Manufacturing single champion firms (MSCFs), as industrial “bellwethers,” are pivotal in fostering the virtuous development of upstream and downstream industrial chains through their coopetition behaviors. An increasing number of MSCFs are shifting from the traditional “zero-sum game” competitive mindset to a “positive-sum game” coopetition mindset. However, translating this coopetition mindset into sustained practice remains challenging. A key difficulty lies in identifying and sequencing the driving factors of coopetition within differentiated scenarios. Given the limited prior research on this issue, it is of significant theoretical and practical value to explore the key drivers and their action paths for MSCFs’ coopetition behaviors across different scenarios, using simulation methods to uncover the underlying logic of how these driving factors transform as scenarios change.

This study draws on 7931 unbalanced panel observations from 103 MSCFs spanning the years 2017 to 2024. Employing bibliometric analysis and keyword co-occurrence networks, we identify the driving factors of coopetition behaviors and construct a 2×2 “technology-market” scenario matrix. Using the entropy weight method and DEMATEL-NK techniques, we systematically examine scenario-specific driving factors and their implementation paths. The findings reveal that: (1) Innovation Advantage Empowerment (IAE), Strategic Orientation Change (SOC), Network Relationship Construction (NRC), Organizational Risk Control (ORC), and Key Resources Development (KRD) constitute the fundamental drivers of coopetition behaviors in MSCFs. (2) Through 100000 simulations conducted in MATLAB 2016b across four scenarios, the realization paths for coopetition behaviors are identified based on the highest frequency of element occurrence. The paths vary by scenario: under the conservative-maintenance scenario, the path is ORC→IAE→SOC; under the technology-driven scenario, it is NRC→SOC→IAE→KRD; under the market-driven scenario, it is NRC→SOC→ORC; and under the radical synergy scenario, it is NRC→ORC→IAE→SOC. Case analyses further validate these differentiated paths. (3) The study identifies two transition logics for key driving factors when scenarios change: SOC acts as a “transformation hub” when shifting from a conservative-maintenance scenario to an adjacent (market- or technology-driven) scenario, while ORC serves as the “transformation hub” in the transition from a market-driven to a radical synergy scenario.

The study contributes to coopetition theory and offers practical guidance for MSCFs to effectively prioritize and coordinate key drivers in sustaining coopetition relationships. Theoretically, by integrating a randomly generated fitness landscape with functional computation, this approach mitigates limitations inherent in the traditional NK model, enhancing the objectivity and robustness of the results. The multi-method research design enriches methodological diversity in coopetition research and expands the conceptual framework for understanding how MSCFs’ coopetition drivers adapt to differentiated scenarios. Practically, managers should activate key driving factors and optimize their allocation sequence according to the specific scenario in which the firm operates. Moreover, MSCFs need to dynamically adjust to scenario changes, reallocating resources promptly and transitioning to new implementation paths to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of coopetition. From a policy perspective, targeted support should be provided to facilitate coopetition in different scenarios. Governments should also focus on establishing a fair, open, and institutionally supportive environment that encourages coopetition, helping MSCFs adapt key drivers in response to scenario shifts and thereby promoting the sustainability of coopetition relationships.