1. Introduction
As sustainable development becomes a contemporary imperative, innovation requirements are becoming progressively more demanding, and the iteration speed is accelerating. Enterprises that rely on their own innovation capabilities can no longer meet the needs of social and economic development or the demands of market competition. Cooperation among organizations or individuals to achieve innovation is inevitable, and thus, enterprise innovation networks have come into being. Imai and Baba first proposed the concept of enterprise innovation networks in 1989. They believe that an enterprise innovation network is a basic institutional arrangement designed to deal with systemic innovation. In innovation networks, members can innovate through strategic, knowledge, and organizational collaboration to obtain sustainable competitive advantages [
1]. Therefore, the innovation cooperation relationships among enterprises are the main connection of the network structure [
2]. A firm’s main purpose in establishing or joining an innovation network is to establish a cooperative relationship to acquire important resources and knowledge that it is currently lacking [
3].
Network environments and innovation activities are both characterized by high uncertainty and complexity. Therefore, collaborative innovation inevitably faces risks, such as opportunistic behavior, information asymmetry, and insufficient knowledge sharing, which directly affects the relationship between members and subsequently affect innovation network performance [
4]. Thus, membership coordination is the key to the sustainable development of innovation networks. Studies have shown that rather than formal governance mechanisms such as laws, regulations, and contracts [
5], cooperative culture as an informal governance mechanism can create a good atmosphere of communication and interaction in the network, which is a precondition for establishing cooperative relationships among members [
6,
7]. Cooperative culture is the soft environment shared by groups, and it plays a binding role in the formulation of economic strategies and goals. It is also the premise and foundation of the existence of relationship capital, which is conducive to promoting cooperation and exchange among members and coordinating the interests of multiple subjects to achieve synergy [
8]. This indicates that cooperative culture plays a governance role in innovation networks.
How does cooperative culture play a role in governance? James believes that cooperative culture exerts governance effects by forming an identity among members, constraining their behavior, and promoting communication and learning among them [
9]. Asheim (2002) [
10] points out that cooperative culture can create a good learning atmosphere within the network. Park (2017) [
11] identifies three primary elements of organizational culture that directly affect behavior of network members: values, norms, and practices. In other words, a sharing culture can promote improvements in innovation network performance by influencing members’ cooperative behavior. This indicates that organizational behavior is an important means by which cooperative culture plays a governance role. The theory of triadic reciprocal determinism regards environmental factors, individuals, and behaviors as relatively independent, but it also holds that they simultaneously interact with and influence one another [
12]. Based on triadic reciprocal determinism, some scholars point out that knowledge flow, as a behavior at the network level, is closely related to the cultural environment and individual cognition within the network [
13,
14]. Therefore, in the process of cooperative culture governance, the network should pay attention to the role of knowledge flow. Wang (2012) [
15] points out that the turbulence in innovation networks highlights the importance of knowledge as a source of competitive advantage. Knowledge transfer across organizational boundaries is an important advantage of innovation networks [
16]. Knowledge flow can promote innovation development within the entire network by promoting an incremental innovation of the network’s members [
17]. Frenz (2009) [
18] believes that organizations can increase the innovation potential of their enterprises through interactions between external knowledge and their own knowledge creation. This shows that knowledge flow has a certain governance effect within innovation networks.
Do cooperative culture and knowledge flow interact with one another in the governance process? If so, how? As a behavioral manifestation of the cooperative relationship among members, knowledge flow is essentially the process of knowledge diffusion and transfer among cooperative innovation members [
19], and it is highly dependent on the culture and environment [
20,
21]. Schilling and Fang (2014) [
22] find that the four SECI knowledge flow modes (socialization, externalization, combination and internalization) are robustly influenced by cultural context. Through knowledge flow, knowledge and culture resources in the network can be rationally transferred and effectively shared, and a synergistic innovation situation with complementary advantages and mutual benefits will be achieved. Smooth knowledge flow can effectively promote cultural exchange and integration among members, and it can further promote cooperative culture to better exert a governance effect [
23,
24] and improve innovation network governance performance.
The studies mentioned above reveal the governance role of cooperative culture and the interaction between cooperative culture and knowledge flow in the governance process. Examining the governance role of cooperative culture and improving innovation network governance performance are of great significance to the sustainability of innovation networks and the improvement in corporate competitiveness. However, the existing research still has some gaps. First, there is a lack of empirical testing of the relationships among cooperative culture, knowledge flow, and innovation network governance performance. Not much discussion has taken place on cooperative culture in the network environment, resulting in only a few studies that examine the governance effect of cooperative culture from a governance performance perspective. In addition, the role of knowledge flow in the process of cooperative culture governance still needs to be verified. Second, to the best of our knowledge, no study explores how cooperative culture and knowledge flow work together and how they influence innovation network governance performance. The specific path remains to be discovered. Based on triadic reciprocal determinism theory, this study constructs a relationship model of cooperative culture, knowledge flow, and governance performance. This is accomplished using structural equation modeling (SEM) and a questionnaire survey to empirically test the relationships among cooperative culture, knowledge flow, and governance performance in innovation networks. Subsequently, fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) is used to explore the effect of different combinations of cooperative culture and knowledge flow on governance performance and to identify the paths through which such effects are realized. These findings provide some new ideas and management implications for improving governance performance in innovation networks to achieve sustainable development.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
First, based on the triadic reciprocal determinism theory, this study introduced knowledge flow into the governance process of cooperative culture of enterprise innovation networks as an intermediary variable and constructed a theoretical model of ‘cooperative culture—Knowledge flow—Governance performance’. Second, we used a quantitative method (SEM) to verify the relationships among cooperative culture, knowledge flow, and innovation network governance performance. We found a positive effect of cooperative culture on the innovation network governance performance, in which knowledge flow plays an intermediary role. This discovery has a certain innovative value for cooperative culture in exerting governance in the innovation network. Finally, on the basis of the SEM test results, using the fsQCA method, we revealed that different combinations of cooperative culture and knowledge flow will have different effects on innovation network governance performance. Furthermore, we identified two paths to achieve high governance performance and four paths to achieve non-high governance performance from the perspective of cooperative culture and knowledge flow, which is conducive to promoting the sustainable development of innovation networks.
5.2. Implications for Practice
This study offers several useful and practical managerial implications. First, knowledge flow had a mediating effect on the relationship between cooperative culture and innovation network governance performance. Thus, innovation network governance should focus on creating a good knowledge flow environment and a smooth knowledge-sharing channel and on improving the knowledge creation ability of enterprises. On the one hand, we should increase the willingness of cultural exchanges among members, promote exchanges and interactions among members regarding technical experience and knowledge information, and reduce the risks of opportunistic member behavior and information asymmetry through the establishment of knowledge interaction platforms and cross-organizational work groups. On the other hand, by standardizing the intellectual property protection system in the network and providing timely and reliable knowledge information sources that allow cooperative culture to play a governance role, we can improve the stability of the innovation network and promote its sustainable development.
Second, more attention should be paid to cultural collaboration in innovation networks. The fsQCA results indicated that cultural compatibility and reciprocity are crucial to innovation network governance. Cultural differences among members are common in networks, so building a culture that is recognized by all members of the network is not a one-off process. From the perspective of the sustainable development of innovation networks, the premise of realizing innovation network culture collaboration is the recognition of cultural differences among members, and the identification of commonalities rather than the elimination of cultural differences—namely ‘seek common ground while reserving differences’ and shape the core value. At the same time, advocating win–win ideas and improving the collective spirit and cohesiveness among network members is crucial. Building a cooperative culture that reflects the common characteristics of network members and taking into account the interests of every member will improve innovation performance and promote the sustainability of innovation networks through cultural synergy.
Finally, cooperative culture and knowledge flow are guarantees for the sustainable development of innovation networks. The combination of cooperative culture and knowledge flow elements can form multiple paths for efficient governance networks, which is conducive to the sustainable development of the innovation network. In order to give full play to their roles in ensuring the sustainable development of the network, we should build a cultural orientation atmosphere that is suitable for a specific network based on the characteristics of knowledge flow in the network and its members’ abilities, in order to allow cultural soft constraints to better play a role in governance. A good collaborative atmosphere formed by cooperative culture is conducive to promoting knowledge exchange among members. In this case, the combination of cooperative culture and knowledge flow can achieve effective governance in the innovation network, which can undoubtedly promote the sustainable development of the network.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
This study has the following limitations. First, it divided cooperative culture into three dimensions, namely cultural fit, cultural compatibility, and reciprocity, based on the deductions of various relevant domestic and foreign literature. However, there may be more factors that influence cooperative culture, so this division may not be comprehensive enough; therefore, further research should enrich the connotation of cooperative culture. Second, culture is a highly contextual variable with certain geographical and national characteristics. The sample of this study comes mainly from the mainland of China, and therefore, generalization to the international applicability of the study’s conclusions needs further verification due to differences between Eastern and Western cultures. Future researchers must be cautious when applying our findings in other contexts.