The firm’s biggest competitor could also be its most trusted advisor. That’s the main finding of a new study published in the Journal of Supply Chain Management.
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
Jensen, J. C., D.Cole, L.Thornton, A.Roath, and R. G.Richey (2026) interviewed 33 executives from US trucking companies and discovered that firms actively share knowledge with rivals to prepare for disruptions. It is named as co‑opetition: simultaneous competition and cooperation. Through informal social networks, industry associations, and even customer‑facilitated meetings, trucking executives exchange procedural knowledge (how to handle rail yard congestion) and endorsed knowledge (formal safety routines).
They also guard their secret sauce – pricing models and customer lists – to stay competitive.
The result is a resilient supply chain ecosystem where carriers persist through shocks, adapt quickly, and even transform industry practices together.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.70024
How competing trucking firms share knowledge to survive disruptions. Based on 33 in‑depth interviews with US trucking executives, this study uncovers three mechanism‑driven processes — third‑party bridging, knowledge seeking, and knowledge guarding — that enable supply chain resilience (persistence, adaptation, transformation). Co‑opetition transforms defensive routines into proactive risk management.
Supply chain resilience through co‑opetition
Ecological systems lens (Folke, 2006; Wieland & Durach, 2021): resilience is the capacity to persist, adapt, or transform in the face of change. Co‑opetition—simultaneous competition and cooperation—enables knowledge exchange among rivals sharing industry‑wide challenges (driver shortages, equipment costs, nuclear verdicts).
“How do knowledge‑sharing mechanisms within co‑opetitive relationships among firms enable the development of organizational resilience strategies characterized by persistence, adaptation, and transformation?”
Organizational learning theory (OLT) foundation
Firms acquire, interpret, and share knowledge to adapt. Two knowledge types are critical: procedural knowledge (tacit, context‑specific, from experience) and endorsed knowledge (formal routines, documented policies). Knowledge asymmetry across carriers sparks “pathway diversity” – learning from others’ mistakes without bearing the full cost of failure. As one CEO put it: “You learn by sharing ideas. If they’re sharper than you, you can learn from them.”
The study extends vertical collaboration (buyer‑supplier) to horizontal co‑opetition: competitors openly exchange insights about safety, technology, maintenance, and capacity utilisation, while respecting legal boundaries and guarding unique differentiators.
Three linked mechanisms that enable resilience
From reflexive thematic analysis of 33 executive interviews, the authors identified a process model: third‑party bridging → knowledge seeking ← knowledge guarding (boundary condition).
1. Third‑Party Bridging
Definition: Facilitation of competitor cooperation by industry coordinators – associations, freight brokers, customers, key vendors. These neutral parties reduce competitive friction, create safe forums, and enable resource pooling (e.g., trailer interchange).
- Example: A leasing agent connected a carrier to a large intermodal competitor, giving “the missing puzzle piece” for a congested rail yard.
- State trucking associations: “smaller companies engaged with their state trucking association are statistically safer operators.”
- Large shippers organise twice‑yearly meetings where carriers discuss concerns and share capacity – “trailer interchange agreements have bailed out other carriers.”
2. Knowledge Seeking
Executives deliberately target competitors with specific expertise to fill gaps in procedural knowledge (“how we actually handle X”) and endorsed knowledge (“what the formal process says”). Knowledge asymmetry drives active search.
- “We may technically be competitors, but we’re facing many of the same headwinds. It makes sense to be more collective with information.” (R1 VP, R Carrier)
- Sharing experiences about Volvo maintenance (embedding a technician), driver wellness programmes, claims prevention, and LTL network sharing.
- “Sanity test” – one executive: “I see something developing; I wonder if anybody else is having this issue.”
3. Knowledge Guarding (Boundary Condition)
Firms willingly share knowledge about common industry pain points (safety, maintenance, regulations) but protect competitive differentiators: pricing models, customer lists, unique driver recruitment strategies.
- “Colonel Sanders didn’t run around handing out his recipe to everybody.” (J2 Director, J Carrier)
- Gentlemen’s agreements not to poach each other’s drivers.
- “We never engage in any conversations regarding specifics about customers or prices.” (Executive VP, J Carrier)
Empirical approach: critical realism & thematic analysis
Exploratory, abductive design grounded in critical realism – interpreting managers’ lived experiences to uncover underlying generative mechanisms. Semi‑structured, phenomenologically oriented interviews with high‑level executives (presidents, VPs, CEOs).
Data collection & trustworthiness
Information power sampling (Malterud et al.) ensured rich, relevant data. Interviews conducted April–Dec 2023, guided by a protocol covering risk challenges, resilience measures, and competitor relationships. Trustworthiness: credibility (member checks, peer debriefing), confirmability (audit trail), dependability (code‑recode), and transferability (thick description).
Six‑phase reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) using MAXQDA 24. Abductive logic moved iteratively between OLT literature and empirical patterns. Claims tables (Rockmann & Vough, 2024) anchored quotes by vividness and comprehensiveness. The research team engaged in reflexive dialogue to refine three primary mechanisms.
Sample composition: Presidents/CEOs (e.g., Z, Q, O, P carriers), VPs, Directors, industry association leaders – all with direct strategic oversight. Organisational sizes ranged from small fleets (<100 trucks) to large carriers (>1000 trucks), ensuring diverse perspectives on co‑opetition.
How co‑opetition builds resilience capacities
The mechanisms directly enable the three resilience capacities defined by Wieland & Durach (2021).
Persistence (operational continuity)
Shared procedural knowledge—how to handle rail yard congestion, electronic logging mandate compliance, and emergency response—allows carriers to withstand shocks without stopping. Third‑party associations disseminate safety bulletins and legal updates, reducing collective vulnerability.
- Example: “We got ideas from groups that have the same make of trucks – we went to our Volvo vendor and now have a Volvo technician in our shop.” (R1 VP, R Carrier)
Adaptation (planned recovery & reconfiguration)
Carriers reinterpret endorsed knowledge from peers to refine internal routines. CEO of O Carrier: “We don’t want to be cutting edge – we want someone else to carve that path for us.” Competitor insights about new technology, driver retention, and LTL network sharing allow firms to adapt faster and at lower cost.
- “Sanity test” – sharing observations about market shifts before committing resources.
Transformation (system‑level renewal)
While transformation emerges at network level, the study documents panarchical dynamics: when multiple carriers adopt trailer pooling, shared safety benchmarks, or coordinated driver health programmes, the entire logistics ecosystem becomes more flexible and responsive. Large shippers fostering carrier roundtables create systemic redundancy.
Selected vivid quotes from the field
- Knowledge seeking: “Some of my competitors are my most trusted advisors.” (President, E Carrier)
- Third‑party bridging: “We have trailer interchange agreements with other carriers within the [shipper] network – we bailed out other carriers that didn’t have driver capacity.” (R1 VP, R Carrier)
- Knowledge guarding: “There’s a lot of gentlemen’s agreements; you don’t reach out to their drivers and try to recruit them.” (CEO, M Carrier)
The study concludes that co‑opetition enhances visibility into emerging risks (nuclear verdicts, driver shortages, carbon regulations) and enables proactive risk management, turning the supply chain into a learning ecosystem.
Managerial, societal & future research directions
Managerial implications
- Leverage third‑party bridges: Participate in industry associations, vendor‑hosted roundtables, and customer‑led carrier meetings to access procedural knowledge safely.
- Separate common risk from secret sauce: Share knowledge about safety, maintenance, compliance; protect pricing and customer data. Use third parties as neutral facilitators.
- Formalise resource pooling: Trailer interchange, load consolidation, and shared capacity increase network‑wide flexibility – especially for small carriers.
- Reward collaborative learning: Encourage employees to bring external best practices without fear of retribution.
Societal benefits
Co‑opetition improves road safety, reduces carbon footprint (better trip planning, real‑time congestion sharing), and increases delivery timeliness. Sharing parking availability and port status reduces idle time and emissions. The industry can improve public perception by highlighting collaborative safety initiatives.
- Longitudinal studies – How does co‑opetition influence adoption rates of efficiency‑enhancing technologies (e.g., electric trucks, AI dispatch)?
- Cross‑context generalizability – Maritime, rail, air freight? Supplier‑supplier relationships in manufacturing?
- Sustainability & co‑opetition – What effect does competitor resource sharing have on carbon emissions reduction?
- Barriers to co‑opetition – When and why do firms refuse to cooperate despite mutual benefit?
- Micro‑foundations – How do drivers, dockworkers, and dispatchers contribute to horizontal knowledge flows?
- Global differences – How do cultural or regulatory contexts shape knowledge guarding vs. sharing?
Limitations
US trucking focus; limited generalisability to other regions or modes. Static one‑time interviews may miss evolutionary dynamics. Executive perspectives could differ from frontline insights. Future mixed‑method studies (network analysis + surveys) are encouraged.
Ultimately, co‑opetition transforms competitors into resilience allies – shifting from pure rivalry to collective adaptation in tomorrow’s volatile world.
Full reference & acknowledgements
Jensen, J. C., Cole, D., Thornton, L., Roath, A., & Richey, R. G. (2026). Learning through co‑opetition: How knowledge sharing builds supply chain resilience. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 62(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.70024
Key theoretical works: Wieland & Durach (2021) – two perspectives on SC resilience; Folke (2006) – social‑ecological resilience; Gnyawali & Ryan‑Charleton (2018) – co‑opetition theory; Kogut & Zander (1996) – organizational learning.
This interactive summary faithfully represents the original study’s findings, mechanisms, and contributions. All quotes are attributed to anonymised participants as per the paper’s IRB guidelines. Designed for educational and knowledge‑dissemination purposes.
