When entrepreneurs instigate institutional change through coopetition: The case of winemakers in south of France

• Author: Sophie d'Armagnac,Julien Granata,Mickael Géraudel
• Date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2304
• Published date: 01 November 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

When entrepreneurs instigate institutional change through

coopetition: The case of winemakers in south of France

Julien Granata

1

| Mickael Géraudel

2

| Sophie d'Armagnac

3

1

Montpellier Business School, Montpellier

Research in Management, France

2

Centre for Research in Economics and

Management, University of Luxembourg,

Luxembourg

3

Toulouse Business School, Université de

Toulouse, France

Correspondence

Mickael Géraudel, University of Luxembourg,

Centre for Research in Economics and

Management, Campus Kirchberg, L-1359

Luxembourg.

Email: mickael.geraudel@uni.lu

Abstract

Winemakers in South France combine contingently institutional logics to achieve

economic performance. Entrepreneurs who decide to cooperate with their competi-

tors must manage four phases of “coopetition”: launch, formalization, protection, and

reinforcement. They engage in the coopetition process by referring to a professional

logic that becomes dominant, and they complete the process by fostering a commu-

nity logic that is combined with the professional logic. Identity and legitimacy are the

key elements that entrepreneurs segregate and blend, which entails new combina-

tions in the respective influential power of state logic, professional logic and commu-

nity logic.

1|INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurs tend to develop coopetition strategies—relationships

that simultaneously embody both competition and cooperation

(Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996)—to collectively confront environ-

mental forces (Astley & Fombrun, 1983; Lechner & Leyronas, 2009).

Despite the risk of opportunistic behaviors on the part of competitors,

entrepreneurs need to cooperate (Lu & Beamish, 2001), to become

global (Ulubasoglu, Akdis, & Bayrak Kok, 2009), or to develop techno-

logical innovations to survive (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). As for alliance

and partnering, scholars working on the entrepreneurial activity of

implementing coopetition have mainly addressed the efficiency stand-

point, in terms of expectations and strategies (Gnyawali & Park,

2009). However, as advocated recently (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Li, 2010;

Greenman, 2013), an entrepreneurial activity can be considered under

an institutional perspective, acknowledging the influence of the cul-

tural context on the multi-level entrepreneurial activity. Greenman

(2013) examines the entrepreneurial activity by framing the cultural

embeddedness of entrepreneurs through the examination of the con-

straining or enabling the power of institutional logics. However, with

such an entrepreneurial action as the implementation of coopetition,

there is more than dealing with cultural embeddedness. Implementing

coopetition modifies the environment itself by transforming the frame

of reference that shapes entrepreneurial action.

The implementation of coopetition means that entrepreneurs act

purposefully as change agents, being institutional entrepreneurs. They

attempt to change the institutional order by proposing new norms

and new ways of interacting to achieve their goals (Battilana, Leca, &

Boxenbaum, 2009; Child et al., 2007; Phillips & Tracey, 2007; Tracey,

Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011; Dorado, 2013). Considered from the perspec-

tive of institutional entrepreneurship, the implementation of

coopetition indicates “changes that break with the institutionalized

template”(Battilana et al., 2009: 68). This attempt is collective:

Dorado (2013) indicates that the power to change institutions relies

on collective efforts. Institutional change is often empirically studied

at the national level (Divito, 2012; Dorado, 2013; Smallbone & Welter,

2012), whereas institutions can also be changed at the local level by

groups aiming to improve economic performance. In this perspective,

institutional entrepreneurs implement coopetition to develop a new

context for action.

Scholars investigate the research on entrepreneurial action and

institutional change through two directions. On the first hand,

scholars address the process through which entrepreneurs can give

impetus to and achieve institutional change (Bruton et al., 2010;

Tolbert, David, & Sine, 2011; Welter & Smallbone, 2011). However,

the role of these approaches is to understand the evolution of prac-

tices. The focus is on institutional work related to practices and

boundary work (Greenman, 2013; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010), the

promotion of alternatives and the gradual emergence of new practices

and renewed social structures (Dorado, 2013; Greenwood & Suddaby,

2006; Stal et al. 2014; Van Bockhaven, Matthyssens, & Vandenbempt,

JEL classification code: L26.

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2304

Strategic Change. 2019;28:409–422. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 409