This study focuses on the tense appropriability-openness relationship, defined by some as paradox. Based on an international survey of 415 manufacturing firms, we investigate how the use of different kinds of intellectual property protection mechanisms (IPPMs) affects interfirm R&D collaboration while considering partner location in the analysis as well. Our results show that the use of formal, semi-formal or informal IPPMs has different effects on openness in terms of partner variety and depth of collaboration with academic partners, value chain partners and competitors. Moreover, when considering location we uncover previously hidden appropriability-openness liaisons showing that semi-formal or informal IPPMs are mainly valid in relation to national partners, whereas formal appropriability explains international collaborations. One implication of the study is that to better understand the appropriability-openness relationship it is imperative to differentiate between national and international settings. We further suggest that the potential paradox delineating this relationship has a geographical dimension.

There is to date abundant evidence about the way openness-performance liaisons are shaped, yet parallel streams of research point towards an intricate relationship between appropriability and openness. Accordingly, while openness may reveal ample opportunities, risks of e.g. misappropriation should also be accounted for in open innovation processes, as they might affect performance. Recent research highlights the scarcity of studies investigating openness, appropriability and performance, and suggests a further need to analyze this in different stages of the innovation process. This study therefore aims to investigate the effects of three groups of intellectual property protection mechanisms (formal, semi-formal and informal) and openness (in terms of collaboration depth with eight types of partners) on two types of innovation performance (efficiency and novelty) across innovation phases. The analysis is based on a sample of 340 manufacturing firms from three European countries. Findings show that in early stages of the innovation process, efficiency is positively linked to the use of semi-formal appropriability mechanisms, such as contracts, yet negatively related to the use of formal ones, such as patents. The latter potentially illustrates the high uncertainty and increased risks of imitation or misappropriation in early innovation phases. Informal appropriability mechanisms contribute to novelty in earlier as well as later stages. Results further indicate novelty is explained by university collaboration throughout the innovation process, while competitor collaboration positively associates with novelty in later innovation stages. Vertical collaborations with supplier and customers reveal contrasting effects, which could also have implications linked to imitation risks. Furthermore, the negative effects of formal appropriability mechanisms and supplier collaboration on innovation performance in distinct stages of the innovation process might have implications for the so-called paradox of disclosure.

This study reviews literature on paradoxical tensions between value co-creation and capture in interorganizational relationships (IORs). The purpose of this review is to make a re-evaluation of the literature by engaging a paradox theory lens, thereby identifying factors that render tensions salient and factors that lead to virtuous or vicious cycles. This review of 143 articles reveals factors that make tensions salient; these relate to plurality (e.g. coopetition), scarcity (e.g. lack of experience with IORs), change (e.g. changes in collaboration scope) or combinations thereof (e.g. IORs in weak appropriability regimes). Results also uncover factors that resolve paradoxical tensions of value co-creation and capture, thus spurring virtuous cycles (e.g. carefully mixing trust and contracts), as well as factors that promote vicious cycles, owing to the emphasis on either value co-creation or capture (e.g. myopia of learning). This review also uncovers a new category of factors that may stimulate either virtuous or vicious cycles, depending on the extent to which they are enforced. This finding expands the value co-creation–capture paradox resolution, and brings to light new dynamics in the paradox framework of dynamic equilibrium. The authors thus contribute by: (1) reassessing the existing literature and applying paradox theory to the well-known hazard of value co-creation and capture; (2) highlighting factors that amplify paradoxical tensions related to this hazard; and (3) outlining factors that solve the paradox by embracing its contradictory poles and factors that hinder paradox resolution by emphasizing either value co-creation or appropriation.