Document Type : Original Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate Professor, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
2 PhD Candidate, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The insurance industry has recently undergone profound and disruptive changes under the sweeping influence of digital transformation. The emergence of new technologies such as AI, blockchain, etc.… evolving customer expectations and intensifying competitive pressures have driven traditional insurance companies toward adopting innovative business models, particularly platform-based designs. Among these, co‑opetition—strategic collaboration with competitors—has emerged as an effective approach for achieving sustainable competitive advantage and creating shared value. Nevertheless, only a limited number of specialized studies have explored this approach in the context of the insurance industry in depth. In fact, co‑opetition in the insurance sector has received little attention in the existing literature and in Iran almost no research has been conducted in this field. Specifically, no studies were found addressing co‑opetition within the platform ecosystems of the insurance industry. The present study aims to bridge this research gap by conducting a systematic review to extract certain themes relevant to co‑opetition strategy from related and adjacent industries and to propose a model for adapting these themes to the platform ecosystem of the insurance sector.
METHODS: This research was conducted using a systematic literature review to examine the applicability of successful co‑opetition patterns from other industries in the context of insurance. To this end, the main co‑opetition themes in various industries were identified and analyzed and their potential transferability to platform industries and ecosystems—particularly the insurance sector—was assessed. The reporting process followed the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses), which, by standardizing the reporting process, help authors to clearly and completely present the rationale for conducting the review, the methods employed, and the resulting findings. In this study, a total of 140 sources were initially identified and after two stages of screening 27 articles were selected for systematic review. The patterns found in these articles were then examined through thematic analysis, and ultimately a model for adaptation to the insurance ecosystem was presented.
FINDINGS: This study, using a systematic review approach, identified and adapted co‑opetition patterns from platform-based, ecosystem-based, service, and financial industries, and evaluated their transferability to insurance platform ecosystems. The results of the combined review and analysis of the data revealed that the main co‑opetition themes, despite institutional and structural differences, occur across industries and can be localized for the insurance sector. Based on the findings, in the domain of co‑opetition in similar or related industries, six main categories of themes with various forms and dimensions were identified. The research findings include 175 unique codes from the systematic review which, through thematic analysis, ultimately yielded 6 main themes (comprising 17 sub‑themes): drivers (environmental pressures, organizational incentives, and objectives such as innovation and risk sharing), co‑opetition model selection (structural, dynamic, and domain‑based), mechanisms (strategic alliances, resource sharing, open platform models), tension management (inherent tensions, approaches to managing tension, leadership roles), strategic dimensions (levels of co‑opetition, adaptive strategies, value‑creation approaches), and outcomes (organizational, network, and ecosystem levels). It appears that in organizations that adopt co‑opetition strategies, such themes are consistently present, and issues related to them exist in these areas.
CONCLUSION: Comparing co‑opetition patterns across various industries with those in the insurance sector shows that a significant portion of the identified themes, with adaptation and localization, are applicable in insurance platform ecosystems. However, characteristics such as the high sensitivity of insurance data, strict regulations, and the long‑term nature of contractual relationships underscore the need for precise and controlled implementation of each co‑opetition mechanism. The findings provide a foundation for developing hybrid co‑opetition models suited to the specific conditions of the insurance industry. The study’s recommendations for improving co‑opetition in insurance platforms focus on six key areas: (1) co‑opetition governance through hybrid models, standardized data‑sharing protocols, and the participation of all stakeholders; (2) shared infrastructure such as open technological platforms, a common technology core, and joint research and development projects; (3) collaborative learning and innovation through innovation centers, pilot programs, and experience‑transfer mechanisms; (4) tension management via leadership training, controlled information flows, and selective knowledge sharing; (5) value‑creation models including joint packages, profit sharing, and co‑creation of customer experiences, and (6) the role of regulators in creating incentives, developing preventive regulations, and supporting the reconfiguration of the value chain.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
Letters to Editor
Send comment about this article