competition (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Chien, 2005; Gnyawali, He, & Madhavan, 2006; Gnyawali & Park, 2011; Luo, 2005, 2007b). The co-opetition framework has been increasingly applied to describe business relationships in a number of different contexts, such as among the subsidiaries of multinational enterprises (Luo, 2005), within business networks (Chien, 2005; Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001; Håkansson & Ford, 2002), in global competition (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001; Luo, 2007b), in strategic alliances (Afuah, 2000; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Khanna, Gulati, & Nohria, 1998), and in multifaceted relationships incorporating buyer–supplier transactions (Dowling, Roering, Carlin, & Wisnieski, 1996; Garcia & Velasco, 2002). In all cases, co-opetition emphasizes parties' interdependence in business relationships and corresponding syncretic rent-seeking, dynamically balanced behaviours (Lado, Boyd, & Hanlon, 1997) by uniting two seemingly incompatible phenomena. Whereas cooperation promotes the mutual pursuit of shared value-adding activities, competition emphasizes firms' independent actions to improve their individual performance, often at the expense of the firms with which they are cooperating (Luo, 2004). We connect those two separate lines of research to examine how the relative levels of cooperation and competition affect relationship benefits and transaction costs in buyer (distributor)–supplier (manufacturer) relationships. To date, buyer–supplier relationships are seen as predominantly cooperative entities mainly in the areas of marketing and supply chain management (e.g., Anderson & Narus, 1990; Terpend et al., 2008). In their review of two decades of research on buyer–supplier relationships, Terpend et al. (2008) concluded that firms in such settings seek to derive value mainly through cooperative means. That research has mainly focused on investigating cooperative mechanism effects for improving relationship benefits and reducing transaction costs (Dahlstrom & Nygaard, 1999; Heide & Miner, 1992; Jap, 1999). However, that line of research has overlooked competition as another dimension for analyzing and managing transaction costs and relationship benefits in buyer–supplier dyads. Broadly, competition between buyers and suppliers in a dyad occurs over the makeup and distribution of the total gains from serving the same end markets and concerns their individually optimal approaches to serving particular market segments. The sociological view of competition sees it as a contest between entities over resources, position, prestige, awards, or status (e.g., Andersen & Taylor, 2012). The economic view sees competition more narrowly as the market-based efforts of independent sellers to secure the business of prospective buyers by offering the most favourable terms (e.g., Kasper, 2008; Kirzner, 1997). In business, the concept of competition is used more broadly to include economic competition, as well as sociological forms of competition that can occur within organizations (Birkinshaw, 2001; Luo, 2005) or in business networks (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001). Our perspective is more closely aligned with this broader view of competition. We are concerned with the contest between buyers and suppliers in a dyad to directly increase their individual gains by undercutting gains for the other side. To account for both cooperation and competition in buyer–supplier relationships, we adopt the co-opetition typology (Luo, 2007b), where adapting corresponds to high competition–high cooperation situations; isolating corresponds to low competition–low cooperation situations; contending corresponds to high competition–low cooperation situations; and partnering corresponds to low competition–high cooperation situations. We argue that buyer–supplier dyads are clustered within these four types of co-opetition. We then examine the effects of each type on relationship benefits and transaction costs in a sample of 225 supplier–buyer dyads from the Chinese home appliance industry. By empirically validating Luo's (2007b) co-opetition typology, we make three main contributions to the literature. First, we offer a co-opetitive perspective to conceptualize buyer–supplier relationships. While prior research emphasizes the role of cooperation in this context, we offer an analytical platform permitting examination of dyadic behaviours along two dimensions – cooperation and competition. Second, we expand the range of possible contexts where co-opetition may apply. In addition to the common context of horizontal relationships, we apply co-opetition to vertical relationships. Third, the insights we derive from our approach allow us to enhance current knowledge about the relational perspective of business transactions and the related of and & Luo, & 2012). and suppliers in co-opetitive relationships they to greater common value from through networks while to more of the total gains from the The co-opetitive perspective that buyers and suppliers can individual and common organizations they on the of a common & 2002), mutual benefits by & Narus, on the of often by to a common of (Bengtsson & Kock, The has the cooperative of buyer–supplier relationships. and suppliers vertical partnerships to corresponding to their respective and et al., 2008). and suppliers enhance the cooperative of their relationship through greater mutual and shared & Narus, 1990; Heide & Miner, cooperative efforts may increase common gains (Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Heide & Stump, and and (Dahlstrom & Nygaard, 1999; Heide & Miner, However, the of buyer–supplier relationships is and may over the generation and of gains from the in the the the gains on the total of the of the the from the and the individual of and the the the gains on the total of the of the individual of in the and all costs associated with the the total gains are a of the total and the relationship-specific costs related to the competition may over each The of such competition is the in the parties' individually optimal to the same how the with the other of their business, such as the marketing and or the or buyers and suppliers may to their strategic with of their relationship are of the and of each relative may a platform the for and to and (Luo, 2002). and in the Chinese context on from such as and on costs for to their in the such as based on for the for for managing and related to in or and However, the about approaches to total are in and types of and are with to other costs that can or such as or and to their individual gains by total or transaction costs. firms are they may to value and The of may occur over how buyers and suppliers to current and expand future on their strategic may and or and approaches to serving the in approaches may buyer–supplier competition over the may a while the may a with each a different optimal home appliance and an over the of but often to expand market by the the and of such To a greater of the often the from the the for while the of the However, of to for to costs. To at from On to of with or of costs in the may from the of vertical and mutual the has it may to the of to the market or in it marketing 2004). In the to costs from a from the and to in a of and their but on in terms of and costs within the relationship other appliance to their to their on and increase their gains from serving the same end include in and The of occurs over how buyers and suppliers and the costs of the in the chain of such the can both the types and of the costs. may and can to costs or can to or as has often in the and In a the vertical partners may environmental as to greater of costs to the other in of to increase in to costs chain a and it costs. of the the to from the two firms their the competition between buyers and suppliers can forms partners to and forms one partner the other to to that one but the the over the two can the competition strategic is more of the form of competition. a co-opetitive buyer–supplier relationships can levels of co-opetitive on the respective levels of cooperation and competition in a competition the and high levels of cooperation the We adopt the co-opetition typology (Luo, – and contending – to describe four that can different behavioural and The partnering co-opetition type corresponds to high competition situations. A is the relationship between & and the & and each other in such as and In a they their and marketing & in by and the by buyer–supplier relationships, high cooperation that both common and on each and to the relationship (Heide & Miner, while low competition that they about the strategic approach to serving a particular end The adapting co-opetition type corresponds to high competition situations. in competition, 2005, and in market information exchange, and a through by a the vertical partners in their individual approaches to serving the same end they to of their mutual interdependence and relationship-specific The isolating co-opetition type corresponds to low competition in which buyers and suppliers relationships with or may often such as the of and situation a and relationship & The contending co-opetition type corresponds to low competition low and and (Luo, and suppliers to with each other they in their to market In this buyers and suppliers are more to or to transactions & 1994), and may more relationships & The and as they strategic and low and relationship-specific relationships are subject to both benefits and costs. While research has been to relationship benefits in dyadic business relationships, been to their transaction costs (e.g., & reducing costs is to value and a in relationship and (Cannon & Homburg, 2001). relationships in the horizontal context the by which cooperation and competition affect relationship benefits and transaction costs. in the of co-opetition that cooperation and competition are cooperation and competition syncretic both firms et al., 1997). simultaneous and cooperative global to seek effects of competition and (Luo, In buyer–supplier relationships, cooperation and competition are factors and in horizontal where firms are by in buyer–supplier contexts the firms are their relationship is more by cooperative such as and justice perceptions are relationships between industry behaviours based on are and In of the pursuit of economic gains is incompatible with the of relationships through and that relationship while are and in the – to the relationship the transaction In a buyer–supplier relationship is based on and in may cooperation in the relationship approach is subject to lock-in and to environmental In such a approach may we the in our we that the of in those situations. the of and where the levels of relationship benefits and transaction costs are as of cooperation and competition for each of the four co-opetitive situations. We that in the isolating type where cooperation and competition are levels of relationship benefits and transaction costs relationships can and in but possible transaction costs and (Buvik & Reve, 2001; Luo, & & 2002). cooperation relationship benefits increase and transaction costs to these levels partnering In competition relationship benefits and transaction costs increase to the levels contending the of and both cooperation and competition are high adapting the levels of relationship benefits the levels to cooperation but in the partnering type to competition. transaction levels the levels to competition but in the contending type to In the we apply that to derive our two benefits and transaction costs in the co-opetition typology a relationship transaction costs. with lines to to to and with lines are corresponding to in levels to other on the of and each co-opetition type is associated with different relationship In the isolating buyers and suppliers economic to the of their However, the gains are to the is and has low the vertical partners may with their their and to relationship-specific satisfaction or 1999). benefits are to increase more for the partnering type for the other three types buyers and suppliers in the of dyadic and in pursuit of their cooperative & as a & 1992; & to improve economic & 2000; Jap, and as an for knowledge and The benefits, along with and partner perceptions of in relationship & benefits are to for the adapting type of high competition levels. in a relationship buyer–supplier and of the other and & 2005), and & 2003). The their positive of their partners & Narus, that it more to on related to economic and to the relationship benefits those in the isolating While firms in adapting dyads and of their high levels of relationship benefits, firms in isolating dyads relationship-specific benefits transactions are and The benefits from relationship-specific in the adapting with competition, the benefits such In buyer–supplier relationship benefits in the partnering type in the adapting in the adapting type in the isolating and in the isolating type in the contending cooperation and competition in buyer–supplier relationships an and in transaction costs different the four co-opetition In the isolating low and of transaction allow buyers and suppliers to adopt a and a for potential (Williamson, The low levels of interdependence and are associated with low costs and appropriation reducing the to relational governance & & 1985). buyers and suppliers in the isolating type are subject to transaction costs and from behavioural or environmental (Buvik & Reve, 2001; et al., & 2002). costs are to increase in the contending and among all four of in strategic approaches and as well as low between buyers and situation the of on with to and & and and information about each of & firms in such dyads to competition more they to the in and of & and the and of & the two may relationship for gains & 1992; Luo, the relationship with et al., that cooperation is to transaction costs in the adapting type with those in the contending the firms in the dyad more and increasingly mutual benefits, they the of and to information and allow & In as buyers and suppliers to relational and they can more from (Luo, & or in & 2002). cooperation transaction costs in the adapting type with those in the contending the levels are to those in the isolating While the isolating type has of transaction costs to a of relationship-specific and low high competition in the adapting type potential from behavioural and environmental The transaction costs In buyer–supplier transaction costs in the isolating type in the partnering in the adapting type in the isolating and in the contending type in the adapting We used from in home appliance industry and their The Chinese home appliance industry to more of global home appliance each of the include and as well as the and we to examine both relationship benefits and costs from a co-opetitive perspective, on a industry in a is it to the effects of and In we on the a industry to the of environmental on these We a and from firms all and in We home appliance which is the to a of we to on the to describe their relationship with their three of and our we the we a of that relationships with the in our the to these firms and the same we 225 our sample of 225 dyads. On the buyer–supplier relationships are the sample has in within in terms of number of and and We to that about the business relationship they in the of our and of our for the The other directly in the The their for an of among and among On a the of knowledge about the relationship among from firms and among from To for in the we and and about their such as type of and relationship duration with the between the and the firms In we a on associated with and for both and and one for most of the among the and this we to for common & First, we used from both and to the of common Second, we for all the Third, we to more and to in our we the that the for research and that or we the to for and our are at the of a relationship we the value of the and the for the within the We the and the within each dyad in about each of the by for The results between the two in their to most of the To the in our study we in prior research. We focused on three relationship benefits – economic performance, knowledge and relationship satisfaction – and three transaction costs – and and costs. to such as market position, greater and of et al., to the in which buyers and suppliers and knowledge about of their business, such as competition, market or marketing et al., 2003). satisfaction positive from the of all of a relationship with another & Narus, The costs of a relationship and the costs of derive from the for (Dahlstrom & Nygaard, 1999). costs to the of and that both their The potential for to costs to or In addition to the main of we three – in and relationship buyer–supplier and by economic to vertical partnerships et al., and as mutual to the relationship & reducing transaction costs. in may in which the distribution of and costs & 2003). as the of a buyer–supplier can improve relationships & and from and (Heide & Stump, & 2012). and for each the and are greater levels of To examine and we used three First, we on the factors Second, we a The results for both the and the in the and dyad and with the value for each greater We the of through a of & The results that for of factors in the a a of the for the between two factors Third, the by two is greater their levels of & that our and We used a number of different of the among the four and The results that the are by four corresponding to the adapting co-opetition We to the on in relationship benefits and transaction costs among the four co-opetition We the three types of relationship benefits and the three types of transaction costs as separate and we independent the results from these The in economic between the partnering type and the adapting type and in economic between the isolating type and the contending type However, the of economic in the two types is in the two types value The competition effect may occur economic mainly on the of which is by the and by competition & 1997). the results that the of knowledge in buyer–supplier relationships is in the partnering type in the adapting type in the adapting type in the isolating type and in the isolating type in the contending type with a value relationship the results that it is in the partnering type in the adapting type in the adapting type in the isolating type and in the isolating type in the contending type where the of is high value is the results in transaction costs the four The results in the levels of and costs between the adapting type and the contending type but the of these costs is in the adapting type in the isolating type and in the isolating type in the partnering type with a value to the results between the adapting type and the contending type and in costs between the isolating type and the partnering type However, the costs in the two types are the corresponding in the two types value the results in costs between the adapting type and the contending type but the of the costs is in the adapting type in the isolating type and in the isolating type in the partnering type where the of is high value our are the approach may To this we a where competition and cooperation as in separate one for each of the relational of – relationship benefits and transaction costs the by and we the of competition and The results from the the results from the In the of for the terms the of and of the effects for cooperation and competition in buyer–supplier relationships. the for the of our In this we apply co-opetition typology (Luo, to in relationship benefits and transaction costs in 225 buyer–supplier relationships in the Chinese home appliance industry. dyadic we that the partnerships in our sample are of four distinct and The four types different benefits to relationships in economic performance, knowledge and relationship three of transaction and and costs. The results that both cooperation and competition affect relationship competition affects transaction and cooperation effects on transaction costs are most at low levels of competition. competition transaction costs and relationship benefits cooperation stimulates greater relationship benefits, it to affect transaction costs. a co-opetitive view of buyer–supplier relationships and prior research by and of a range of behaviours within dyads along two dimensions – cooperation and competition. While prior research has cooperation as the main mechanism to transaction costs and increase relationship benefits, we that competition is for analyzing and managing Our main are in this While the results with prior research in that relationship benefits are associated with cooperation and with competition, insights from that transaction costs are by competition but related to research has that cooperation associated with relationship benefits, associated with transaction and the main such in buyer–supplier relationships. our results that the are along cooperation and competition competition may more in managing transaction costs. that to in this may along the two separate future research may from incorporating a co-opetitive view of buyer–supplier relationships. our valuable insights to the co-opetition which has that cooperation and competition are and increase common et al., Luo, 2007b). Our results that cooperation and competition effects in in buyer–supplier relationships. co-opetition research to the context of buyer–supplier relationships insights about between cooperation and competition. that cooperation and competition in buyer–supplier relationships are and in is for the relational view of business transactions and the related of and a relationship is based on the is on common that expand benefits are and to cooperation and are incompatible in cooperative relationships 2011; However, relationships are they are to improve through as a competition in buyer–supplier relationships and that and negative the context for our we these to as a form of relational et al., 2012). First, in a where is is in cooperative entities such as buyer–supplier relationships. Chinese firms may a form of and individual in the business of other such as and of the been in a framework between Chinese firms in competition (Luo, & Second, buyer–supplier relationships that are based on may incompatible with this to of such and to as from the about and study a potential of our framework to future research. we the co-opetition typology by we of such as the and of in in strategic and or perceptions of in the research co-opetition has in addition to such as low transaction costs and the relational approach has lock-in that may in and in by or of the may enhance competition we examine such potential firms' strategic firms they may in the distribution of from serving the same end market and more focused on the of firms they may to and more to for our of competition to but of competition. research improve the of our between and in low levels of multiple for competition. in contexts where buyer–supplier are based on more or predominantly cooperative forms over competition is based on the between the in their individually optimal approaches to a particular market contexts that to such or between and stimulate competition our approach in other contexts, more research is to and the examination of benefits and costs in other co-opetitive relationship benefits and costs in buyer–supplier relationships from a co-opetitive perspective a unified approach to the of relationship prior research has focused on this by the effects of individual factors on relationship benefits, and in a on transaction we into a common framework four of vertical relationships – relationship benefits, transaction and competition. We that the and that affect relationship are in cooperative or A of relationship in buyer–supplier relationships that both are To this we a platform for the of and in buyer–supplier relationships, the for in other We are to the and two for the and and to the of and the for and in for their research from and is a at of & in such as of of the of of of current research include and supply chain relationship strategic and strategic and strategic is the and of at the of of a at from has over a and over research in in management and research on global multinational in emerging and management in from and is an at the of & in of & and other research include relationship in the Chinese context, and is a in business and strategic management at the of of from has in in business and research on the and approaches of firms in and contexts and on and and management of cooperation and competition.