In business strategy, identifying competitors has long seemed straightforward. Carmakers battle carmakers; phone giants face off against phone giants. On the surface, industries define the battlegrounds. Yet beneath these obvious rivalries lies a more complex competitive reality—one shaped as much by perception and narrative as by market structure.
Recent research suggests that the clearest signals of rivalry may not be found in financial statements or product portfolios, but in the way firms are discussed in the daily news. These signals expose hidden competitors—firms that executives may overlook but that markets, investors, and stakeholders implicitly group together.
News Co-Mentions: A New Lens on Competition
Our researchers propose a novel approach to identifying competitors by analyzing news co-mentions—how often two firms are mentioned together in media coverage. Unlike traditional methods, which compare firms based on size, product similarity, or financial metrics, co-mentions capture dynamic interactions in real time.
News stories reflect ongoing events, partnerships, disputes, and innovations. When two firms appear side by side in coverage, it signals that stakeholders perceive them as rivals—whether or not their annual reports say so. This approach reframes competition as a cognitive phenomenon: what matters is not only who firms compete with, but also who they are perceived to compete with.
Microsoft’s Multi-Front Rivalries
Consider Microsoft. Traditional analysis identifies Apple, IBM, and Oracle as its closest competitors. Yet news co-mention data often links Microsoft with Facebook and Alphabet—firms that compete less on operating systems and more on cloud services, AI, and digital ecosystems.
This example illustrates how competitive boundaries shift. Firms may believe they are fighting one battle, but stakeholders perceive them as engaged in several others. Recognizing these “hidden fronts” is crucial for anticipating strategic pressures.
Why This Matters for ESG Strategy
The stakes are particularly high in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategy. ESG reporting and performance are rarely judged in isolation; they are benchmarked against peers. Traditionally, those peers are defined by industry classification. But if the media—and by extension, investors and analysts—associate a firm with a broader or different set of companies, then expectations for ESG behavior shift accordingly.
For example, when Microsoft and Alphabet are co-mentioned in articles about carbon neutrality or AI ethics, markets begin to expect alignment between their ESG strategies. A firm that fails to meet these expectations risks reputational damage, regardless of how it compares to its “official” industry peers.
This dynamic gives rise to what we might call cognitive strategic groups—clusters of firms linked together through perception rather than structure. Within these groups, ESG disclosures and practices often converge, not because firms are identical, but because the market holds them to shared standards.
Strategic Implications for Managers
For executives, the lesson is clear: competitive analysis must extend beyond industry maps and financial benchmarks. Monitoring news-driven peer associations is essential for understanding how stakeholders define the competitive landscape in real time.
Managers who fail to recognize hidden rivals risk blind spots in ESG strategy, investor relations, and reputation management. Conversely, those who leverage co-mention analysis can anticipate where pressures will emerge, benchmark effectively, and adapt ESG practices before the market demands it.
Conclusion: Reading Between the Lines
Competition today is as much about perception as performance. The narratives that link firms in media coverage help shape investor expectations, stakeholder scrutiny, and ultimately strategic outcomes.
In an era where ESG factors weigh heavily on corporate legitimacy, identifying unseen rivals is no longer optional. It is a strategic necessity. The daily news does more than report business activity—it quietly redraws the lines of rivalry. Executives would do well to read between those lines.