5. Conclusion
In line with previous studies (see for example, Hatak & Roessl, 2011; Niemelä, 2004; Roessl, 2005; Roessl et al., 2010), we can conclude from our content analysis that despite both distillery and brewery owners stating that they believe they are in an equal partnership, evidence quickly emerges from the interviews that suggests a power imbalance in favour ofthe larger brewery in terms of the dependency and resources invested. Despite this disparity, the cooperation has continued to flourish. We propose that this can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, it is the similarity between the two businesses, notin terms of size of operations butin terms of vision, values and “familiness”. Also, the brewery and the distillery see a lot of significance in their role as a local family business and take this responsibility seriously; this can go some way to reduce the risk of the larger brewery taking advantage of the smaller distillery, as reputations can be quickly ruined due to close community ties. Another key success factor in this particular cooperation is the building of a proven track record as a reliable and trustworthy business partner (Eddleston, Chrisman, Steier, & Chua, 2010). This establishes the necessary amount of trust capital and may also help to diminish the risk to the smaller partner of opportunism on the part of the larger business. The result of this trust in interfamily firm cooperation is an improved communication flow and a reduced need for costly legal intervention.