Entrepreneurship and innovation in worker cooperatives and conventional firms: the role of external cooperation

Vol.: (0123456789) 1 3 Small Bus Econ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-024-00951-x RESEARCH ARTICLE Entrepreneurship andinnovation inworker cooperatives andconventional firms: therole ofexternal cooperation FranciscoJ.Santos · CarmenGuzmán · LidiaValiente Accepted: 8 July 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Through the comparison of conventional firms (CFs) with worker cooperatives (WCs), which are a type of collective enterprise with significant experience in cooperation, this research aims to analyse the influence of external cooperation on the two most prominent factors for the success of enterprises: entrepreneurship and innovation. To this end, a research model is proposed based on contributions from the stakeholders’ perspective of the resourcebased view of the firm and tested with data from a survey conducted on WCs and CFs located in two Spanish regions with a long tradition in the cooperative movement. The results highlight that the influence of external cooperation on innovation performance is more relevant for WCs and demonstrate that these collective firms are not disadvantaged in innovation compared to CFs. Furthermore, the results suggest that WCs have a more remarkable ability to compete and cooperate simultaneously, that is, to coopete, due to their participative nature. Plain English Summary Cooperation plays an essential role in boosting both entrepreneurship and innovation and workers cooperatives, firms launched by their workers, are the best example of this role. Entrepreneurship and innovation are seen as the two most essential elements to explain business success. Moreover, competition is considered the underlying force that makes entrepreneurship boost innovation. Nevertheless, many studies show innovation only occurs if businesses also cooperate with other stakeholders, such as suppliers, clients, and other firms and institutions. This research analyses the vital role of cooperation and shows that this role is even more relevant for working cooperatives, a type of collective firm with a participative way of making decisions, than it is for conventional firms, such as liability companies. The principal implication of this study is therefore that the cooperative nature of working cooperatives can contribute towards the introduction of innovations and towards a change in social values through their more balanced behaviour between competition and cooperation, a strategy known as “coopetition”. Keywords Cooperation· Innovation· Entrepreneurship· Worker cooperatives· Conventional firms· Coopetition JEL Classification C12· J54· L26· O3 F.J.Santos· C.Guzmán· L.Valiente(*) Department ofApplied Economics I, Faculty ofEconomics andBusiness Sciences, University ofSeville, Ramón y Cajal 1, 41018Seville, Spain e-mail: l[email protected] F. J. Santos e-mail: [email protected] C. Guzmán e-mail: [email protected] F.J.Santos et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) 1 Introduction Entrepreneurship and innovation have been considered the two most prominent factors for the success of companies (Audretsch & Thurik, 2001; Drucker, 1985; Hébert & Link, 1989). On the one hand, entrepreneurial behaviours, such as risk-taking, usually positively impact a firm’s success since they are necessary to compete in the market (Covin & Wales, 2019). On the other hand, innovation performance contributes towards maintaining and increasing the company’s market position in a competitive and globalised economy (Ferreira etal., 2020). Another essential factor for a firm’s success is cooperation with internal and external stakeholders. The management literature has paid notable attention to this factor and has established certain links between cooperation, entrepreneurship, and innovation, examples of which include its role in the formation of entrepreneurial teams (Harper, 2008), in managing the coordination of resources (Zahra, 2021), and in supporting the development of innovations (Ozdemir et al., 2023). However, according to certain studies, the emphasis on competition and individualism as the source of a firm’s growth has placed cooperation as a complementary factor for entrepreneurship and innovation and, therefore, for a firm’s success (Bougrain & Haudeville, 2002; Kusa et al., 2019). Notwithstanding, developments of the stakeholder theory applied to the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm attribute cooperation to a more critical role. This approach suggests that stakeholders’ capabilities and competencies to cooperate are essential to stimulate better firm performance (Barney, 2018; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022; Freeman et al., 2021). This approach connects with the concept of coopetition, which means that both cooperation and competition are the primary sources of entrepreneurial strategies and innovation and, therefore, a significant element for business success (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996; Corbo etal., 2023). However, the literature does not explicitly clarify how the links between cooperation, entrepreneurship, and innovation simultaneously take place. Related to this role of cooperation, a specific kind of enterprise is highlighted: worker cooperatives (WCs). The theoretical foundation of this kind of collective company comes from the theory of the labour-managed firm, which studies how workers’ participation in the ownership, the decision-making process, and the profit distribution affects business performance (Ward, 1958). Worker cooperatives are companies launched by their workers (Bastida etal., 2022; Guzmán et al., 2020) and differ from traditional investor-owned firms and conventional firms (CFs) because they put cooperation into practice beyond the limits of the firm itself, thanks to the cooperative operating principle of inter-organisa- tional cooperation (ICA, 1995). Furthermore, WCs consider the preferences of external stakeholders in their activities thanks to the cooperative principle of concern for the community (Cornforth, 2004), which is also related to their capacity for cooperation. Recent studies have even emphasised that WCs are more resilient since they have higher survival rates than other enterprises and generate higher quality and more stable jobs during economic crises (Billiet etal., 2021). Nevertheless, several contributions have explained that WCs have not progressed in some countries, as has been the case in Central and Eastern Europe, due to the explicit support of public authorities in favour of CFs (Defourny & Nyssens, 2021; Hagedorn, 2014). Furthermore, certain studies show that WCs present some disadvantages compared to CFs. In general, these studies point out that they are more riskaverse (Dow, 2018) and lack innovation resources (Novkovic, 2007). Therefore, regarding the links among external cooperation, entrepreneurship, and innovation and how these links behave in the case of WCs, several gaps in the existing literature lead us to establish two main objectives in this research: to explain the links of external cooperation with entrepreneurship and innovation simultaneously and to examine whether these links are different for WCs compared to those of CFs. To reach these objectives, after a first review of the related literature, we develop a theoretical research model which is tested by applying partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to data from a survey conducted among WCs and CFs. Specifically, we use data from two samples of companies in two Spanish regions that represent international examples in the field of cooperatives (Basque Country and Andalusia). The samples are composed of 348 WCs and 460 CFs. Entrepreneurship andinnovation inworker cooperatives andconventional firms: therole of… 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) This article contributes to the literature in various ways. Firstly, this research clarifies how cooperation influences the two more prominent factors that, according to the literature, determine firms’ success: entrepreneurship and innovation. Secondly, this article represents an essential contribution to the literature on WCs because it highlights in this type of company the vital role of cooperation between stakeholders for firms’ success regarding CFs. Finally, this article helps to shed light on the debate around whether WCs deserve specific consideration by policymakers and practitioners since they can contribute to a social value change thanks to their more significant ability to compete and cooperate simultaneously. 2 Theoretical framework andhypothesis development 2.1 Entrepreneurship, innovation, and the role of external cooperation Entrepreneurship has usually been defined as the ability to deal with uncertainty, the capacity to be alerted to changes in the environment, and the ability to innovate (Hébert & Link, 1989). In this respect, it is considered a central element for economic growth and development (Acs etal., 2014) and involves the firms putting several entrepreneurial strategies, capabilities, and behaviours into practice which results in a positive impact on firms’ performance (Covin & Wales, 2019). Moreover, innovation has often been defined in a broader sense as the entrepreneurs’ introduction of “new combinations” in companies (Schumpeter, 1934). Innovation is also considered essential in explaining firms’ performance (Ferreira etal., 2020; Zastempowski, 2023) since it is a driving force that fosters the creation of employment and competitiveness (Audretsch & Thurik, 2001). Both entrepreneurship and innovation have been identified with individual behaviours and competition. Entrepreneurship is mainly related to the identification and exploitation of opportunities by the entrepreneur (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), and innovation is generally considered the consequence of the creativity of an individual entrepreneur (Harper, 2008). At an aggregate level, this emphasis on individualistic behaviours and competition has been related to the belief in rationality characterised by maximising self-interest (Harper, 2008; Kusa etal., 2019). In this context, it is problematic for cooperation to be at the core of the analysis and play a more significant role in a firm’s success. Nevertheless, implementing cooperative behaviours in any organisation has usually been reiterated each time innovation and entrepreneurship have been mentioned for said success (Ozdemir etal., 2023; Zahra, 2021). Cooperation implies relations and reciprocity between people, by allowing individuals and social groups to have easier access to information, facilitating the coordination of activities, and contributing towards making collective decisions (Grootaert, 1998). The management literature explains that cooperation has a dual nature (Hillebrand & Biemans, 2003; Zastempowski, 2023). On the one hand, internal cooperation refers to collaborative behaviour between stakeholders inside the company, such as shareholders, managers, and other human resources (Seyhan etal., 2017), while on the other hand, external cooperation refers to inter-organisational cooperation with stakeholders external to the company (Ozdemiret al., 2023). The stakeholder theory provides support to explain the effects of external cooperation on firms’ performance (Freeman, 1984; Freeman etal., 2021). Stakeholders are individuals interested in a firm’s performance, among which customers, suppliers, and other external organisations are found. Recently, this stakeholder theory has highlighted the role of cooperation and shared values among stakeholders in improving performance (Freeman etal., 2021). In contrast, an influencing approach in the field of strategic management, the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), usually gives specific supremacy to the shareholders in the managerial decision-mak- ing process of organisations (Freeman etal., 2021). Managers and entrepreneurs combine rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources and capabilities to develop competitive advantages and improve performance (Barney, 1991). However, later contributions of this approach influenced by the stakeholder perspective (Barney, 2018; Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022; Freeman etal., 2021) have suggested the need for a balance between cooperation and competition. Specific literature refers to this balance as coopetition, which occurs when entrepreneurial strategies are built on both cooperation and competition F.J.Santos et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996; Corbo et al., 2023). According to this new stakeholders’ perspective of the RBV, one of the entrepreneur’s objectives is to build a sustainable cooperative advantage to achieve the firm’s success (Freeman etal., 2021). 2.2 Hypothesis development step 1: links between cooperation, entrepreneurship, and innovation If we consider the stakeholders’ perspective of the RBV, cooperation is sufficiently relevant to be at the core of the analysis since it determines both entrepreneurship and innovation. As shown in Fig.1, we formulate four different hypotheses showing these links, which are justified. In the context of coopetition, external cooperation plays a central role in innovation and entrepreneurship (Corbo etal., 2023). Research shows that external cooperation exerts a significant influence on innovation since it provides several advantages to companies, such as sharing and minimising risks and uncertainty, reducing the costs of the innovation process, and obtaining higher levels of performance (Bougrain & Haudeville, 2002). Furthermore, following the RBV, inter-organisational cooperation enables strategic alliances between firms to transmit tacit knowledge and innovations (Ozdemir et al., 2023). These contributions therefore suggest that innovation could not occur without cooperation, which leads us to formulate the first hypothesis (Fig.1): H1: External cooperation positively and directly influences a firm’s innovation performance. On the other hand, although the literature on entrepreneurship has highlighted various entrepreneurial behaviours, especially proactiveness, risk-taking, and the propensity to innovate, and the influence of these factors on performance (Covin & Wales, 2019), cooperative behaviours have yet to be included (Harper, 2008; Kusa etal., 2019). Nevertheless, the stakeholders’ perspective of the RBV highlights that cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive. In fact, entrepreneurial strategies are built on both cooperation and competition in a process of coopetition (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996; Czakon etal., 2020), as H2 shows in Fig.1. Moreover, the literature has established a robust link between entrepreneurship and innovation (Audretsch & Thurik, 2001; Covin & Wales, 2019; Drucker, 1985; Ferreira etal., 2020). Specific studies consider innovation performance, that is, the output of the innovation process, as a measure of a firm’s performance determined by proactiveness, risk-tak- ing, and the propensity to innovate (Arzubiaga etal., 2018). This is shown by H3 in Fig.1. Lastly, according to the stakeholders’ perspective of the RBV, entrepreneurs usually harmonise external cooperation to put entrepreneurial strategies into practice, which improves the firm’s performance (Barney, 2018; Freeman etal., 2021). External cooperation, therefore, can encourage proactiveness (Kusa et al., 2019), it can be a determinant of creativity Fig. 1 Research model and general hypotheses Entrepreneurship andinnovation inworker cooperatives andconventional firms: therole of… 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) (Zastempowski, 2023), and it can reduce risk aversion (Ozdemir et al., 2023). Entrepreneurial behaviours mediate between external cooperation and the output of the innovation process, that is, innovation performance. This is what H4 shows in Fig.1. Summarising, the following three hypotheses are formulated (Fig.1): H2: External cooperation positively and directly influences a firm’s entrepreneurial behaviours. H3: Entrepreneurial behaviours positively and directly influence a firm’s innovation performance. H4: External cooperation positively and indirectly influences a firm’s innovation performance by mediating entrepreneurial behaviours. 2.3 Hypothesis development step 2: comparison between working cooperatives and conventional firms The study of links between external cooperation, entrepreneurship, and innovation is fascinating in the case of collective firms and, more specifically, in the case of WCs. As a kind of labour-managed firm (Ward, 1958), one essential characteristic of WCs is that most of the ownership is in the hands of workers and, therefore, collectively managed (Díaz-Foncea & Marcuello, 2015). WCs are generally more resilient to economic crises thanks to their greater capacity to adapt to environmental changes (Billiet etal., 2021). The primary source of this advantage is that these enterprises are based on the values and principles of the cooperative movement, such as inter-organisa- tional or external cooperation, democratic management of their members, and concern for the community (ICA, 1995). Therefore, they are companies with a cooperative nature. Nevertheless, certain contributions have explained that WCs have not thrived in several countries, as has been the case in Central and Eastern Europe, due to the explicit support of public authorities in favour of CFs (Defourny & Nyssens, 2021; Hagedorn, 2014). Furthermore, various studies point out that the different cooperative nature of WCs regarding CFs not only conditions how WCs act (Díaz-Foncea & Marcuello, 2015) but can also be an obstacle to their survival (Errasti etal., 2017). More specifically, other studies find that WCs present weaknesses compared to CFs, such as high-risk aversion (Dow,2018) and a lack of innovation resources (Novkovic, 2007). However, these results are inconclusive according to other studies (Monteiro & Straume, 2018). For instance, in the specific case of innovation, Basterretxea and Martinez (2012) found no differences between WCs and CFs regarding innovation capacity. Moreover, the study of Basterretxea etal. (2019) also concluded that R&D cooperation between WCs is a specific strategy for success while they carry out innovative projects. It is therefore possible to complete the hypothesis development suggested in Fig. 1, by comparing the links between external cooperation, entrepreneurial behaviours, and innovation performance in WCs and CFs. In Fig.2, two new moderating links are established in which we hypothesise that the direct effect of external cooperation on innovations is greater for WCs (H5) and that the mediating role of entrepreneurial behaviour between external cooperation and innovation performance is greater for WCs (H6). There are several arguments that support these new hypotheses. On the one hand, cooperation in WCs can better stimulate innovation performance than CFs because they base their modus operandi on bonding ties of trust and loyalty among the different stakeholders, and therefore, they have more significant incentives and advantages for cooperation than CFs (Cornforth, 2004; Thompson, 2015). In addition, the concern for the community of WCs, according to the principles of the cooperative movement (ICA, 1995), is an incentive to carry out cooperation agreements with other actors in the field of innovation. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is the following (Fig.2): H5: The direct influence of cooperation on innovation performance is greater in WCs than in CFs. On the other hand, entrepreneurial initiatives for the firm’s development emerge in WCs from a group of individuals who cooperate with each other (Yan & Yan, 2017) since they are considered a specific case of participative collective entrepreneurship (Díaz- Foncea & Marcuello, 2015). From this perspective, external cooperation is an essential asset that the team of workers of this kind of firm mobilises through proactive, innovative, and risky strategies due to the bonding ties of trust and commitment they share. In F.J.Santos et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) this way, external cooperation is a relevant antecedent of entrepreneurial behaviours in WCs (Basterretxea & Martinez, 2012; Errasti etal., 2017; Hansmann, 1996; Novkovic, 2007), and therefore, the mediating role played by entrepreneurial behaviours in WCs could be more robust than in CFs. Therefore, the sixth hypothesis of this research is the following (Fig.2): H6: The positive and indirect influence of cooperation on innovation performance through the mediating role of entrepreneurial behaviours is stronger in WCs than in CFs. 3 Methodology 3.1 Data In order to test the research hypotheses, we surveyed WCs and CFs in the Spanish regions of the Basque Country and Andalusia. These two regions were selected because they show the common feature of having a long-standing tradition in the cooperative movement, although they have different levels of economic development according to the GDP per capita, the unemployment rate, and the risk-of-poverty rate (Table 1). The Basque Country and Andalusia have the highest number of employees in cooperatives in Spain, covering 19.45% and 18.07%, respectively, of the total number of employees in cooperatives at a national level (Table 1). Specifically, in the case of WCs, both regions together represent 33% of all national WCs (11% Basque Country and 22% Andalusia), and the proportion of the number of employees in WCs is higher in these regions than the national average (Table1). A representative sample of both groups of enterprises in terms of size and economic sector was calculated. The final sample was obtained using a proportional stratified random technique with an error level of 6.5% and a 95% confidence level. It comprised 808 companies, of which 348 were WCs and 460 CFs. Their characteristics are shown in Table2. As can be observed, they are mostly SMEs. The questionnaire consisted of several questions related to external cooperation, entrepreneurial behaviours, and innovation performance, and it was directed, in the case of WCs, at the president of the cooperative companies because they are the people who best know the companies. In the case of the CFs, the surveyed person was the company’s owner. 3.2 Measurements Three different constructs have been created, each consisting of various formative indicators since they cause the latent variables or constructs and are not correlated to each other (Henseler et al., 2016). Firstly, the independent variable in the empirical analysis is the formative construct of external Fig. 2 Research model with additional hypotheses comparing WCs and CFs Entrepreneurship andinnovation inworker cooperatives andconventional firms: therole of… 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) cooperation (ExtCOOP). The indicators of this construct are the following: • One formative indicator measures cooperation in innovation with primary stakeholders, like suppliers: InnCOOPGROUP. The value of this indicator varies on a Likert scale from “1” to “4”, where “1” represents the lowest intensity and “4” represents the highest intensity of cooperation in innovation with other firms of the group. This 4-point Likert scale has been applied to avoid the respondents’ indecision. • Two formative indicators measure cooperation in innovation with secondary stakeholders, such as other firms and institutions. These indicators are “R&D cooperation with other firms” (R&D COOPFIRM) and “R&D cooperation with technological institutions, either private or public” (R&D COOPINST). The value of these indicators varies on a Likert scale from “1” to “4”, where “1” represents the lowest intensity and “4” represents the highest intensity of cooperation with other firms and institutions in the development of innovations. This 4-point Likert scale has been also applied to avoid the respondents’ indecision. • In addition, another formative indicator measures other cooperation agreements different from innovation agreements with primary stakeholders (pro- Table 1 General indicators of the socio-economic situation and the distribution of cooperatives in Andalusia and the Basque Country (2022) Sources: Official data provided byINE (2022), Ministry of Employment and Social Economy (2022), and ASATA (2021) *Data for 2020. **Data for 2021 Indicators Andalusia Basque Country Spain Population (as a % of national total) 17.85% 4.6% 48,085,361 (number of inhabitants) GDP per capita (national total = 100) 75% 127% 100% Unemployment rate 19% 8.9% 13% Risk-of-poverty rate (% of people below the poverty line) 29.1% 12.2% 20.9% Cooperatives (as a ‰ of national total)* 6.4‰ 10.5‰ 4.9‰ Employees in cooperatives (as a % of national total)* 18% 19.5% 100% Worker cooperatives as a % of national total** 22% 11% 17,339 (number of WCs) Worker cooperatives as a ‰ of total firms in each region** 7‰ 13‰ 5‰ Table 2 Distribution by size and sector of the sample units 1 Defined by the European Union Commission according to the number of employees WCs CFs Number of firms % Number of firms % Size1Micro (1–9 employees) 273 78.45 405 88.04 Small (10–49) 60 17.24 47 10.22 Medium (50–249) 12 3.45 6 1.30 Large (250 or more) 3 0.86 2 0.43 Total 348 100 460 100 Activity sector Industry 94 27.0 51 11.1 Building sector 42 12.1 75 16.3 Services 212 60.92 334 72.61 Total 348 100 460 100 F.J.Santos et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) duction, distribution, etc.): “OtherCOOP”. This indicator takes the value “0” if the firm has neither formal nor informal agreements different from innovation agreements, the value “1” if the firm has either formal or informal agreements, and, finally, “2” if the firm has both formal and informal agreements. Secondly, the variable entrepreneurial behaviours (EB) is also a formative construct that mediates cooperation and innovation performance. As mentioned earlier, EB comprises three dimensions: risk-taking, propensity to innovate, and proactiveness. Consequently, EB is measured in this analysis using the following formative indicators: • Risk-taking (RISK): This dimension takes seven different values on a Likert scale according to the tendency to take on high-risk projects. Whereas “1” means no predisposition to embark on highrisk projects, “7” means a high propensity to undertake high-risk projects. • Propensity to innovate (PropINN): When the dependent variable is innovation performance, the dimension of innovativeness of the EB construct is measured with the indicator propensity to innovate since it is an input of the innovative process. In this case, the formative indicator propensity to innovate (PropINN) is a continuous variable that varies between “0” and “100”, representing the percentage of the budget of the company dedicated to innovative activities (not just R&D). • Proactiveness (PROACT): This indicator is an ordinal variable which takes values from “0” to “4”, depending on whether the company carries out different proactive behaviours. The first is annual formal planning activities to anticipate the future (value 1 or otherwise 0). The second one is remaining current regarding any market changes (value 1 or otherwise 0). The third one is the search for and exploitation of new market opportunities (value 1 or otherwise 0). Finally, the fourth one is fostering the training and qualifications of the firm’s employees (value 1 or otherwise 0). This proactiveness variable corresponds to the aggregation of the four types of behaviours. Thirdly, the dependent variable is the construct called innovation performance (INNP), which is measured through two formative indicators which represent each of the two dimensions of the results of the innovative process: technological innovations (TechINN) and non-technological innovations (Non- TechINN). Whereas the first refers to innovations in products and production processes, the second is related to organisational innovations and exploiting opportunities in new markets for suppliers and clients. Thus, both variables have the value “0” if the enterprise has not introduced any innovation in products or processes (TechINN) or in organisation innovation (NonTechINN) in the last 3years, “1” if it has introduced one of them, and “2” if it has introduced both of them. Finally, as is habitual in these studies, two control variables have been introduced in the empirical analysis: size of the firm and economic sector. Regarding the variable size of the firm (SIZE), the logarithm of the number of employees of each company has been selected to avoid the kurtosis problem. Thus, the variable SIZE takes continuous values between “0” and “3”. On the other hand, the variable economic sector (SECTOR) is a dichotomous variable, which takes a value of 1 when the company belongs to the industry sector and takes a value of 0 otherwise. Descriptive statistics of all the variables involved in the study are presented in Table3. 3.3 Data analysis Given the hypothesised relationships between the latent variables, ExtCOOP, EB, and INNP, we applied structural equation modelling (SEM) as a Table 3 Descriptive indicators Mean St. Dev INNP TechINN 0.87 0.79 NonTechINN 0.65 0.72 ExtCOOP InnCOOPGROUP 1.28 0.72 R&DCOOPFIRM 1.51 0.91 R&DCOOPINST 1.31 0.72 OtherCOOP 0.86 0.88 EB RISK 3.19 1.85 PropINN 3.66 9.68 PROACT 2.62 1.14 Control variables SIZE 0.75 0.45 SECTOR 0.18 0.38 Entrepreneurship andinnovation inworker cooperatives andconventional firms: therole of… 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) multivariate statistical analysis method, particularly partial least squares (PLS-SEM). SmartPLS 4.0 software developed by Ringle etal. (2022) has been used in this research to report the results of the PLS-SEM analysis. There are several reasons to use PLS-SEM (Hair etal., 2022): (1) The focus of the study is as explanatory as it is predictive of the primary dependent variable; (2) as happens in this study, different types of scales are supported in PLS-SEM (continuous, ordinal, interval, ratio scales, and even binary items); (3) the sample is not very large, although PLS-SEM works very well with both small and large samples; (4) the research model is complex since it includes direct, mediating, and moderating relationships. 4 Results 4.1 Assessment of global model fit The first step of a PLS analysis is assessing the global model fit (Henseler etal., 2016). Thus, three different tests of model fit based on the bootstrap were estimated: the standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR), the unweighted least squares discrepancy (dULS), and the geodesic discrepancy (dG). If any of these tests exceed bootstrap-based 95% (HI95) and 99% percentiles (HI99), it is unlikely that the model is true. In the case of this study, the three tests of model fit for the estimated model of the full sample are under the HI95 and HI99 percentiles. Similar results were obtained for models of the two subsamples (WCs and CFs). This means that the three models cannot be rejected. Furthermore, it was necessary that the threshold of 0.08 in the SRMR value could not be exceeded. This happens with values of 0.016 for the full-sample model, 0.029 for the WC sample model, and 0.021 for the CF sample model (Table4). 4.2 Assessment of the measurement model Considering that all the constructs are formative, the assessment of the measurement model has two steps: firstly, the assessment of discriminant validity by examining the correlations between the constructs, which must be lower than 0.7. As can be observed in Table5, all correlations are lower than 0.7, both in the full-sample model and in the two subsample models. Secondly, potential multicollinearity at the indicator level is analysed by examining the variance inflation factor (VIF), which must not exceed 3.3. As shown in Table6, the highest value is 1.748 for the R&DCOOPFIRM indicator in the WC subsample model, which shows no multicollinearity problems in any of the three models. Finally, the weights of the formative indicators allow us to determine and rank the importance and contribution of each indicator to the construct. A significance level of at least 0.05 suggests that an indicator’s contribution to the construct is relevant. In this research model, this condition meets most of the Table 4 Global model fit Test of model fit Value HI95 HI99 SRMRFull 0.016 0.023 0.026 SRMRWCs 0.029 0.032 0.036 SRMRCFs 0.021 0.033 0.038 dULSFull 0.011 0.024 0.032 dULSWCs 0.037 0.048 0.060 dULSCFs 0.020 0.050 0.065 dGFull 0.004 0.008 0.011 dGWCs 0.010 0.016 0.020 dGCFs 0.008 0.016 0.021 Table 5 Discriminant validity ***Significant atp < 0.001 (2 tails).**Significant atp < 0.01 (2 tails).*Significant atp < 0.05 (2 tails) Constructs INNP ExtCOOP EB SIZE Full sample NFull = 808 ExtCOOP 0.395*** EB 0.447*** 0.426*** SIZE 0.187*** 0.254*** 0.296*** SECTOR 0.049 − 0.031 − 0.042 0.146*** WCs NWCs = 348 ExtCOOP 0.401*** EB 0.476*** 0.527*** SIZE 0.106 0.285*** 0.239*** SECTOR − 0.090 − 0.145** − 0.174*** 0.110* CFs NCFs = 460 ExtCOOP 0.362*** EB 0.418*** 0.317*** SIZE 0.202*** 0.184*** 0.314*** SECTOR 0.143** 0.005 0.061 0.114* F.J.Santos et al. 1 3 Vol:. (1234567890) and Industrial Marketing, 34(2), 1223–1235. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JBIM- 01- 2018- 0015 Bastida, M., Vaquero Garcia, A., Pinto, L. H., & Olveira Blanco, A. (2022). Motivational drivers to choose worker cooperatives as an entrepreneurial alternative: Evidence from Spain. Small Business Economics, 58(3), 1609– 1626. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 021- 00459-8 Billiet, A., Dufays, F., Friedel, S., & Staessens, M. (2021). The resilience of the cooperative model: How do cooperatives deal with the COVID-19 crisis? Strategic Change, 30(2), 99–108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jsc. 2393 Bougrain, F., & Haudeville, B. (2002). Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research capacities. Research Policy, 31(5), 735–747. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0048- 7333(01) 00144-5 Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. Doubleday. Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2022). Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: Past, present, and future. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 797–809. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14761 27022 11276 28 Corbo, L., Kraus, S., Vlačić, B., Dabić, M., Caputo, A., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2023). Coopetition and innovation: A review and research agenda. Technovation, 122, 102624. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2022. 102624 Cornforth, C. (2004). The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(1), 11–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 8292. 2004. 00241.x Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2019). Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58718 773181 Czakon, W., Klimas, P., & Mariani, M. (2020). Behavioral antecedents of coopetition: A synthesis and measurement scale. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101875. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2019. 03. 001 Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2021). Social enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe: Theory, models and practice. Routledge. Díaz-Foncea, M., & Marcuello, C. (2015). Spatial patterns in new firm formation: Are cooperatives different? Small Business Economics, 44(1), 171–187. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 014- 9581-5 Dow, G. K. (2018). The theory of the labor-managed firm: Past, present, and future. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 89(1), 65–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apce. 12194 Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Practice and Principles. Harper. Errasti, A., Bretos, I., & Nunez, A. (2017). The viability of cooperatives: The fall of the Mondragon Cooperative Fagor. Review of Radical Political Economics, 49(2), 181–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 04866 13416 666533 Ferreira, J., Coelho, A., & Moutinho, L. (2020). Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technovation, 92, 102061. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2018. 11. 004 Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Freeman, R. E., Dmytriyev, S. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2021). Stakeholder theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1757–1770. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06321 993576 Grootaert, C. (1998). Social capital: The missing link, Social Capital Working Paper Series, Social Development Department Publications, The World Bank Guzmán, C., Santos, F. J., & Barroso, M. O. (2020). Analysing the links between cooperative principles, entrepreneurial orientation and performance. Small Business Economics, 55(5), 1075–1089. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 019- 00174-5 Hagedorn, K. (2014). Post-socialist farmers’ cooperatives in Central and Eastern Europe. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 85(4), 555–577. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apce. 12051 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press. Harper, D. A. (2008). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 613–626. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2008. 01. 002 Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (1989). In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 1(1), 39–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF003 89915 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IMR- 09- 2014- 0304 Hillebrand, B., & Biemans, W. G. (2003). The relationship between internal and external cooperation: Literature review and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 735–743. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0148- 2963(01) 00258-2 ICA. (1995). International cooperative alliance statement of cooperative identity. Retrieved September 14, 2023, https:// ica. coop/ en/ whatsco- op/ coope rativeident ityvalues- princ iples INE, National Statistics Institute. (2022). Demography, living standards, national accounts, labour market and enterprisestatistics. https:// www. ine. es/ index. htm Kusa, R., Marques, D. P., & Navarrete, B. R. (2019). External cooperation and entrepreneurial orientation in industrial clusters. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 31(1–2), 119–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08985 626. 2018. 15371 51 Ministry of Employment and Social Economy. (2022). Statistical data. https:// www. mites. gob. es/ es/ sec_ traba jo/ auton omos/ econo miasocial/ estad istic as/ index. htm Monteiro, N. P., & Straume, O. R. (2018). Are cooperatives more productive than investor-owned firms? Cross-industry evidence from Portugal. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 89(2), 377–414. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apce. 12201 Novkovic, S. (2007). R&D, innovation and networking: Strategies for cooperative survival. In S. Novkovic & V. Sena Entrepreneurship andinnovation inworker cooperatives andconventional firms: therole of… 1 3 Vol.: (0123456789) (Eds.), Cooperative firms in global markets(Advances in the economic analysis of participatory & labor-managed firms (Vol. 10, pp. 205–232). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0885- 3339(06) 10008-3 Organ, D. W. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 80, 295–306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evorgps ych- 032117- 104536 Ozdemir, S., de Arroyabe, J. C. F., Sena, V., & Gupta, S. (2023). Stakeholder diversity and collaborative innovation: Integrating the resource-based view with stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Research, 164, 113955. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2023. 113955 Ringle, C. M., Wende, S. & Becker, J. (2022). SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS. Retrieved September 14, 2023, from https:// www. smart pls. com Schumpeter, J. A. (1934 [1911]). The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and business cycle, Brunswick: Transaction publishers. Seyhan, M., Ayas, S., Sonmez, U., & Gurlu, Y. (2017). The relationship between strategic capabilities and competitive performance: The moderating role of internal cooperation. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 6(1), 146–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6007/ IJARE MS/ v6- i1/ 2603 Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 009- 9215-5 Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2000. 27916 11 Thompson, S. (2015). Towards a social theory of the firm: Worker cooperatives reconsidered. Journal of Co-Oper- ative Organization and Management, 3(1), 3–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcom. 2015. 02. 002 Ward, B. (1958). The firm in Illyria: Market syndicalism. American Economic Review, 48, 566–589. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0147- 5967(86) 90126-5 Xie, Q., Gao, Y., Xia, N., Zhang, S., & Tao, G. (2023). Coopetition and organizational performance outcomes: A metaanalysis of the main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2022. 113363 Yan, J., & Yan, L. (2017). Collective entrepreneurship, environmental uncertainty and small business performance: A contingent examination. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 1–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09713 55716 677385 Zahra, S. A. (2021). The resource-based view, resourcefulness, and resource management in startup firms: A proposed research agenda. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1841– 1860. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06321 10185 05 Zastempowski, M. (2023). The dual nature of cooperation and its influence on SME’s innovativeness. Heliyon, 9(6), 16824. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. heliy on. 2023. e16824 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.