Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2017

Innovation through Coopetition: An analysis of small- and medium-

sized trust companies operating in the Liechtenstein financial centre

Sascha Kraus

Institute for Entrepreneurship, University of Liechtenstein

Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein

Email: sascha.kraus@uni.li

Jasmin Schmid

University of Liechtenstein

Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein

Email: jasmin.schmid@uni.li

Johanna Gast

Montpellier Business School – MRM

2300, Avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier Cedex 4, France

Email: j.gast@montpellier-bs.com

Abstract

Coopetition has received increasing attention in the academic literature. Prior research has examined

the benefits and risks of coopetition as well as its potential impact on innovation in many different

contexts, including large companies and manufacturing industries. Surprisingly, despite the

omnipresence of small- and- medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the growing relevance of service

industries, coopetition in these contexts has not yet been widely explored. This study seeks to broaden

the present understanding of coopetition by finding an answer to the research question “How do small-

and medium-sized trust companies apply coopetition in the Liechtenstein trust industry and how can

this strategy facilitate innovation?” As such, the presented work investigates the application of

coopetition by small- and medium-sized trust companies operating in the Liechtenstein financial centre.

The qualitative expert interviews with major actors in the Liechtenstein trust industry reveal that

coopetition is a frequently applied business strategy among Liechtenstein trust companies, members of

the Liechtenstein financial centre and international competitors. The trustees’ conservative attitude,

however, is found to be a typical barrier to coopetition, since it induces trustees to give priority to the

protection of their own business. Nevertheless, coopeting partners recognise their ability to derive

crucial benefits from their cooperative interactions with rival organisations in terms of possibilities to

share resources, costs and know-how. Moreover, coopetition enables coopetitors to innovate their

current business models.

Keywords: Coopetition, Service Industry, Financial Industry, Innovation

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

1 INTRODUCTION

Many companies are under consistent pressure for survival and corporate success, given the

ongoing changes in economic environments (Park, Srivastava, & Gnyawali, 2014). External factors of

change include globalization, regulation, transition of countries into free market economies, stronger

competition through growing markets and constantly changing consumer behaviours (Volberda, Van

den Bosch, Flier, & Gedajlovic, 2001). These changes force companies to adapt to new market

conditions and to constantly innovate their products, services, and processes to remain competitive in

the marketplace (Bouncken & Kraus, 2013). Although adaptation to external changes and innovations

are fundamental factors for successful companies in the long term (Engel & del-Palacio, 2011), it

should be noted that many companies do not have enough experience or resources to react fast enough

to the changing economic landscape or to innovate their products, services, and processes. Facing such

difficulties, companies may consider engaging in coopetition, a special type of inter-organisational

collaboration (Bouncken, Gast, Kraus, & Bogers, 2015) which implies “that two firms can be involved

in and benefit from both cooperation and competition simultaneously” (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000, p.

411). Typically, competitors cooperate to increase their access to financial, human, social, or material

resources of their partners or to benefit from their partners’ knowhow, experiences and skills

(Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Kraus, Meier, Niemand, Bouncken, & Ritala, 2017).

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), defined by the European Commission (2003) as

companies with less than 250 employees, might particularly benefit from coopetition since these firms

face different problems compared to larger firms which potentially motivate them to adopt a

coopetition strategy. Such problems include their relatively small size, rising research and development

(R&D) costs, risks associated with innovation, their oftentimes limited market presence and

constrained access to financial, human, social, and material resources. Stemming from these

difficulties, SMEs tend to be particularly vulnerable and exposed to economic fluctuations (Gnyawali

& Park, 2009; Morris, Koçak, & Özer, 2007). In this case, coopetition might represent a new strategic

option (Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2003) as it provides access to resources

and technologies necessary to develop and introduce new products or services (Raza-Ullah, Bengtsson,

& Kock, 2014). Not surprisingly, several studies have emphasised the potentially positive link between

coopetition and innovation (e.g., Bouncken, Clauß, & Fredrich, 2016; Ritala & Hurmelinna-

Laukkanen, 2013).

Although the topic of coopetition has recently received increasing attention in academic literature,

existing research is rather limited as it focusses primarily on coopetition as a strategy for large

companies (e.g., Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Gnyawali, He, & Madhavan, 2006) and investigates

coopetition mainly in manufacturing industries including engineering sectors (e.g., Salvetat &

Géraudel, 2012), technology sectors (e.g., Pereira & Leitão, 2016), or transportation sectors (e.g., Wu,

Choi, & Rungtusanatham, 2010). Interestingly, research merely analyses coopetition in resources-

constrained SMEs (e.g., Bengtsson & Johansson, 2014; Levy et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2007) and

service industries (e.g., Nair, Narasimhan, & Bendoly, 2011; Okura, 2007) including the financial

sector (e.g., Czakon, 2009). This is surprising given the omnipresence of SMEs as well as the high

importance of service industries in many economies.

This study seeks to fill this void in research by further developing the understanding of coopetition

in the financial service industry. Therefore, the application of coopetition, its potential barriers and

benefits as well as its implications for innovation are analysed in SMEs operating in the Liechtenstein

trust industry. This industry has faced significant structural changes since 2008 when the Liechtenstein

government decided to develop stricter regulations to improve their image in the international context

and implement a white money policy (Liechtenstein Marketing, 2014). These changes represented

fundamental changes in the economic environment of Liechtenstein trust companies as they have been

forced to adjust and innovate their business models and the services they offer. In this context,

coopetition seems a potential escape route for small- and medium-sized trust companies to join forces

as an attempt to increase their power to grow, survive and innovate in this stricter regulated business

environment. Therefore, the study aims to answer the following research question:

How do small- and medium-sized trust companies apply coopetition in the Liechtenstein trust

industry and how can this strategy facilitate innovation?

Considering the novelty of this research, a qualitative, exploratory research design is employed to

understand coopetition of SMEs in the financial service industry. To this end, the insights of expert

interviews with actors in the Liechtenstein trust industry are interpreted in an exploratory way to shed

light on the coopetitive activities of small- and medium-sized trust companies.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

2.1 Coopetition

2.1.1 Definition, benefits and risks

The term coopetition was coined by the CEO of the American multinational software and services

company Novell, Raymond Noorda, who referred to his firm’s business relationships with licensees

which were, simultaneously, their rivals (Lechner, Soppe, & Dowling, 2016). Until 1996, however,

coopetition remained rather unnoticed and it was only in 1996 that scholars and managers have started

to recognize this strategy. In the last two decades, coopetition has attained increasing popularity in

theory and practice. Accordingly, the number of publications on coopetition mostly in management and

business research has been growing steadily (Gast, Filser, Gundolf, & Kraus, 2015). As such, a large

range of contexts and industries have been examined including the contexts of MNEs and SMEs as

well as manufacturing and service industries while a major focus on MNEs and manufacturing

industries can be observed. The analysed service industries include financial (e.g., Czakon, 2009) and

insurance services (e.g., Okura, 2007), tourism (e.g., Wang & Krakover, 2008), education (e.g., Nair et

al., 2011), and health care (e.g., Peng & Bourne, 2009).

Coopetition can have a number of potential risks and benefits (Bouncken et al., 2015). Starting

with the possible risks, the management of coopetition is challenging (Gnyawali & Park, 2009) and

sometimes even dangerous (Pellegrin-Boucher, Le Roy, & Gurău, 2013). The potential danger may be

the result of tensions which can occur between the cooperating rivals and their employees since their

interactions are characterized by both cooperation and competition logics (Bouncken et al., 2015).

Coopetitors are thus acting simultaneously as friends who share and rivals who withhold and protect

information and knowledge. In this situation, opportunism and knowledge leakage represent major

risks. As knowledge and information are exposed to rivals and the exchange of knowledge and

resources with competitors is facilitated, partners may develop an opportunistic mindset. As a

consequence, they may become eager to use their power to force their partners to act only in their own

firm’s best interest or they may use and appropriate mutually developed knowledge and expertise for

their own firm’s advantage (Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Pellegrin-Boucher et al., 2013). Moreover,

significant knowledge may leak unintentionally to a rival (Ritala & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2013).

Both opportunism and knowledge leakage can hamper the joint generation of innovations (Cassiman,

Di Guardo, & Valentini, 2009) and force coopeting partners to carefully weigh knowledge sharing

against knowledge protection (Pellegrin-Boucher et al., 2013).

Coopetition can also bring significant benefits (Ritala & Sainio, 2014). For instance, coopetitors

can share their resources and knowledge (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000), costs, as well as risks and

uncertainties related to the development of innovations (Bouncken et al., 2015). Further, by combining

all partners’ experiences and expertise, coopeting firms can create a common knowledge base (Ritala &

Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009) which may be used to develop their innovation capacity (e.g., Quintana-

Garcia & Benavides-Velasco, 2004; Ritala, 2012). As a result, the involved firms may come up with

ideas for products and/or services which they would be unable to create without coopetition.

Additionally, such external knowledge could also bring in new perspectives in relation to strategies or

business models (Roy & Yami, 2009). In fact, industry knowledge obtained through the cooperation

with competitors is a critical success factor and can provide companies with a sharp competitive

advantage (Loebecke, Van Fenema, & Powell, 1999). Another important impact of coopetition is that

coopetitors can add value to their own products, services or even processes (Golnam, Ritala, &

Wegmann, 2014) through coopetition. As Gnyawali and Park (2011), for instance, have argued,

increasing value positively influences every organisational function, meaning there is an opportunity

for widespread organisational advancement for the participants engaging in coopetition. Hence, the

combination of both competition and cooperation can foster the creation of additional value (Bouncken

et al., 2015).

2.1.2 Coopetition in SMEs

Prior research has shown that SMEs have to deal with specific problems that may drive them into

coopetition. Based on their small size and the associated liability of smallness (Akdoğan & Cingšz,

2012), rising R&D costs, risks associated with innovation, their limited market presence and

constrained access to financial, human, social, and material resources, SMEs tend to be especially

vulnerable and particularly exposed to fluctuations in their economic environment (Gnyawali & Park,

2009; Morris et al., 2007). Further, they frequently lack both the capacity and resources to exploit

knowledge and opportunities without the help of external partners (Levy et al., 2003).

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

Facing these constraints and seeking to tackle these problems, SMEs may opt for coopetition as a

new strategic option (Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Levy et al., 2003). Through coopetition, competitors

typically attempt to combine the advantages of cooperation and competition (Bengtsson & Kock,

2000). While cooperation enables access to resources and technologies necessary to develop and

introduce new products/services or to access new markets, competition makes sure that creative

tensions between the competitors remain in force (Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco, 2004, Raza-

Ullah et al., 2014).

By sharing resources and capabilities, as well as costs and risks for innovation through

coopetition, coopeting resource-constrained SMEs may mitigate uncertainty, improve innovation, gain

strength against rivals, and realize economies of scale (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). Moreover, they may

be better prepared to react to business disruptions (Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Morris et al., 2007), to

improve their position and legitimacy in the current market (Bengtsson & Johansson, 2014) or to enter

a completely new market (segment) (Morris et al., 2007). When trust, commitment and strong

relationships are managed efficiently in coopetition, SMEs can even increase their survival potential

(Tidström, 2009) and outperform bigger competitors by enlarging their market share and improving

their financial performance (Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Levy et al., 2003).

2.1.3 Coopetition and innovation

Innovations are a long-term success factor for any type of company, including SMEs or large

companies (Filser, Brem, Gast, Kraus, & Calabrò, 2016; Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 2001). This

importance stems from the fact that innovations usually allow companies to grow and perform better

and to offer a competitive advantage (Ireland & Webb, 2007) which is important in order to remain

competitive in rapidly changing and highly technological environments. Given today’s aggressive

competitive environment, it is crucial for all types of firms including SMEs to engage in ongoing

innovation processes to remain competitive over the long-run (Ritala, Kraus, & Bouncken, 2016).

Coopetition may positively influence the processes of creating and developing innovations

(Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Roig‐Tierno, Kraus, & Cruz, 2017). As coopetitors interact in the same or

closely related industry, they face similar market conditions, customer needs and uncertainty situations

which lead to a similar perception of future changes and the creation of innovations (Baumard, 2009).

Existing findings emphasise a positive relationship between coopetition and innovation in large firms

as well as SMEs, including a positive effect on incremental and radical innovations (Bouncken and

Kraus, 2013; Ritala & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2013; Bouncken & Fredrich, 2012), product and

process innovations (Pereira & Leitão, 2016) and the number of product lines (Quintana-Garcia &

Benavides-Velasco, 2004). Further, coopetition can be of importance in innovation-intensive, dynamic

and complex industries with short product life-cycles, high R&D investments, and high technological

standards (Gnyawali & Park, 2009). Here, coopetition facilitates access to complementary resources

and know-how (Carayannis & Alexander, 1999) and diminishes knowledge asymmetries (Enberg,

2012). As a result, coopetiting firms may benefit from a win–win-situation of stronger innovativeness

(Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco, 2004), lower overall costs, higher resource and knowledge

stocks, and improved effectiveness and efficiency (Chin, Chan, & Lam, 2008).

This study focusses on the application of coopetition and its implications for innovation in the

financial service industries, in particular in the Liechtenstein trust industry, which represents a

collection of service-oriented companies. In the last decade, service industries have become an

important part of western economies (Snyder, Witell, Gustafsson, Fombelle, & Kristensson, 2016) as

they have been growing faster than manufacturing industries (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015) and still

possess huge growth potential (Zulkepli, Hasnan, & Mohtar, 2015). In service industries, innovations

and especially service innovations are crucial success factors (Steinicke, Marcus Wallenburg, &

Schmoltzi, 2012) and companies focus on innovating their services rather than their products (Parida,

Sjödin, Lenka, & Wincent, 2015).

Service innovation includes many different aspects which makes it difficult to develop one

universal definition (Martin, Gustafsson, & Choi, 2016). Snyder et al. (2016) define service innovation

as a construction or extension of companies’ services and processes. According to Witell, Snyder,

Gustafsson, Fombelle, and Kristensson (2016), technologies and new knowledge are the basic drivers

of service innovation. Therefore, service innovation is often associated with technology or product

innovation. Instead of innovating existing service models, most service companies innovate the

required products or processes which come along with their services. Kindström, Kowalkowski, and

Sandberg (2013) suggest that the focus should lie on innovating the services, markets, and business

models of companies operating in service industries. Business models are collections of services which

are offered to the customer as a collective entity. Business model innovation is understood as a type of

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

innovation that “complements the traditional subjects of process, product, and organisational

innovation” (Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011, p. 1032).

Despite their relevance, service industries are rarely analysed in coopetition research (e.g., Okura,

2007; Wang & Krakover, 2008; Nair et al., 2011; Peng & Bourne, 2009), and it remains to be studied

whether coopetition can influence service innovations positively.

2.2 Liechtenstein and its financial centre and trust industry

2.2.1 Liechtenstein financial centre

Service industries and financial services are becoming increasingly relevant sectors in the Western

economy (Snyder et al., 2016). The financial centre of Liechtenstein represents an important financial

service centre and includes the traditional banking industry, the trust industry, the asset management

industry, the insurance industry and the fund industry.

The financial centre of Liechtenstein is well positioned in the overall marketplace of Liechtenstein

as it plays a major role for the economic performance and the strong capital power of Liechtenstein

(Liechtenstein Institute of Professional Trustees and Fiduciaries, 2014). In 2015, 5.000 employees

worked in the financial industry of Liechtenstein, which represented 16% of the total workforce of

Liechtenstein (Official Administration Principality of Liechtenstein, 2015) given its total population of

37.129 (National Statistics Institute Liechtenstein, 2015). After manufacturing and other service

industries, financial services provided by the financial centre represent the country’s third largest

industry with 27% of the gross value added (Liechtenstein Marketing, 2014). Further, the financial

centre generates one-third of the total value creation in Liechtenstein.

Liechtenstein has no state debts which reflects the country’s immense capital power.

Liechtenstein’s attractiveness as a financial centre is further evident in its low and straightforward

corporate taxation amount of 12.5% (Liechtenstein Institute, 2015) and its representation in two strong

and free marketplaces, namely Switzerland and the European Economic Area (EEA).

2.2.2 Trust industry

One of the most important sectors in the financial centre is the trust industry. In fact, in 2010,

almost 90% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the financial centre of Liechtenstein was

accumulated by the trust industry, indicating that the trust sector generated a GDP worth about 823

million CHF, equal to 14.5% of the whole country’s GDP. The value was reached by a relatively small

number of trust companies. In 2015, Liechtenstein was home to 378 trustees representing 251 trust

companies, including 76 single trustees and 53 trustees or trust companies with a limited trust license

(Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein, 2016). The small number of trustees stems from the strict

guidelines of the Liechtenstein government with respect to the qualifications to become a trustee. A

trustee is required to obtain the permission of the Financial Market Authority (FMA) to become a

trustee, to pass the trust exam, and needs to have three years of work experience in a related

occupation.

The success of the Liechtenstein trust industry is also the result of the country’s liberal company

law which was developed during the economic crisis in 1920. In fact, by means of this law,

Liechtenstein’s trust industry could reach a competitive advantage compared to other financial

industries as its major business model was built on the existence of trust enterprises and foundations

and has been specifically developed and adapted to the economic environment (Liechtenstein Institute

of Professional Trustees and Fiduciaries, 2014).

2.2.3 Regulatory changes in the Liechtenstein financial centre

Recently, the Liechtenstein government implemented several regulatory and political changes as a

reaction to the financial crisis (Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein, 2016) as well as the tax

scandals which endangered the image of the Liechtenstein financial centre and influenced its

international relations (Liechtenstein Marketing, 2014).

In 2005, Liechtenstein established the FMA, responsible for the operative supervision of the whole

financial industry of Liechtenstein. In addition, the FMA verifies that the members of the financial

centre operate correctly according to national and international regulations and standards (Liechtenstein

Institute of Professional Trustees and Fiduciaries, 2014) and monitors whether money laundering or

terror financing takes place (Official Administration Principality of Liechtenstein, 2015). Through the

supervision of the whole financial centre and the publication of annual reports, the FMA seeks to

guarantee transparency and safety for the customers. Further, the FMA is in charge of superintending

the disbursement of trustee licenses which guarantees safety, quality and transparency (Financial

Market Authority Liechtenstein, 2016).

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

Since 2008, Liechtenstein started to sign so-called Tax Information Exchange Agreements

and

Double Taxation Agreements

with a number of countries to improve the country’s image. Similarly, in

2013, the government decided to accept the standards of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development. These decisions represented important steps towards more transparency and

recognition in international relations.

Liechtenstein also implemented the European Market Infrastructure Regulation and the Capital

Requirements Regulation and Directive which regulates that banks need a higher proprietary capital to

ensure a higher financial stability of the financial sector (Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein,

2016). Further, the government attempted to bring the legal framework of Liechtenstein more in line

with the recommendations of the so-called Financial Action Task Force. Accordingly, Liechtenstein

developed a robust institutional framework for combating money laundering and terrorist financing and

moving towards greater transparency.

This increased regulation was primarily put into action by the government to develop the

consequent white money policy in an attempt to steer away from black-listing, to reach a more

sustainable economy with a long-term perspective, and to search for new economic opportunities.

Further, the signed agreements and implemented regulations helped to enhance the level of

transparency of the financial market in Liechtenstein, to become attractive for national and

international investors and to enable the Liechtenstein government to follow a white money policy.

Nevertheless, these regulations may also have harmed Liechtenstein, its financial centre, as well as

the actors in this industry, since bureaucracy increased and tax incomes decreased (Liechtenstein

Institute, 2015). In fact, due to its admission to the EEA, Liechtenstein was obliged to follow the

regulations of the EU which have been accompanied by a great amount of bureaucracy. For the trust

industry in particular, these regulations implied that trustees and asset managers faced stricter and more

complex regulations and their existing business models were no longer compatible, leading to changes

and reorientations within this industry.

Moreover, since the revision of the due diligence law in 2008, sensitive data had to be disclosed to

the Liechtenstein Financial Market Supervisory Authority, including the identification and verification

of the contracting party's identity, the identification and risk-based verification of the identity of the

beneficial owner, the preparation of a business profile, and the risk-adequate monitoring of the business

relationship (Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein, 2014). This step has strengthened the trustees’

duty of care towards the state and the client in an attempt to combat money laundering, terrorist

financing and organised crime (Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein, 2014). But these duties

brought a need for higher overall supervision which consequently led to increased costs and less

flexibility, while the overall safety of the customers and its assets increased (Heiss, 2013).

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research approach

Given the limited research on coopetition, this study is exploratory in nature to advance the

knowledge on coopetition in service industries and the financial sector in particular, two areas which

currently lack a well-structured theoretical base (Creswell, 2014). Therefore, this study applies a

qualitative research approach which facilitates theory-building within this field (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Qualitative research includes a set of different research approaches which aim to develop a holistic,

complex, and detailed understanding of a specific issue (Creswell, 2007).

In particular, expert interviews were conducted as they are a useful means to interpret not only the

present impacts of a certain phenomenon but also leave space for future outcomes. The application of

qualitative analyses in scientific publications shows that individual or group expert interviews are a

common method of qualitative research (Frels & Onwuegbuzie, 2013). In this study, individual expert

interviews were chosen as they represent the knowledge and opinions of individuals which can then be

compared and interpreted. Through such a comparison, conclusions and predictions can be made more

effectively than those of group interviews.

The Tax Information Exchange Agreements imply that Liechtenstein acknowledges other tax laws but

simultaneously applies and makes use of its own tax law. In addition, other states can obtain

information concerning one of their own citizens who is operating in Liechtenstein from Liechtenstein.

The Double Taxation Agreements regulate the taxation between two authorized states in the sense

that every state is allowed to tax a specific amount of money.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

3.2 Data collection

3.2.1 Individual expert interviews

Qualitative data were collected through expert interviews. Expert interviews are not an

independent method of qualitative research as this method is typically included in the group of “guided

interviews” (Bogner, Littig, & Menz, 2014). The interviews were guided by an interview guideline

consisting of semi-open questions that define the research field while small variations of questions

were allowed as well as follow-up questions on specific ideas. The interview guideline was developed

based on the literature review and the research question. After an introduction focusing on the personal

background of the interview participants, questions were being asked on their knowledge and opinions

concerning several themes, including (1) upcoming changes in the financial centre of Liechtenstein and

their effects, (2) potential future chances or opportunities for the Liechtenstein trust industry, (3) their

understanding of the concept of coopetition and possible strategic implications for their firms, (4) the

relationship between coopetition and the development of innovations and new business models, (5) the

results or advantages that could be developed through coopetition. To prove the functionality and

comprehensibility of the interview questions, a pre-test was carried out with a strategic manager of a

trust company (Creswell, 2014).

3.2.2 Selection of participants

The participating experts were randomly chosen to avoid a research bias. In this study, we only

interviewed experts from the Liechtenstein trust industry because this country has an international trust

industry and financial centre. To be selected, it was required that the expert worked in a high

management position of the respective firm. In total, nine experts were interviewed. These experts

include seven professionals from trust companies in Liechtenstein and two external experts. The

external experts are also acting within the trust industry but do not trade directly in the trust industry

itself. Assuming they work as a kind of control function in the whole financial area, their opinions and

understanding is of great value for the underlying research. In fact, the so-called “Financial Market

Authority” (FMA) or “Liechtenstein Institute of Professional Trustees and Fiduciaries” (THK) are the

most important regulatory bodies in the financial centre of Liechtenstein and the insights of their

experts are important to establish and represent an objective opinion and knowledge of the topic.

Further, these experts bring diverse expertise from the whole financial market. Therefore, the provided

data offers an overview not only of the trust industry but also of the broader financial centre in

Liechtenstein. Altogether, with this set of nine expert interviews, a saturation level was reached

whereby new data no longer yielded new insights (Creswell, 2014). The following table presents an

overview of the interview partners.

Table 1: Expert data

Interview

partner

Organisation

Function

Number of

employees

Years in trust

industry

Trustee A

Trust company

Director

Trustee B

Trust company

Successor of current

director (new generation)

Trustee C

Trust company

Director

Trustee D

Trust, administration of

property, fund management

company

Director

Trustee E

Trust company

IT department manager

100

Trustee F

Trust, compliance and law

company & bank

Trust advisory &

strategic department

manager

200

2 ½

Trustee G

Trust company

Strategic department

manager

2 ½

Regulator H

Regulating authority of the

trust industry

Director

Regulator I

Regulating authority of the

trust industry

Head of an other financial

intermediaries division

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

3.3 Data analysis

As a first step, the collected data were recorded and transcribed. This is necessary to confirm and

analyse the transcripts and to achieve usable and highly qualitative results. As a second step, the

transcripts were coded, representing the actual evaluation of the findings of the interviews. The main

goal here is to find homogeneous statements of the single expert interview to generalize the findings

and answer the research question.

Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007) explain different evaluation methods to generalize qualitative

data. In this study, the generalization is facilitated through the analysis of words. The spoken words and

experiences represent a specific unit of the collected sample. To generalize the spoken words, a certain

type of legitimation and representation is needed. Therefore, it is necessary to develop criteria and

codes to scan the spoken data to determine key statements which in turn are then used to generalize

(Zachariadis, Scott, & Barrett, 2013). This type of evaluation is called “open coding” (Steger, 2003).

Next, the different codes were compared, which enabled the identification and investigation of subject

words or headline commonalities of the interviews to generalize a specific statement or subject

(Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Through the collection of different codes, categories were built to

organize and present the results. Moreover, systematic connections were developed to answer the

research question (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Finally, the results were compared with the existing

theoretical ideas and prior findings to provide further theoretical impact and to illustrate correlations

with the existing understanding of coopetition in this field.

4 RESULTS: COOPETITION WITHIN THE LIECHTENSTEIN TRUST INDUSTRY

4.1 Types of coopetition

To survive as an international financial centre and to secure human and financial resources as well

as future profits, all participants agreed that coopetition represents a promising opportunity. As

Regulator I stated: “I am convinced that the concept could help to bundle resources and corporate

forces to create new opportunities.” Both groups of interview partners, trustees and regulators,

declared that they already employ a certain type of coopetition. The analysis revealed that three

different types of coopetition have so far been developed by the actors in the Liechtenstein trust

industry.

4.1.1 Coopetition with other Liechtenstein trust companies

Several trustees noted that they work together with one or more Liechtenstein trust company to

attain synergy effects and to bundle resources. Both regulators mentioned the example of four trust

companies which engaged in coopetition to survive and share resources.

Like trustees A, B, and E reported, they work closely together with competing trust companies, in

particular small companies since they tend to be more flexible. Trustees A and B also work in relatively

small trust companies, hence coopetition was identified among more or less equally sized partners.

These firms emphasised that the working proposition is much more balanced between the small firms

and the risk of being acquired by the competitor is minimized as acquisitions are hardly financed.

Trustee F, with 200 employees the largest of the interviewed trust companies, also cooperated

with smaller firms to enlarge resource volumes, mandates, or profits. Furthermore, coopetition

represented a means to potentially acquire the smaller trust company: “coopetition with a smaller trust

company is […] a great opportunity […] to acquire the smaller company after a certain time.”

(Trustee F). For instance, coopetition between a larger and a smaller trust company and a subsequent

acquisition of the small firm by the larger one was identified as a solution once the owner of the small

trust company was close to retirement. In this case, a win-win situation occurred as the smaller trustee

got assisted by the large partner during the final years in business, including the exchange of resources,

know how, back office services or information systems. In exchange, the retired trustee transferred or

sold the mandates to the large trust company.

4.1.2 Coopetition with members of the Liechtenstein financial centre

Coopetition also appeared with other members of the Liechtenstein financial centre. Every

interview participant stated that they were already engaged in this type of coopetition with one or more

actors of Liechtenstein’s financial center simultaneously. However, different members of the financial

centre were chosen as partners for coopetition.

Next to other trust companies, the most common partners include accountants, independent asset

managers, banks, lawyers, risk management offices, or back office service providers. This type of

coopetition was typically a larger project which was realized over a long period of time with a broad

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

project goal. These projects sought to promote and propose homogenous standards for a specific

market or customer segment.

The interviewed regulator explained two examples of this coopetition type. First, several trust

companies and other members of the Liechtenstein trust industry worked together to analyse the United

Kingdom (UK) market and sought to establish a common service standard tailored to the specific needs

of UK customers and authorities (Regulator H). Second, regulator I reported that they “developed a

coopetition project with several experts […]. The main goal is to figure out if the Islamic world would

be compatible with several financial services of Liechtenstein including, […] the trust industry. The

cooperating parties on this project include experts from the trust, IT and financial industry as well as

academic institutions.”

Coopetition with other members of the industry was recognized as a crucial success factor for the

future as it facilitates the development of innovations, the diversification of services, or the leveraging

of cross-selling opportunities. This means that several services, such as asset management and real

estate possibilities, are combined in one business model, increasing the range of services for customers.

4.1.3 Coopetition with international competitors

Coopetition was also observed among Liechtenstein trust companies and competitors from

international financial centres. Even though this type of cooperation was identified only by two of the

seven interviewed trustees, it was recognised as an essential means to enter international markets. The

trustees explained that it is fundamental to have frequent exchanges with local experts of international

markets. Given the fast changing and dynamic economy and regulatory environments, international

experts know their markets the best and through their help international financial sectors could be

investigated more easily and services could be innovated and adapted to fit the needs of those foreign

markets and customer segments. Therefore, trust companies in Liechtenstein engaged in coopetition

with foreign trust companies and tax companies as well as lawyers to provide optimal services to their

customers in these markets. Moreover, Regulator I mentioned that international partnerships need to be

developed to reduce costs and increase efficiency in international business processes.

According to some trustees (C, E, G) as well as both interviewed regulators, international

coopetition exists to explore specific customer segments or markets, including, for instance, UK

customers. This is especially useful for the UK market as mentioned by Regulator I. The UK market is

a particularly appealing market for the Liechtenstein trust industry since the UK offers a highly

attractive remittance basis tax regime for so-called ‘non-domiciled residents’. In a nutshell, this tax

regime allows foreign individuals to take residence in the UK without constituting their tax domicile in

the UK. Thus, foreign income and gains are not taxed in the UK as long as these income and gains are

not remitted to the UK. This tax regime especially attracts foreign High Net Worth Individuals;

individuals who are taxed on a remittance basis, mostly make use of offshore wealth structures, such as

in Liechtenstein, in order to shield their income and gains from UK income tax liabilities (HM Revenue

& Customs, 2016).

4.2 Barriers to coopetition

The interviewees agreed that recognizing potential opportunities and chances that come along with

coopetition are fundamental for survival and future success. However, the majority of the interview

partners came to the conclusion that trustees’ conservatism represents the major barrier for developing

coopetition. As a result of their rather conservative attitude, trustees tend to give priority to the

protection of their own business, even while losing customers or revenues.

Several interviewees explained that the conservative attitude is directly related to the different

generations working in this industry, pointing to differences between younger and older generations.

Regulator I said: “In my opinion, the differences between the generations occur due to the fact that the

younger generation has a broader perspective and education, in contrast to a generation which is 80

years old and where the focus was always Liechtenstein, which in turn leads to a tight perspective.”

While the younger generation is used to work in environments where concepts such as cooperation and

sharing economies are becoming standard, the older generation grew up in a less complex and

international business environment in which competition was much more emphasised. Hence, the

younger generation was reported to possess a higher awareness of the possible opportunities of

coopetition than their older colleagues. The older generation had more difficulties to accept coopetition

as for them strategical flexibility was not necessarily a key requirement both personally and

organisationally. Moreover, the data revealed that the awareness for coopetition was higher if the

trustee was younger and not close to retirement. In fact, when retiring soon some of the older trustees

did not truly consider new strategic options like coopetition.

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

Trustee A stated: “In Liechtenstein, there is a proverb referring to the two oldest inhabitants of

Liechtenstein: The two oldest inhabitants in Liechtenstein are the ‘foehn’ and the envy.” Thus, a basic

requirement for coopetition in the Liechtenstein trust industry is the reduction of envy between trust

companies. Respondents suggested making coopetition projects public and communicating the

advantages and results in a transparent manner to reveal the creation of win-win situations through

coopetition and facilitate the development of a basic coopetition understanding among the actors in the

Liechtenstein trust industry.

Furthermore, the interviewed trustees reported that the most important requirements for

coopetition include proactiveness and trust. As such, coopetition should be initiated proactively by

means of small cooperative projects among the competitors. As soon as trust has been built up,

coopetition could become an integral part of corporate strategy.

4.3 Benefits of coopetition

Several positive results were achieved through coopetition including the possibility to share

resources, costs and know-how. Given the increasing number of regulations in the Liechtenstein trust

industry, trust companies faced resource shortages which constrained their possibilities of innovation,

internationalisation or strategy development (Regulator H and I). Through coopetition, required but

scarce resources were shared, representing an important and fundamental benefit especially for small-

and medium-sized companies as it supported their future survival. Moreover, costs for, e.g., the

development of information systems or compliance expenditures were shared and thus reduced for the

individual firms. Similarly, knowledge, information, and experiences were exchanged regarding

business model innovations and services.

Coopetition benefitted the participating companies not only as an exchange platform but also as a

means to successfully plan for the future, as explained by trustee B: “A growth in capital, profit,

economic success and highly qualified employees are definitely results which can be reached.”

Moreover, a strong worldwide network could be developed to extend coopetition possibilities and

leverage synergistic effects.

4.4 Innovation through coopetition

The interviewees emphasised that coopetition enabled them to innovate their current business

models in terms of complexity and service range, as well as diversification and cross-selling of their

business models. When cooperating with competitors, the involved companies found themselves in a

better position to specialise in one of their core competences and to optimize internal organisational

processes. Specialisation took place in compliance-related issues, legal advisory, back office services,

real estate services, asset management, or even fund management services. Regulator I said: “the

specialisation should take place at least in one unique selling proposition of the Liechtenstein trust

industry which are asset protection, privacy, and tax optimisation through the use of double taxation

treaties, succession planning, and family offices.” Through specialisation, a more efficient allocation of

services was achieved, allowing every business model to be customised for cost- and time-saving, since

the trust companies no longer needed to cover every single step independently. As a result, more

services, a higher service quality and more innovative pricing models were offered.

Taking a closer look at the nature of the service innovations facilitated by coopetition, innovations

were particularly identified for customer and organisational services. The main reason to innovate

customer services was to provide customers with more efficient solutions regarding time and costs as

well as asset protection, and to increase customer satisfaction. Trustee F stated: “Trust company F

already developed an innovative app for customers which provides the customer with necessary

information […] and a fact sheet of the Liechtenstein legal forms of companies […]. The advantage is

that it provides the customer with real-time data and current topics in wealth management in a cost-

efficient manner.” Trustee G explained that they were working on an agency service platform to relieve

customers of the time-consuming search for the right trust company. The agency service helped to

analyse the customer needs and to link the customer to the most suitable trust company.

Organisational service innovations seek to increase the efficiency, standardisation, and

centralization of organisational processes, and to reduce the time and costs spent by the organisations

on fulfilling compliance requirements. All interviewees expressed that regulations have been becoming

increasingly time-consuming. Although the interaction with customers should be the main aspect in the

trust industry, most of the processing time of handling customer cases is lost by complying with

regulations rather than interacting with customers and serving their needs. Organisational service

innovations can improve customer care and service customisation and help to fulfil due diligence

requirements more efficiently. Such innovations include digital information systems, IT-solutions, risk

software and compliance software. Here, coopetition helped to create new IT systems as trustee G

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

stated: “At the moment we are cooperating with other Liechtenstein trust companies regarding an IT

system, which supports us in the administration of businesses and customers.” Additionally, trustees A,

B, C, D, E, F and G already used an IT-solution that was developed on the basis of coopetition.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Discussion of the core findings

In recent years, the Liechtenstein government has implemented many regulations to improve the

image of the Liechtenstein financial centre in the international context and to integrate a white money

policy (Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein, 2016). Generally, these regulations had a positive

impact on the Liechtenstein financial centre as they supported the government’s efforts to regain a

pioneering position and respected reputation in the international environment as well as more financial

stability and overall transparency.

However, in this constantly changing economic and regulatory environment, the actors in the

entire financial centre and especially in the trust industry struggled with the large amount of additional

regulations and bureaucratic changes to be implemented within a short period. Our data revealed that

the most common consequences for the actors in the Liechtenstein trust industry were the increasing

need for internationalisation, customisation, personal contacts as well as rising compliance, time and

cost expenditures. In such dynamic environments, research has argued that coopetition can provide a

solution especially for small, resource-constrained firms as it allows them to overcome these

consequences and to restore economic values, success, and future growth in terms of profit, employees,

performance and resources (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Bouncken et al., 2015; Ritala & Hurmelinna-

Laukkanen, 2013). This study’s exploration of the application of coopetition as well as its barriers,

benefits and implications for innovation in service industries, i.e. the Liechtenstein trust industry,

revealed that coopetition represents a potentially beneficial strategy for resource-constrained small- and

medium-sized trust companies. Three different types of coopetition were identified: (1) coopetition

among the trust companies, (2) coopetition with other members of the Liechtenstein financial centre

and (3) coopetition with international competitors.

This last case of international cooperation among competitors is particularly interesting as this

type of coopetitive link has rarely been identified and analysed in existing coopetition research. This is

surprising since cooperation among international partners is said to contribute to firms’ innovation

performance (e.g., Zhang, Shu, Jiang, & Malter, 2010) by providing access to complementary

resources, technologies, and know-how on different geographical locations (Mc Cutchen Jr,

Swamidass, & Teng, 2008). Our findings support this view as the respondents pointed out this special

value of their international partners’ resources and knowledge. As such, coopetition can support

international opportunities and the internationalisation for SMEs (e.g., Kock, Nisuls, & Söderqvist,

2010).

Interestingly, the trustees’ conservatism was found to be an important factor that impacted the

decision to opt for coopetition or not. The findings showed that younger generations were more suitable

to engage in coopetition as they were used to working in environments where coopetition-related

concepts such as cooperation and sharing economies are important. Older generations, however, were

used to work in less complex and international business environments in which competition was much

more emphasised than cooperation or coopetition. This finding revealed that a firm’s propensity to

engage in coopetition does not only depend on organisational factors but certainly also on the personal

characteristics, attitudes, and orientations of the managers in charge of strategic decisions (Geraudel &

Salvetat, 2014). It can thus also be the managers’ age, education, cultural background, personality etc.

which can impact the likelihood to opt for coopetition.

Through coopetition, several benefits and opportunities were achieved which increased the

coopeting firms’ overall performance and built a basis for innovation (Ritala & Sainio, 2014). Our

research supported existing findings in the sense that mutual knowledge transfer and creation as well as

the sharing of resources, costs, time, and compliance expenditures are the most common benefits of

coopetition initiated by the trust companies in the Liechtenstein trust industry. Through these

exchanges, resource scarcities and corporate boundaries were reduced (Granata, Géraudel, Gundolf,

Gast, & Marques, 2016), synergistic and scale effects were leveraged, new market entry was supported

(Bouncken & Fredrich, 2012; Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Ritala, 2012), and innovation was facilitated

(Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco, 2004), in particular business model

and service innovations.

As such, coopetition led to new strategic perspectives for the trust companies and they gained

access to inputs required for service and business model innovation (Ritala & Sainio, 2014; Tsai,

2002). Several service innovations were developed by Liechtenstein trust companies through

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

coopetition including innovations of customer and organisational services. Customer services were

innovated by building on information systems, such as mobile apps or IT solutions to create a more

intensive interaction between the customers and the company and to customize the provided services.

Organisational services were innovated by implementing information systems and software into

organisational processes to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and optimize processes along the value

chain. These changes were mainly driven by new technologies (Velu, 2016), additional capital (Witell

et al., 2016), and newly gained knowledge (Forés & Camisón, 2016). Further, business models were

innovated by integrating diversification and cross-selling practices in previous business models.

5.2 Theoretical implications

From a theoretical point-of-view, this study contributes to several coopetition-related literature

streams, such as the general coopetition literature, the specific streams of coopetition in service

industries as well as the application of coopetition by SMEs (e.g., Bengtsson & Johansson, 2014;

Czakon, 2009; Levy et al., 2003; Mention, 2011; Morris et al., 2007). So far, the SME and service

industry contexts and their peculiarities have been rarely investigated in coopetition research (e.g.,

Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco, 2004).

This is surprising given the importance of SMEs for employment, economic growth, and

innovation (Kollmann, Hensellek, & Kensbock, 2016) as well as their simultaneous sensitivity in terms

of resource and knowledge shortages. The associated liabilities of smallness of SMEs may hinder their

innovation and growth capability and possibly motivate them to cooperate with their rivals. Based on

this study’s findings, it can be proposed that coopetition represents indeed a potential strategic option

for resource-constrained SMEs as it enables sharing mechanisms through which resources, knowledge

and capabilities can be accessed and exchanged. Facing regulatory changes in their industry, the

interviewed small- and medium-sised trust companies pointed out the relevance of coopetitive

interactions as they enable the firms to join their individual forces. Such coopetition is not only limited

to national competitors but also extended to partnerships with international rivals (Kock et al., 2010).

5.3 Practical implications

Practically, this study suggests that managers of SMEs in service industries should be aware of the

benefits of coopetition to gain access to complementary resources and capabilities, cost and risk

sharing opportunities as well as knowledge and information exchange possibilities, and to strengthen

their innovation power. Next to typical cooperative partnerships with non-rivals, coopetition can come

along with additional advantages since competitors typically share the same contexts, threats, and

opportunities while they also possess complementary resources that are relevant to the other party.

When coopetition is in place, the partners have possibilities to access the coopeting rival’s financial,

social, human, technological, marketing, or other managerial resources, to transfer and integrate their

knowledge and expertise, and share risks and costs. The presented research shows that coopetition is

frequently applied among competitors in the particular case of small- and medium-sized trust

companies in the Liechtenstein financial centre and leads to crucial implications in terms of risk, cost,

and knowledge benefits as well as business model innovations.

5.4 Limitations and future research directions

This study has some limitations which give rise to future research directions. First, as a qualitative

study, the data collection can be criticized for the retrospective design which may lead to recall biases

(Hassan, 2005) endangering the study’s internal validity. Nevertheless, a retrospective approach

seemed necessary since the interviewees had to answer questions about past events. Second, lacking

objectivity of the qualitative data analysis and interpretation can be criticized. Seeking to increase

validity and reliability of the study, the multiple assessor method was used (Ryan, 1999). Future

research should attempt to restrict these potential limitations arising from qualitative research by

applying quantitative research methods which can then test and verify the qualitatively gained insights.

Third, our work only represents the opinions of small- and medium-sized trust companies in

Liechtenstein. To improve the generalizability of the findings, in future research, the whole financial

centre of Liechtenstein should be investigated, including banks, asset management companies, risk

management offices or accounting companies. In addition, international financial and trust industries

should be investigated to verify whether and how coopetition influences innovation.

Fourth, the geographical restriction should be noted. Due to the single focus on the small country

of Liechtenstein, general implications to the worldwide financial industry can hardly be given. Future

research should investigate whether or not similar findings can be found in different geographical

areas. Additionally, future research should determine if the size of a country influences the impact of

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

coopetition between companies. In other words, it should be examined whether higher social contact in

smaller countries influences coopetition willingness.

Apart from this, the impact of entrepreneurial orientation and the results and success of

coopetition would be interesting to investigate using a quantitative research method. One interview

partner mentioned that the higher the entrepreneurial orientation, the higher is the resulting success and

the benefits of coopetition.

6 CONCLUSION

Since 2008, the implementation of many different regulations has challenged most of the actors of

Liechtenstein’s trust industry. The dynamic and constantly changing economic environment in the

financial centre of Liechtenstein has led to changes, improvements and renewals of the overall business

activities of trust companies. Nearly every Liechtenstein trust company has faced the problem of

increased regulation in the Liechtenstein marketplace over the last 10 years. To exist and survive,

coopetition represented a fundamental concept which has helped trust companies to overcome the

dynamic changes and to prepare successfully for the future.

The study sought to determine whether and how coopetition was applied by the central actors in

the trust industry and how coopetition can support innovation of trust companies. In doing so, nine

major actors of the Liechtenstein trust industry were interviewed, including seven resource-constrained

and small- and medium-sized trust companies and 2 regulators.

Evaluation of the data supported the assumption that coopetition is already established between

Liechtenstein trust companies, members of the Liechtenstein financial centre and international

competitors. This study demonstrated how coopetition was implemented in the trust industry and which

partners were chosen for coopetition. The main arguments why coopetition agreements have been

established include cost and risk sharing opportunities, the exchange of knowledge, experiences, and

capabilities, as well as the bundling of complementary resources. The process of developing new ideas,

business model or service innovations in particular are positively influenced through the access to

additional resources, knowledge and capabilities associated with coopetition. Furthermore, the

conducted research clarified which service and business model innovations were developed through

coopetition.

REFERENCES

Akdoğan, A., & Cingšz, A. (2012). An empirical study on determining the attitudes of small and

medium sized businesses (SMEs) related to coopetition. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,

58, 252-258.

Baumard, P. (2009). An asymmetric perspective on coopetitive strategies. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(1), 6-22.

Bengtsson, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). Managing Coopetition to create opportunities for small firms.

International Small Business Journal, 32(4), 401-407.

Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). "Coopetition" in business networks: To cooperate and compete

simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426.

Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2014). Interviews mit Experten: eine praxisorientierte Einführung:

Springer-Verlag.

Bouncken, R., Clauß, T., & Fredrich, V. (2016). Product innovation through coopetition in alliances:

Singular or plural governance? Industrial Marketing Management, 53(1), 77-90.

Bouncken, R., & Fredrich, V. (2012). Coopetition: Performance Implications and Management

Antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(5), 1-12.

Bouncken, R., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A review, synthesis, and future

research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577-601.

Bouncken, R., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged

sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060-2070.

Carayannis, E., & Alexander, J. (1999). The wealth of knowledge: Converting intellectual property to

intellectual capital in co-opetitive research and technology management settings. International

Journal of Technology Management, 18(3), 326-352.

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M., & Valentini, G. (2009). Organising R&D projects to profit from

innovation: Insights from co-opetition. Long Range Planning, 42(2), 216-233.

Chin, K., Chan, B., & Lam, P. (2008). Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for

coopetition strategy. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 108(4), 437-454.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches

(Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Czakon, W. (2009). Power asymmetries, flexibility and the propensity to coopete: An empirical

investigation of SMEs' relationships with franchisors. International Journal of Entrepreneurship

and Small Business, 8(1), 44-60.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management

Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Enberg, C. (2012). Enabling knowledge integration in coopetitive R&D projects: The management of

conflicting logics. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), 771-780.

Engel, J. S., & del-Palacio, I. (2011). Global clusters of innovation: the case of Israel and Silicon

Valley. California Management Review, 53(2), 27-49.

European Commission (2003). SME definition: Commission Recommendation of 06 May 2003.

Brussels: EU Commission.

Filser, M., Brem, A., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Calabrò, A. (2016). Innovation in Family Firms: Examining

the inventory and mapping the path. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(6),

1650054-1650051 - 1650054-1650039.

Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein (2014). Branchenspezifische Wegleitung für Treuhänder idF

vom 1. Januar 2014.

Financial Market Authority Liechtenstein (2016). Finanzmarkt Liechtenstein: Zahlen und Fakten zu

den Finanzintermediären unter Aufsicht der FMA. Liechtenstein: Finanzmarktaufsicht

Liechtenstein

Forés, B., & Camisón, C. (2016). Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on

different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size? Journal of

Business Research, 69(2), 831-848.

Frels, R. K., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Administering quantitative instruments with qualitative

interviews: A mixed research approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(2), 184-194.

Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition research: towards a better

understanding of past trends and future directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and

Small Business, 24(4), 492-521.

Geraudel, M., & Salvetat, D. (2014). What are the antecedents of coopetition? An explanation in terms

of centrality and personality traits. European Business Review, 26(1), 23-42.

Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. (2006). Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior:

An empirical examination. Journal of Management, 32(4), 507-530.

Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B.-J. R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors

for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663.

Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. (2009). Co-opetition and technological innovation in small and

medium‐sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business

Management, 47(3), 308-330.

Golnam, A., Ritala, P., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition within and between value networks–a

typology and a modelling framework. International Journal of Business Environment 5, 6(1), 47-

68.

Granata, J., Géraudel, M., Gundolf, K., Gast, J., & Marques, P. (2016). Organizational Innovation and

Coopetition between SMEs: A Tertius Strategies Approach. International Journal of Technology

Management, 71(1/2), 81.

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts,

procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2), 105-112.

Hassan, E. (2005). Recall Bias can be a Threat to Retrospective and Prospective Research Designs. The

Internet Journal of Epidemiology, 3(2), 339-412.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Heiss, H. (2013). Rechtsreform und Zukunft des Finanzplatzes Liechtenstein: Tagung aus Anlass der

Eröffnung des Zentrums für liechtensteinisches Recht an der Universität Zürich. Schriften des

Zentrums für liechtensteinisches Recht (ZLR) an der Universität Zürich, 1.

HM Revenue & Customs (2016). Guidance Note: Residence, Domicile and the Remittance Basis.

Ireland, D. R., & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage

through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1), 59-59.

Kindström, D., Kowalkowski, C., & Sandberg, E. (2013). Enabling service innovation: A dynamic

capabilities approach. Journal of business research, 66(8), 1063-1073.

Kock, S., Nisuls, J., & Söderqvist, A. (2010). Co-opetition: A source of international opportunities in

Finnish SMEs. Competitiveness Review, 20(2), 111-125.

Kollmann, T., Hensellek, S., & Kensbock, J. (2016). European Startup Monitor 2016. Germany:

German Startup Association.

Kraus, S., Meier, F., Niemand, T., Bouncken, R. B., & Ritala, P. (2017). In search for the ideal

coopetition partner: an experimental study. Review of Managerial Science, 1-29, DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0237-0.

Lechner, C., Soppe, B., & Dowling, M. (2016). Vertical coopetition and the sales growth of young and

small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 67-84.

Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: The role of

information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17.

Liechtenstein Institute (2015). Zukunftsradar Liechtenstein 2015: Herausforderungen und Ideen für

erfolgreiche Zukunft. . Liechtenstein: Liechtenstein Institute.

Liechtenstein Institute of Professional Trustees and Fiduciaries (2014). The Evolving Trust Sector.

Liechtenstein: Liechtenstein Institute of Professional Trustees and Fiduciaries.

Liechtenstein Marketing (2014). Wirtschaftsstandort Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein Liechtenstein

Marketing.

Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. ACM

SIGMIS Database, 30(2), 14-25.

Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective. Mis

Quarterly, 39(1), 155-175.

Martin, D., Gustafsson, A., & Choi, S. (2016). Service innovation, renewal, and adoption/rejection in

dynamic global contexts. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2397-2400.

Mc Cutchen Jr, W. W., Swamidass, P. M., & Teng, B. S. (2008). Strategic alliance termination and

performance: The role of task complexity, nationality, and experience. The Journal of High

Technology Management Research, 18(2), 191-202.

Mention, A.-L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service

sector: Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44-53.

Morris, M., Koçak, A., & Özer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for

performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(1), 35-55.

Nair, A., Narasimhan, R., & Bendoly, E. (2011). Coopetitive buyer–supplier relationship: An

investigation of bargaining power, relational context, and investment strategies. Decision

Sciences, 42(1), 93-127.

National Statistics Institute Liechtenstein (2015). Liechtenstein in Zahlen Liechtenstein: Amt für

Statistik.

Official Administration Principality of Liechtenstein (2015). Liechtenstein - Ein Finanzplatz im

Wandel. Liechtenstein: Landesverwaltung Fürstentum Liechtenstein.

Okura, M. (2007). Coopetitive strategies of Japanese insurance firms a game-theory approach.

International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(2), 53-69.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity,

41(1), 105-121.

Parida, V., Sjödin, D. R., Lenka, S., & Wincent, J. (2015). Developing Global Service Innovation

Capabilities: How Global Manufacturers Address the Challenges of Market Heterogeneity.

Research-Technology Management, 58(5), 35-44.

Sascha Kraus, Jasmin Schmid and Johanna Gast

Park, B., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of

competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance. Industrial

Marketing Management, 43(2), 210-221.

Pellegrin-Boucher, E., Le Roy, F., & Gurău, C. (2013). Coopetitive strategies in the ICT sector:

Typology and stability. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(1), 71-89.

Peng, T., & Bourne, M. (2009). The coexistence of competition and cooperation between networks:

Implications from two Taiwanese healthcare networks. British Journal of Management, 20(3),

377-400.

Pereira, D., & Leitão, J. (2016). Absorptive capacity, coopetition and generation of product innovation:

contrasting Italian and Portuguese manufacturing firms. International Journal of Technology

Management, 71(1-2), 10-37.

Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2004). Cooperation, competition, and innovative

capability: a panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation, 24(12), 927-

938.

Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition

at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189-198.

Roig‐Tierno, N., Kraus, S., & Cruz, S. (2017). The relation between coopetition and innovation/

entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 1-4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-

0266-8.

Ritala, P. (2012). Coopetition strategy: When is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and

market performance. British Journal of Management, 23(3), 307-324.

Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009). What's in it for me? Creating and appropriating value

in innovation-related coopetition. Technovation, 29(12), 819-828.

Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition: The

role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

30(1), 154-169.

Ritala, P., Kraus, S., & Bouncken, R. (2016). Introduction to coopetition and innovation: Contemporary

topics and future research opportunities. International Journal of Technology Management,

71(1/2), 1-9.

Ritala, P., & Sainio, L.-M. (2014). Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and

business-model perspectives. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26(2), 155-169.

Roy, P., & Yami, S. (2009). Managing strategic innovation through coopetition. International Journal

of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(1), 61-73.

Ryan, G. (1999). Measuring the typicality of text: Using multiple coders for more than just reliability

and validity checks. Human Organizations, 58(3), 313-322.

Salvetat, D., & Géraudel, M. (2012). The tertius roles in a coopetitive context: The case of the

European aeronautical and aerospace engineering sector. European Management Journal, 30(6),

603-614.

Snyder, H., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P., & Kristensson, P. (2016). Identifying categories of

service innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Business Research, 69(7),

2401-2408.

Steger, T. (2003). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Technische Universität Chemnitz,

Professur für Organisation und Arbeitswissenschaften.

Steinicke, S., Marcus Wallenburg, C., & Schmoltzi, C. (2012). Governing for innovation in horizontal

service cooperations. Journal of Service Management, 23(2), 279-302.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and

organizational change (2

ed.). Chichester u.a.: Wiley.

Tidström, A. (2009). The causes of conflict when small-and medium-sized competitors cooperate.

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(1), 74-91.

Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination,

competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179-190.

Velu, C. (2016). Evolutionary or revolutionary business model innovation through coopetition? The

role of dominance in network markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 124-135.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Volberda, H. W., Van den Bosch, F. A., Flier, B., & Gedajlovic, E. R. (2001). Following the herd or

not?: Patterns of renewal in the Netherlands and the UK. Long Range Planning, 34(2), 209-229.

Wang, Y., & Krakover, S. (2008). Destination marketing: Competition, cooperation or coopetition?

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(2), 126-141.

Witell, L., Snyder, H., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P., & Kristensson, P. (2016). Defining service

innovation: A review and synthesis. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2863-2872.

Wu, Z., Choi, T. Y., & Rungtusanatham, M. J. (2010). Supplier–supplier relationships in buyer–

supplier–supplier triads: Implications for supplier performance. Journal of Operations

Management, 28(2), 115-123.

Zachariadis, M., Scott, S. V., & Barrett, M. I. (2013). Methodological Implications of Critical Realism

for Mixed-Methods Research. MIS quarterly, 37(3), 855-879.

Zhang, H. S., Shu, C., Jiang, X., & Malter, A. J. (2010). Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The

Role of Cooperation, Competition, and Alliance Nationality. Journal of International Marketing,

18(4), 74-94.

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future

Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.

Zulkepli, Z. H., Hasnan, N., & Mohtar, S. (2015). Communication and Service Innovation in Small and

Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 437-441.