Darwinomics: Competition vs Cooperation

While Darwinomics doesn’t have an official definition, it clearly does not engender a spirit of co-operation, something which more and more analysts are leaning towards in the common interests of businesses and the communities they impact on. This focuses on an age-old debate regarding whether competition or cooperation is most beneficial to businesses. Competition has its place, as without it collusion would proliferate, with the consumer being the loser, hence the need for competition regulating authorities. However, grabbing the lion’s share of the market can result in obliterating smaller competitors and could very well give rise to an oligopoly or duopoly situation, which is also not ideal, but preferable to a monopoly.

Negotiating a path through the turbulent waters of an economic crisis has raised unprecedented issues which will no doubt produce some ‘seemed like a good idea at the time’ moments in retrospect – hindsight being 20/20. However, the fact that increased emphasis is being placed on transparency in business, as well as corporate social responsibility, offers businesses the opportunity to build a reputation for operating in line with ethical business practices and in a spirit of cooperation, rather than to fight to the top of the food-chain regardless of the consequences. In the long run this is likely to be the wisest course, especially in light of the growing trend of socially responsible investors and the increasingly popular practice of ethical consumerism.