Purpose This study investigates how a supplier's perceptions of justice and dependence shape the decision to engage in coopetition with a competing supplier within a buyer–supplier–supplier triad. Building on Social Exchange Theory, we investigate which combinations of justice and dependence conditions jointly lead to coopetitive or non-coopetitive supplier–supplier relationships. Design/methodology/approach Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) is utilised to examine survey data from 47 buyer–supplier–supplier triads. We assess four justice dimensions and dependence towards both the buyer and the competing supplier and identify equifinal configurations sufficient for coopetition and its absence. Findings The results show that interpersonal and informational justice from the buyer and the competing supplier consistently enable coopetition, while dependence on the buyer or the competing supplier plays a contextual role. In contrast, the competing supplier's absence of interpersonal and informational justice enable non-coopetitive relationships, amplified by dependence asymmetry in the triad. Originality/value This study uncovers how configurations of justice and dependence shape coopetition. It contributes to supply network governance research by showing that coopetition is not a state or arises from isolated relational factors but is a response to distinct relational configurations across the triad. The configurational approach provides new insight into how suppliers strategically respond to relational tensions and power asymmetries in the supply network.
Mani et al. (Thu,) studied this question.