Introduction
In today’s dynamic world, made of digital, technological, geopolitical, and socio-economic disruptions, buyer–seller relationships in the business-to-business (B2B) context are undergoing significant changes (Prior, Reference Prior2023). On the one hand, digitalization and technological innovations have reshaped B2B customer journeys (e.g., Perotti, Dhir, Ferraris & Kliestik, Reference Perotti, Dhir, Ferraris and Kliestik2024; Wünderlich et al., Reference Wünderlich, Blut, Brock, Heirati, Jensen, Paluch and Tóth2025), leading to an iterative shift between digital and physical interactions (Lundin & Kindström, Reference Lundin and Kindström2023). Buyers, indeed, rely less on human sales representatives (Drenik, Reference Drenik2022) and follow increasingly personalized digital procurement paths (Wünderlich et al., Reference Wünderlich, Blut, Brock, Heirati, Jensen, Paluch and Tóth2025). On the other hand, unpredictable global events such as health crises and regional wars are challenging the effective selection of suppliers, with consequences on the availability of buyers in building trust and managing long-term relationships (Prior, Reference Prior2023).
In response to these transformations, many studies (e.g., Ahn, Reference Ahn2025; Bourguignon, Terho & Hajjem, Reference Bourguignon, Terho and Hajjem2025; Sim, Conduit, Plewa & Hentzen, Reference Sim, Conduit, Plewa and Hentzen2022) have emphasized the need for identifying innovative strategies to deal with buyer–seller relationships. Accordingly, diverse contributions (e.g., Bourguignon et al., Reference Bourguignon, Terho and Hajjem2025; Wünderlich et al., Reference Wünderlich, Blut, Brock, Heirati, Jensen, Paluch and Tóth2025) call for investigating the process leading to create and maintain customer engagement (CE) as a crucial strategy for enhancing buyer–seller relationships.
CE can be defined as a multidimensional construct encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components (Brodie, Ilic, Juric & Hollebeek, Reference Brodie, Ilic, Juric and Hollebeek2013; Hollebeek, Conduit & Brodie, Reference Hollebeek, Conduit and Brodie2016), that has antecedents including a high level of actors’ satisfaction, trust, involvement, and commitment toward interactions and the relationship (Sim et al., Reference Sim, Conduit, Plewa and Hentzen2022). CE represents a source of competitive advantage for both parties involved in the B2B relationship (Srivastava, Sivaramakrishnan & Pandey, Reference Srivastava, Sivaramakrishnan and Pandey2024). For suppliers, it increases trust, loyalty, and more efficient sales processes with buyers (Youssef, Johnston, AbdelHamid, Dakrory & Seddick, Reference Youssef, Johnston, AbdelHamid, Dakrory and Seddick2018). For buyers, it enables more responsive resource allocation and flexible procurement terms, which in turn increase the predisposition to be loyal, committed, and involved with the supplier (Pansari & Kumar, Reference Pansari and Kumar2017; Sim et al., Reference Sim, Conduit, Plewa and Hentzen2022). As such, CE plays a central role in shaping relevant buyer–seller relationships in contemporary B2B markets.
However, the literature on CE in B2B still presents two critical gaps. First, most studies on CE adopt a supplier-centric orientation (e.g., Korkeamäki, Sjödin, Kohtamäki & Parida, Reference Korkeamäki, Sjödin, Kohtamäki and Parida2022), limiting their attention on buyers to the internal mechanisms and their responses to suppliers’ activities. Buyers operate as key boundary-spanners (Vesalainen, Rajala & Wincent, Reference Vesalainen, Rajala and Wincent2020), balancing internal demands and external uncertainty while facing competing pressures from technical teams, executives, and suppliers (Mohan, Casidy, Thaichon & Nyadzayo, Reference Mohan, Casidy, Thaichon and Nyadzayo2022). The current limited attention to buyers’ agency narrows the theoretical understanding of CE, specifically considering how they evaluate, develop, and sustain relationships with suppliers.
Second, while organizational buying behavior is often conceptualized as a predictable process that can be articulated into a specific framework (Johnston & Lewin, Reference Johnston and Lewin1996), this perspective reduces the possibility to identify contemporary contradictions, tensions, and instability in buyers’ activities and behavior (Bonney, Beeler & Chaker, Reference Bonney, Beeler and Chaker2022). Such instability is recently increased by geopolitical, economic, technological, and health disruptions (Guesalaga, Ruiz-Alba & López-Tenorio, Reference Guesalaga, Ruiz-Alba and López-Tenorio2024; Runfola, Milanesi & Guercini, Reference Runfola, Milanesi and Guercini2021). Accordingly, recent studies (e.g., Good, Pullins & Rouziou, Reference Good, Pullins and Rouziou2022) highlight the importance of understanding CE in volatile settings, including its maintenance amid shifting buyer preferences and disrupted supply chains. In fact, since the COVID-19 pandemic, buyers have become more informed, autonomous, and selective (Gustafson, Pomirleanu, Mariadoss & Johnson, Reference Gustafson, Pomirleanu, Mariadoss and Johnson2021). As buyers increasingly act as value co-creators and orchestrators of decision-making (Prior, Reference Prior2023), overlooking their role limits understanding of how CE emerges and evolves in complex B2B contexts.
Therefore, this study investigates how CE is developed and maintained from the buyer’s standpoint in the contemporary B2B market. Understanding buyer behaviors is crucial for identifying emerging CE dynamics and supporting sellers in adapting their relational strategies to match those of their buyers (PwC, Reference Pienaar2022).
Drawing on 25 in-depth interviews with senior buyers from medium to large firms, this study explores how CE is perceived, constructed, and reconfigured by B2B buyers in response to contextual and environmental pressures. To guide this investigation, Paradox Theory (PT) (Smith & Lewis, Reference Smith and Lewis2011) is employed as the interpretive lens of the research, meaning that it works as an analytical tool to interpret buyer-related tensions in B2B CE. Therefore, the article aims at contributing to the CE literature by uncovering the paradoxical tensions influencing CE formation and continuity from the buyer’s perspective. Findings suggest that CE in today’s B2B environment is a dynamic and often unstable construct characterized by several paradoxical tensions in the daily practice of buyers.
With the aim to offer an exploratory understanding of CE in contemporary B2B contexts and to provide insights for suppliers seeking to adapt their relational strategies to the contemporary behavior and tensions of buyers, the article is structured as follows. Section 2 explores the relevant literature on CE and buyer–seller relationships and addresses the research question. Section 3 illustrates the methodological approach while Section 4 presents the empirical findings of the study. Finally, Section 5 offers a critical discussion of results and Section 6 concludes with research implications, limitations, and future directions.
Literature background
CE in the contemporary B2B context
Bowden (Reference Bowden2009, p. 65) defines CE as a ‘psychological process that models the underlying mechanisms by which customer loyalty forms for new customers of a service as well as mechanisms by which loyalty may be maintained for repeat purchase customers of a service brand.’ CE represents a multidimensional construct characterized by two interrelated attributes (Hollebeek et al., Reference Hollebeek, Conduit and Brodie2016; Prior, Reference Prior2023): first, it is brand-centered, as it originates from customer interactions with all brand-related touchpoints; second, it reflects a psychological and emotional condition that is determined by customers’ perceptions, motivations, and cognitive frameworks, as well as their emotional responses over time. As a result, CE affects purchasing behavior and contributes to the development of enduring inter-organizational relationships (Harmeling, Moffett, Arnold & Carlson, Reference Harmeling, Moffett, Arnold and Carlson2017; Prior, Reference Prior2023).
In the B2B context, CE facilitates the creation of long-term relationships between buyers and suppliers, which often converge into solid and stable partnerships (Carr & Pearson, Reference Carr and Pearson1999). CE can potentially reduce buyer–supplier disagreements, mitigate difficulties, and simplify the bureaucracy behind purchasing processes (Haytko, Reference Haytko2004). In this view, CE in B2B becomes essential to reinforce long-lasting relationships, increase suppliers’ sales, and achieve positive implications in terms of leveraging the innovative capacity of actors (Agnihotri, Reference Agnihotri2020; Duffy, Fearne, Hornibrook, Hutchinson & Reid, Reference Duffy, Fearne, Hornibrook, Hutchinson and Reid2013).
Considering the ongoing technological, socio-economic, and geopolitical disruptions, CE is undergoing significant changes in terms of its location, timing, and strategic configuration (Bonney et al., Reference Bonney, Beeler and Chaker2022; Guesalaga et al., Reference Guesalaga, Ruiz-Alba and López-Tenorio2024; Sheth & Uslay, Reference Sheth and Uslay2023). Recent contributions highlight that CE is being reshaped by emerging phenomena, including digitalization, the integration of artificial intelligence, increased demand for personalized solutions, and the growing complexity of the organizational ecosystem (Kadirov, Sharipudin, Edu & Tjiptono, Reference Kadirov, Sharipudin, Edu and Tjiptono2023; Srivastava et al., Reference Srivastava, Sivaramakrishnan and Pandey2024).
Prior studies (e.g., Shahriar et al., Reference Shahriar, Babu, Hossain, Dey, Liu and Singh2023) examined how CE evolves due to technological changes. For instance, the emergence of new touchpoints has fragmented the antecedents of CE, which may now originate not only from a brand, a certain level of satisfaction or emotion, or the firm itself (Pansari and Kumar, Reference Pansari and Kumar2017) but also from a specific service or a technology (Hayes & Kelliher, Reference Hayes and Kelliher2022; Pöyry, Parvinen, Mattila & Holopainen, Reference Pöyry, Parvinen, Mattila and Holopainen2020; Shahriar et al., Reference Shahriar, Babu, Hossain, Dey, Liu and Singh2023). In parallel, social media platforms have become a relevant infrastructure for creating and maintaining CE (Bourguignon et al., Reference Bourguignon, Terho and Hajjem2025; Salonen, Mero, Munnukka, Zimmer & Karjaluoto, Reference Salonen, Mero, Munnukka, Zimmer and Karjaluoto2024). Suppliers are increasingly adopting platforms such as LinkedIn and Facebook to connect with customers and maintain a presence across multiple channels, thereby reducing information asymmetry with buyers (Agnihotri, Reference Agnihotri2020; Cortez & Dastidar, Reference Cortez and Dastidar2022).
Moreover, digital technologies enable buyers to initiate and complete their customer journeys across multiple contexts and devices, thereby creating continuity as they shift between online and offline touchpoints (Gustafsson, Öberg & Shams, Reference Gustafsson, Öberg, Shams and Witell2025; Wünderlich et al., Reference Wünderlich, Blut, Brock, Heirati, Jensen, Paluch and Tóth2025). In doing so, each buying process becomes increasingly individualized, enhancing the buyer’s autonomy in selecting modes, moments, and channels of interaction (Hayes & Kelliher, Reference Hayes and Kelliher2022). These shifts contribute to a broader power redistribution in B2B relationships, where buyers gain increasing influence over the initiation and evolution of CE (Srivastava et al., Reference Srivastava, Sivaramakrishnan and Pandey2024). As highlighted by Zolkiewski et al. (Reference Zolkiewski, Story, Burton, Chan, Gomes, Hunter-Jones and Robinson2017), the rapid alternation between digital and physical touchpoints reinforces the buyer’s centrality and weakens the seller’s traditional control over the relationship.
This transformation presents bright and dark sides. While buyers benefit from reduced information asymmetries via social media (Woo, Kim, Kim & Wang, Reference Woo, Kim, Kim and Wang2019), they are also confronted with information overload, which can complicate the matching process with suitable suppliers (Lundin & Kindström, Reference Lundin and Kindström2023). Moreover, buyers are not merely recipients of CE initiatives since they interact with supplier-generated content, provide feedback, and may even act as advocates or co-creators on digital platforms. Suppliers, in turn, are called to interpret and respond to these signals, adjusting their presence and communication intensity to buyer expectations. This evolving relational dynamic makes CE a shared, non-linear, and adaptive process (Lundin & Kindström, Reference Lundin and Kindström2023).
Today’s phenomena are transforming the creation and maintenance of CE. Guesalaga et al. (Reference Guesalaga, Ruiz-Alba and López-Tenorio2024) and Runfola et al. (Reference Runfola, Milanesi and Guercini2021) note that the pandemic and other global shocks have redefined how B2B actors communicate and negotiate, leading to the increased adoption of digital tools to intermediate business relationships, relying on solid partnerships during crisis times, and creating solid teams within supplier firms in order to promote CE through a logic of relational efficiency. Szulecki and Overland (Reference Szulecki and Overland2023) discuss how war-related disruptions reshape supply dependencies, while Markey (Reference Markey2025) examines how import–export tariffs modify expectations between buyers and suppliers. These insights suggest that CE is now taking place in volatile environments and is no longer a neutral process. Instead, it unfolds dynamically across ecosystems that are increasingly fragmented and unstable, where the role of the buyer appears to be both reinforced and weakened, marked by tensions between competing expectations, information flows, and strategic evolutions of the buyers’ role (Sim et al., Reference Sim, Conduit, Plewa and Hentzen2022).
The evolving role of the buyer in B2B relationships
Today, buyers are no longer simply operational figures tasked with cost reduction. Instead, they are increasingly engaged in corporate decision-making and internally perceived as strategic actors (Rodríguez-Escobar & González-Benito, Reference Rodríguez-Escobar and González-Benito2017). Specifically, they face critical decisions influenced by multiple constraints, such as budget limitations, generational shifts in decision-making teams, and unstable supply chains, while operating with limited resources in increasingly fragmented markets (Winters et al., Reference Winters, Hayes, Buten, Vasudevan, Caplow, Viola and Lind2024).
Buyers should be able to continuously mediate between competing internal demands (e.g., technical departments, production teams, and top management) and external supplier relationships, which are themselves subject to uncertainty and instability (Schmelzle, Pellathy, Tate & Min, Reference Schmelzle, Pellathy, Tate and Min2025). They are also expected to cultivate long-term relationships with suppliers while simultaneously managing organizational expectations and mitigating risks (Pansari & Kumar, Reference Pansari and Kumar2017). As a result, buyers have become a central figure in value co-creation and in shaping CE strategies (Gottge, Menzel & Forslund, Reference Gottge, Menzel and Forslund2020) since they are responsible for maintaining internal alignment, building trust with external actors, and ensuring that their organizations are not exposed to opportunistic behaviors or external vulnerabilities (Sim et al., Reference Sim, Conduit, Plewa and Hentzen2022). Buyers should not only manage relationships with external stakeholders and coordinate internal activities but also adapt to an evolving technological landscape (Srivastava et al., Reference Srivastava, Sivaramakrishnan and Pandey2024). Consider, for instance, the integration of interface tools between buyers and suppliers, such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) platforms. These digital tools amplify contextual complexity as they are not self-contained systems but continuously evolve and shape business relationship quality in response to external factors including market knowledge and competitive intelligence (Latifi, Ebrahimi, Ranjbaran, Mirzaei & Fakhri, Reference Latifi, Ebrahimi, Ranjbaran, Mirzaei and Fakhri2023).
However, despite this centrality, literature has devoted limited attention to the buyer’s perspective in the formation and maintenance of CE. Existing studies (e.g., Srivastava et al., Reference Srivastava, Sivaramakrishnan and Pandey2024) emphasize how digitalization is transforming CE, highlighting how the interpersonal and relational dimensions of CE from the buyer’s perspective have so far been overlooked. Importantly, even more limited are studies that analyze how buyers experience and respond to tensions embedded in contemporary CE practices. These include dilemmas in the relational strategies between transparency and ambiguity, as well as automated processes and interpersonal interactions, and the trade-off between short-term efficiency and long-term collaboration (e.g., Crick & Crick, Reference Crick and Crick2021).
Considering these unresolved issues, the present study employs a qualitative approach to investigate if and how tensions in the buyer–seller relationship impact the formation and maintenance of CE. Specifically, the research addresses the following question:
How do buyers face the creation and management of CE toward suppliers in today’s dynamic business environment?
Methodology
Research design
The present study adopts a qualitative, exploratory methodological approach. Qualitative exploratory studies typically do not allow for broad generalizations; instead, they are effective in identifying emerging patterns in specific contexts and in guiding future research (Silverman, Reference Silverman2011). Given the scarcity of research connected to understanding how CE is evolving from the buyer’s perspective, this approach is considered appropriate to identify emerging patterns in this context.
Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006, Reference Braun and Clarke2021) after conducting in-depth interviews with key informants (Calantone, Cavusgil & Zhao, Reference Calantone, Cavusgil and Zhao2002). This technique focuses on identifying and interpreting recurring patterns to uncover the core meanings and constructs underlying a phenomenon (Gaillard & Hughes, Reference Gaillard and Hughes2014). It enables researchers to identify salient themes, interpret their relevance, and provide a theoretically informed understanding of the findings.
To contribute to CE-related theory, the study adopts the buyer’s standpoint. As previously discussed, buyers play a crucial role in ensuring the supply of resources for both operational and internal needs. However, their role is often overlooked in analyses of buyer-seller relationships, particularly in light of buyers’ strategies for achieving and sustaining CE with suppliers (Mohan et al., Reference Mohan, Casidy, Thaichon and Nyadzayo2022).
Paradox theory (PT) as interpretative lens
The analysis employs PT as an interpretive framework, as a tool to decode the collected data, inspired by the work of Francis and Keegan (Reference Francis and Keegan2018), who applied PT to analyze engagement during organizational austerity, emphasizing the need to investigate the tensions that underpin CE in critical periods of human history. Paradoxes are defined as ‘contradictory yet interconnected dual elements that coexist simultaneously and endure over time; these elements appear coherent when examined individually but turn illogical, incongruous, and nonsensical when placed side by side’ (Smith & Lewis, Reference Smith and Lewis2011, p. 387).
In B2B contexts, these tensions often concern relational proximity, trust, opportunism, and collaborative competition (e.g., Blome, Paulraj, Preuss & Roehrich, Reference Blome, Paulraj, Preuss and Roehrich2023; Crick & Crick, Reference Crick and Crick2021; Galvani & Bocconcelli, Reference Galvani and Bocconcelli2021). For example, strong relationships may foster loyalty but also increase the risk of opportunism, as parties act in their self-interest rather than for mutual benefit, thereby threatening the continuity of the relationship (Blome et al., Reference Blome, Paulraj, Preuss and Roehrich2023; Ferro-Soto, Padin, Roberts-Lombard, Svensson & Høgevold, Reference Ferro-Soto, Padin, Roberts-Lombard, Svensson and Høgevold2024). These tensions and contradictions are not sporadic; instead, they persist and evolve under unstable conditions (De Silva, Agostini, Nosella & Verwaal, Reference De Silva, Agostini, Nosella and Verwaal2024). Each paradoxical tension, therefore, marks a challenge in shaping and sustaining the concept of CE.
PT does not simply identify these tensions; it also emphasizes the relevance of continuous balancing mechanisms (such as acceptance, separation, and integration) to address conflicting logics (Smith & Lewis, Reference Smith and Lewis2011; Sutherland & Smith, Reference Sutherland and Smith2011). In line with the study’s aim and research question, PT is used to understand how buyers interpret and experience CE in uncertain and complex environments.
Sampling and data collection
The study is based on 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews with selected buyers. Interviewees were contacted via LinkedIn after verifying their roles and organizational affiliation through the company’s website and according to the following selection criteria: (i) working in medium-to-large firms with formal purchasing departments, (ii) representing different industries to reduce sector-specific biases, (iii) having direct supplier interaction and procurement responsibilities, and (iv) possessing at least five years of experience in purchasing.
Medium – and large-sized companies were chosen since previous research shows how purchasing practices in small firms often differ significantly from those in larger firms (e.g., Paik, Kim & Park, Reference Paik, Kim and Park2017). In smaller firms, informal and unstructured processes can obscure or distort the presence of internal tensions and paradoxes. Conversely, more formal structures in medium and large firms offer a clearer view of procurement-related dynamics.
A semi-structured protocol incorporating the ‘prompts’ technique (Jiménez & Orozco, Reference Jiménez and Orozco2021) was used to conduct the interviews. This approach encouraged participants to explore relevant experiences while reducing the risk of interviewer bias (Granot, Brashear & Motta, Reference Granot, Brashear and Motta2012). The protocol covered three main dimensions: context, personal experience, and meaning. Topics included buyers’ perceptions of their role, their skills in managing supplier relationships, perceived benefits and challenges of supplier engagement, and emerging internal and external tensions. The protocol was tested with representatives of the Italian Purchasing and Supply Management Association (ADACI) to determine its overall clarity. This step was essential to define understandable questions for respondents.
Interviews were conducted in two phases to increase the depth and reliability of the findings. The first round, conducted between August and October 2022, consisted of 14 interviews, each lasting approximately 50 min. Following an initial round of data coding, 11 additional interviews were conducted between August and October 2023 to better explore the perceived effects of global phenomena (e.g., geopolitical and economic disruptions) on CE. See Table 1 for details on all the respondents.
Information about respondents. Source: authors’ elaboration
All interviews were conducted in Italian via Zoom, recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English. Translations were reviewed by researchers familiar with procurement terminology to ensure accuracy in meaning. Data saturation was achieved after 25 interviews, as no new relevant insights were emerging (Faulkner & Trotter, Reference Faulkner, Trotter, Matthes, Davis, Potter, Faulkner and Trotter2017).
Data analysis
Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (Reference Braun and Clarke2006) thematic analysis framework, enhanced by Gioia et al.’s (Gioia, Corley & Hamilton, Reference Gioia, Corley and Hamilton2013) method of first – and second-order coding. The integration of these approaches allows for a more structured and conceptually grounded organization of findings.
The data analysis process was informed by a systematic combining approach (Dubois and Gadde, Reference Dubois and Gadde2002) throughout the research process, which involved the continuous interplay between theoretical frameworks and empirical findings. This approach enabled the authors to move iteratively between their evolving understanding of CE literature and the emerging insights from interview data with buyers. Rather than following a linear progression from theory to data collection to analysis, authors engaged in ongoing dialogue between theoretical concepts and empirical observations. The systematic combining process was particularly valuable in identifying the tensions that buyers experience in contemporary CE relationships, as it allowed a refinement of the analytical focus through constant comparison between findings and existing theoretical constructs.
The systematic combining approach also facilitated a deeper understanding of the buyer’s perspective on CE. In greater detail, after the first interview round, the authors independently familiarized themselves with the transcriptions. They coded the data (initial coding, first-order codes) following the PT lens. The results were then compared blindly to validate the codes while minimizing bias. Once agreement was reached as a result of a continuous iteration from data to theory and vice versa, first-order codes were grouped into second-order themes based on commonalities and contrasts. Any discrepancies were resolved through team discussions and literature cross-checks. At this stage, the authors began identifying themes as part of the data analysis process.
Data from the second round refined and expanded the initial coding scheme. The authors individually updated first-order codes and then convened to finalize second-order categories. To minimize researcher bias, the authors engaged in reflective discussions throughout the coding process, keeping a reflexive log to trace the evolving interpretations. Disagreements were handled through discussion and further theoretical comparison. After defining first- and second-order codes, four macro-themes were defined, reflecting the most prominent findings: the role of buyers, buyer–supplier relationships, internal information flows, and the source of engagement. The authors labeled the themes to represent the central concept of each (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2021).
Secondary sources helped fill data gaps and strengthen the research validity (Carter, Bryant-Lukosius, DiCenso, Blythe & Neville, Reference Carter, Bryant-Lukosius, DiCenso, Blythe and Neville2014). Publicly available information (e.g., LinkedIn profiles and company disclosures) was used to triangulate interview data, especially to validate the respondents’ narratives. For instance, some buyers had publicly expressed frustration on LinkedIn regarding the lack of autonomy in supplier selection due to production managers enforcing preferred vendors. These sentiments aligned with their interview accounts, reinforcing the credibility of the reported tensions. Role descriptions and company affiliations were also verified through secondary sources, and no discrepancies emerged. This triangulation increased confidence in the reliability of the data and interpretive claims. In the event that possible discrepancies were identified between what was stated by interviewees and what emerged from triangulation with secondary data (e.g. public profiles), these were discussed within the team to exclude outliers. The final coding structure, presented in Figure 1, includes 254 first-order codes, 12 second-order codes, and 4 overarching themes derived through iterative analysis.
Codes and themes. Source: authors’ elaboration.
Results
This section presents the results of the research, highlighting the key findings that emerged from data collection. The analysis revealed four main themes emphasized by the interviewees, namely the role of the buyer, the buyer–supplier relationship, the internal information flow, and the source of CE. The following sections present the key insights related to each of these overarching themes. In particular, each paragraph incorporates illustrative quotes from the interviews and explicitly indicates the number of respondents who report similar information, thereby avoiding the risk of using anecdotal evidence.
The role of buyers
All respondents (25/25 – all sample) highlight how the buyers’ role in the buyer–supplier relationship is evolving. On the one hand, they continue to have the empowerment to choose which suppliers to engage with and manage interactions throughout the relationship. On the other hand, they face organizational conflicts when attempting to maintain such a relationship. Although they have an essential role in ensuring that supply contracts and relations run smoothly, they also noted that the technical and production departments are gaining significant influence. Accordingly, most interviewees (17/25 – two thirds of the sample) describe frequent situations where the production, technical, and quality departments independently determine supply and supplier requirements without direct interaction with buyers, also engaging in exclusive relationships that compromise the buyer’s role. As highlighted by a respondent: ‘In several cases, buyers [..] are not involved in business decisions’ (I23).
In saying so, various interviewees, (16/25 – two-thirds of the sample), experienced a decentralization of the role of buyers within the organization over the last few years, diminishing the buying center’s power in favor of technical departments. Buyers have been forced to accept input from product developers, and they were unable to interact and engage with other suppliers. Thus, buyers reported (14/25 – more than half of the sample) being forced to make compromises with other departments and collaborate with suppliers selected by other functions, which led to frustration in performing their jobs and maintaining fruitful relationships with partners.
‘If purchasing departments were more involved in decisions, we would have several advantages […] because selecting suppliers allows us to sustain lower costs and to operate more quickly in the market, reducing criticality and leading to solid, value-based partnerships’ (I23).
A primary concern for buyers with limited decision-making power is that they are developing collaborations based not on CE but on organizational inertia, which increases the risk associated with suppliers that adopt opportunistic behaviors. Some respondents (8/25 – less than one-half of the sample) highlight how their role is increasingly perceived as bureaucratic and administrative, more dedicated to simply supporting other departments and powerful suppliers than to engaging with new suppliers to ensure the competitiveness of firms. Moreover, buyers are also experiencing pressure from managers and top directors. Some respondents (11/25 – nearly one-half of the sample) also describe situations where top management undertakes supply decisions without considering the objections of the buying center, often overriding the need of buyers to create new business relationships with a higher potential and grounding relationships with other suppliers on mere inertia.
‘A limited search for new suppliers fosters awareness in the supplier about having no more competitors … In this way, the supplier increases prices, and we find ourselves, after 20 years, in a situation where we would like to rejuvenate this supplier base that we are so attached to’ (I7).
‘We are asked to start from some existing relationship … From there, we must build the project and adapt competencies’ (I2).
‘It happens that the purchasing manager [..] does not have a voice because the company owners want to make the final decision’ (I22).
However, 17 out of 25 respondents (nearly two-thirds of the sample) mentioned a significant turnaround in these frustrating situations since global disruptions arrived (specifically, at the beginning of the pandemic). From then on, buyers have been called upon to find solutions regarding critical suppliers and assume a more significant role in the process. The challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as wars and socio-economic issues, underscored the need for firms to fully delegate supply chain management to the skills and competencies of buyers, as well as their inherent ability to navigate complexity. In other words, contemporary emergencies have led firms to rely on buyers to solve complex problems, thereby inducing buyers to regain a critical position in leading the company through crises, especially considering the activities involved in creating, maintaining, engaging with, disengaging from, and closing relationships with suppliers. Thus, crises increased the autonomy of buyers in developing and sustaining CE with suppliers since they were authorized to act freely and according to their competencies.
‘From the pandemic on, I feel like we achieved greater awareness and better collaboration with other business functions’ (I23).
‘Today the buyer is no longer a paper-pusher but a value to the company … [Because of the emergency] the management said to us: “Guys, I cannot accept these costs and these advances” … So, they decided to put everything in the hands of the purchasing department, excluding the project manager [who now reports to us]’ (I22).
The buyer–supplier relationship
Empirical data highlights two contrasting aspects shaping CE in the current times. First, the buyer–supplier relationship is evolving in response to two primary behaviors of buyers: transparency and ambiguity. Several respondents (15/25 – nearly two-thirds of the sample) underline the need for transparency, which entails sharing proprietary information and insights with suppliers, as well as updates, changes, or unexpected events, to ensure honesty and clarity and to facilitate the creation and consolidation of engagement with their commercial partners. Ambiguity, instead, involves voluntarily omitting information and clues connected to the supply chain and firms’ activities to stimulate the supplier and avoid opportunistic behaviors. While transparency with the supplier is generally considered an added value, ambiguity – although it can have a negative connotation for the supplier – can protect customers from opportunistic behaviors. For some buyers (9/25 – less than one-half of the sample), ambiguity is becoming a proactive strategy in response to uncertain market dynamics.
‘If I am ambiguous, the supplier perceives low power in the relationship … it makes them understand they are not a dominant supplier […] However, to be effective, this approach should not be performed by the purchasing department alone […]. It must be shared with the technical and production departments (I23).
As several interviewees point out (20/25 – nearly all of the sample), digitalization has recently elevated transparency to a new level. Tools such as SRM software and digital platforms now require complete transparency at every stage of the purchasing process. Buyers who experience digital purchases highlight that
‘Integrated software and platforms ensure one hundred percent purchasing transparency by providing all parties involved in the bidding process with the same information’ (I13).
Respondents (18/25 – more than two-thirds of the sample) perceive the recent call for transparency as valuable, as it enables the firm to communicate wishes and decisions clearly, even when these may harm the supplier.
‘Digitally enabled transparency makes it possible to maintain clear and direct relationships, preventing the supplier from engaging in questionable practices’ (I9).
Finally, contemporary socio-economic issues are also altering the buyer–supplier relationship. These issues, as reported by the interviewees (14/25 – more than one-half of the sample), led firms to perceive suppliers as an extension of the company and as key actors to be actively involved in the purchasing process, as they can propose solutions to needs that customers may be unable to define autonomously. As a result, companies increasingly engage in cooperation and co-creation of new products and services with suppliers with a more accurate understanding of the market turbulence.
‘The challenges in materials procurement [experienced since COVID-19] force us to think beyond immediate needs. Our procurement management is becoming more strategic and long-term, which requires the inevitable inclusion of suppliers in our processes’ (I5).
‘Engagement is becoming an increasingly important strength, and in the next few years, there will be an increasing push in this direction’ (I3).
The internal information flow
According to all respondents (25/25 – all of the sample), even though buyers detect comprehensive supplier information and maintain a continually updated record on the relational history, they could miss some elements as they do not have an exclusive relationship with suppliers. Several internal functions interact with suppliers, participate in decision-making processes, and develop engagement. This distributed relationship has significant consequences for the formation and maintenance of CE.
One possible scenario is that each department from the customer firm receives information about each supplier. In this case, a type of CE emerges that encompasses more organizational layers within the customer company. According to one respondent, ‘In this case, I do not see myself or my department as engaged … We generate some global engagement of all functions’ (I22). Another scenario includes suppliers that interact with various departments from the customer firm, but internal information asymmetry is present. In this case, respondents (12/25 – nearly one-half of the sample) report that, since suppliers are aware of the customer’s internal misalignments, they take advantage of the situation and push alternative supporters outside the buying center with the aim to limit the buyers’ power and improve contractual terms at their own favor.
‘It often happens that a supplier first tries to talk to a production or technical referent to convince them and establish a relationship with them to have an internal sponsor’ (I21).
According to all respondents (25/25 – all of the sample), the latter scenario has occurred in all organizations, particularly at the onset of health- and war-related crises. These crises led to shortened decision-making times and therefore a lack of communication coordination between buyers and other key figures in the process, resulting in information asymmetry. Consequently, buyers perceived the achieved CE with some suppliers as negative, especially with those involved in actions that jeopardize their interests. Moreover, considering these internal issues, buyers found themselves under increasing pressure to demonstrate their ability to manage complex relationships, even with information asymmetries.
‘Basically, now we need to align with all [internal] parties before going to the supplier … so that we can convey clearly what each has to say while trying to avoid omissions of information by others … mistakes are not contemplated in this historical era’ (I23).
‘Right now, the purchasing department is perceived poorly by all other departments … because to do its job well, the buying center needs information from all the departments, but they feel like the buyers want to interfere in their work … It is not an easy situation to manage’ (I16).
The source of engagement
As anticipated, many respondents (20/25 – more than two-thirds of the sample) highlight that new organizational tools, such as e-procurement platforms or SRM software, reconfigure buyer–supplier relationships, modifying how CE is determined and sustained. To assess supplier performance, most respondents (15/25 – nearly two-thirds of the sample) reported using supplier management software that processes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), offering a more straightforward representation of the relationship and enabling them to identify the most suitable supplier base. These digital tools become central in purchasing, influencing resource allocation and decision-making processes, especially in critical situations.
Interviewees (16/25 – nearly two-thirds of the sample) emphasize how, during challenging times, they felt a sense of protection in performing their work digitally. However, adopting digital tools that support the buying process requires clearly defining procedures for supplier selection. This new activity can give rise to complexity and internal conflict. On the one hand, there are infrastructural complexities related to introducing new technology and managing learning costs. On the other hand, the adoption of platforms gives rise to relational challenges, given that suppliers frequently refuse to be registered and evaluated by the buyers’ tools.
‘In 2020, we had a problem with a supplier [..] Fortunately, this supplier had secured the contract within our software after successfully passing all internal audits and obtaining high scores. In this way, the decision to award the supply contract was not the sole responsibility of the purchasing department. However, it resulted from internal consultations, including those with the technical-production department’ (I13).
‘Suppliers tend to show reluctance when asked for documentation or business details, especially when faced with new requirements that were not necessary before’ (I6).
While introducing new tools increases buyer confidence and reduces stress related to decisional responsibilities, it also diminishes their autonomy. As a result, the loss of creativity and personal connection with suppliers leads to growing frustration among buyers. According to the interviewees (11/25 – less than one-half of the sample), platforms lead to a loss of ‘humanization’ and impose a structured approach to relationship-building and engagement. Specifically, there is a shift from an exclusively in-person engagement to a new, hybrid one that incorporates information derived from the analysis of platforms. This criticality presents a challenge in determining CE due to the contrast between two CE-building levels: individual and organizational. Respondents note that technology itself does not directly lead to CE. Thus, while the use of platforms and a data-driven decision-making process allow for increased efficiency, they also create difficulties for buyers in engaging.
‘If there is a reason why I chose this job, it was precisely to meet new people, study them and understand them [..] Because of technology. All this will be lost’ (I4).
‘Engaging with a supplier is no more my own choice … through digital platforms, the individual dimension of the relationship is going to be lost’ (I5).
‘The buyer’s discretion and willingness to engage is influenced by the interests and procedures imposed by the supplier’s monitoring system’ (I14).
This condition leads to an imbalance between individually based and organizationally based CE. This could lead suppliers to perceive a lack of CE from buyers when digital platforms or tools are involved.
‘After a while, people also get tired of doing everything according to patterns and diagrams because, while it helps and streamlines, you lose something in terms of relationships’ (I12).
Discussions
The evolution of customer engagement: a buyer-centric perspective
This study aims to address the following research question: ‘How do buyers face the creation and management of CE toward suppliers in today’s dynamic business environment?’ Using a qualitative approach informed by PT, we identify four critical tensions that are fundamentally reshaping CE in the B2B context. Importantly, adopting the buyer’s perspective to look at the phenomenon reveals dynamics previously overlooked in CE literature, which has predominantly focused on supplier-side strategies and organizational-level outcomes.
The buyer-centric lens proves particularly valuable for understanding CE because buyers operate at the intersection of internal organizational pressures and external market dynamics. Their unique position as boundary-spanners (Vesalainen et al., Reference Vesalainen, Rajala and Wincent2020) provides critical insights into how CE actually unfolds in practice, rather than how it is intended to work in theory. This perspective is especially relevant also for suppliers and sales professionals seeking to understand the complexity of customer decision-making processes and the related tensions. Four main tensions emerge from the analysis of empirical material, which are synthetized in Table 2 and described in the following paragraphs.
Summary of the paradoxical tensions. Source: authors’ elaboration
Tension #1: strategic centrality vs. organizational marginalization
This first tension arises at the organizational level. Our findings reveal a contradiction connected to the buyer’s organizational role. Under normal operating conditions, buyers experience decreased decisional autonomy and progressive marginalization from key procurement decisions, consistent with previous research by Mohan et al. (Reference Mohan, Casidy, Thaichon and Nyadzayo2022) and Rodríguez-Escobar and González-Benito (Reference Rodríguez-Escobar and González-Benito2017). This marginalization affects their psychological and emotional disposition toward suppliers, directly impacting their capacity for genuine engagement. Prior studies (e.g., Siami, Martin, Gorji & Grimmer, Reference Siami, Martin, Gorji and Grimmer2022) already suggested that a perceived safe and positive environment enhances employees’ ability to ‘think out of the box’. When buyers perceive a lack of psychological safety within their organization, their ability to engage with suppliers is also compromised. This suggests that the benefits of a positive environment may extend beyond intra-organizational creativity, influencing interorganizational engagement dynamics as well.
However, during periods of crisis and disruption – such as supply chain breakdowns or geopolitical conflicts – buyers paradoxically gain strategic importance and increased autonomy. Other organizational functions retreat from supplier-facing activities, placing full responsibility on buyers to manage both incumbent and potential suppliers. This dynamic aligns with Gustafson et al. (Reference Gustafson, Pomirleanu, Mariadoss and Johnson2021), who observed that crisis situations enable buyers to become more informed and selective.
This paradox reveals that buyers’ influence operates through informal networks and situational expertise rather than formal hierarchical authority. For suppliers, this insight suggests the need for adaptive engagement strategies that recognize the cyclical nature of buyer influence and the importance of maintaining relationships even when buyers appear marginalized within their organizations.
Tension #2: transparency vs. strategic ambiguity
This tension arises at the relational level. Buyers simultaneously employ seemingly contradictory communication strategies in their relationships with suppliers. On the one hand, they are willing to adopt transparent and open postures, sharing strategic information and organizational needs to enable business alignment and co-creation opportunities. This openness – facilitated by digitalization – reflects a long-term orientation toward shared value creation, consistent with Cortez and Dastidar’s (Reference Cortez and Dastidar2022) emphasis on information sharing in digitalized environments.
Paradoxically, the same buyers can also exhibit strategic ambiguity, intentionally filtering pieces of information, when possible, to protect their organizations from potential supplier opportunism. Importantly, this ambiguity does not necessarily signal distrust but represents a protective posture that can emerge even in well-established relationships. The simultaneous use of transparency and ambiguity reflects what Smith and Lewis (Reference Smith and Lewis2011) describe as a latent paradox, where buyers must balance openness with organizational protection.
This finding contributes to CE literature by demonstrating that openness and defensiveness function as complementary rather than contradictory strategies. For suppliers, understanding this paradox is crucial for calibrating their information requests and value propositions appropriately, recognizing that buyer communication patterns may vary based on relationship context rather than relationship quality.
Tension #3: internal vs external engagement orchestration
This tension arises at a dual level, which comprises simultaneously intra- and inter-organizational dynamics. In fact, our analysis reveals that buyers manage two distinct but interconnected forms of CE, creating what we term ‘stratified CE’. Externally, buyers must strengthen engagement with strategic suppliers whose contributions are critical to operational continuity (e.g., Carr & Pearson, Reference Carr and Pearson1999; Sashi, Reference Sashi2021). Internally, they must simultaneously build and maintain strong relationships with other organizational functions that influence purchasing decisions in direct or indirect ways (Schmelzle et al., Reference Schmelzle, Pellathy, Tate and Min2025) – such as production, R&D, and finance departments.
This dual orchestration role positions buyers as relational brokers who must achieve conflicting expectations between internal and external stakeholders, leading to a combination of ‘internal CE’ and ‘external CE.’ The complexity increases when organizational departments engage suppliers directly, by-passing the buyer and creating information asymmetries that complicate coordination and weaken relational consistency. This reflects a latent paradox: buyers must ensure relational continuity in a context marked by opacity and fragmentation, operating more as strategic orchestrators than as hierarchical decision-makers.
Unlike previous CE research that focuses primarily on the supplier’s perspective, our findings suggest that buyers are simultaneously targets and creators of engagement. They actively shape engagement configurations across organizational boundaries while lacking complete control or visibility over all ongoing interactions. This insight is interesting also for suppliers, as it suggests the importance of supporting buyers in their internal advocacy role rather than viewing them merely as gatekeepers or decision influencers.
Tension #4: human vs. digital engagement
This tension arises at the technological level and particularly in relation to digitalization. It involves a paradoxical situation between humanized and digitized engagement processes, suggesting a critical challenge for contemporary B2B relationships. Buyers seem to consistently express high value for face-to-face meetings, on-site visits, and informal interactions at business events, viewing these as essential for building the psychological and emotional connections that underpin genuine CE, as emphasized by Bonney et al. (Reference Bonney, Beeler and Chaker2022).
Simultaneously, digital platforms and automated supplier evaluation systems push relationships toward standardization and de-humanization. While KPIs, dashboards, and automated selection criteria can enable process efficiency and reduce subjective bias, they may also weaken the emotional and symbolic components of business relationships, as noted by Srivastava et al. (Reference Srivastava, Sivaramakrishnan and Pandey2024). Also, digitalization appears to enable more efficient and transparent supplier management; however, it might also reduce information asymmetries with other actors (Woo et al., Reference Woo, Kim, Kim and Wang2019).
The fragmentation of touchpoints, involving continuous shifts between digital and physical interfaces (Pöyry et al., Reference Pöyry, Parvinen, Mattila and Holopainen2020), further amplifies this tension and forces buyers to re-evaluate their engagement approach case-by-case. This creates a growing sense of frustration among buyers, potentially impacting their willingness to engage personally and organizationally with suppliers. For suppliers, this paradox suggests the importance of hybrid engagement strategies that leverage digital efficiency while preserving space for human connection and relationship building. Understanding when and how buyers prefer different interaction modes can significantly enhance supplier communication effectiveness.
Coping strategies and impacts on B2B relationships
Our findings reveal that achieving successful CE from the buying firm perspective requires understanding the coping mechanisms for each tension and how they unfold at more than one level of analysis: organizational, relational, and technological levels. While the technological level encompasses a contextual element that may (or may not) influence the working procedures of buyers in the contemporary business market, the organizational and relational levels are constantly present in each firm and determine the ability and disposition of the customer to engage or not. In particular, at the organizational level, companies should empower buyers as engagement levers while ensuring information alignment across departments. This empowerment becomes particularly critical during crisis situations when buyers’ expertise becomes indispensable for organizational survival and adaptation. The increased relevance of the buyer’s role during complex situations underscores the importance of developing their capabilities as strategic coordinators rather than merely operational executors. Moreover, a well-established link between buyers and other employees is beneficial for the entire firm, also in terms of improved customer service standards (Cutcher, Reference Cutcher2008). However, this empowerment should be balanced with efforts to spread supplier-related knowledge across organizational functions, particularly in multi-channel environments where suppliers may interact with various organizational stakeholders beyond the purchasing function. At the relational level, buyers demonstrate remarkable adaptability by combining experiential knowledge with data-driven analysis. This hybrid approach allows them to maintain selective transparency based on relationship stage, supplier characteristics, and market conditions. Additionally, the buyer’s perspective reveals that CE is neither a linear process nor a stable state but rather a dynamic equilibrium characterized by phases of withdrawal and reactivation. This insight challenges traditional supplier strategies that assume consistent engagement levels and suggests the need for more adaptive, context-sensitive approaches.
Finally, when organizational and relational CE levels converge, as demonstrated in tension #3, managing this construct from the buyer’s perspective becomes exceptionally complex. In response to this complexity, the buyer’s role transforms from serving as the buying center’s focal point to functioning as an authentic coordinator of relationships both within and outside the firm. In the contemporary business context, the buyer’s role thus evolves into what we define as a ‘buyer-orchestrator’. The buyer-orchestrator is called to manage interactions in terms of both internal and external CE. The other members of the buying center are therefore responsible for supporting their internal advocacy efforts. This is true not only within the buyer’s organization, but towards the entire value chain. Suppliers who recognize and facilitate buyers’ internal engagement responsibilities are more likely to develop sustainable, long-term relationships. This might involve providing buyer-orchestrators with materials and arguments that support their internal communication efforts or offering training and development opportunities that enhance buyers’ strategic credibility within their organizations.
Despite the complexity of the above-mentioned paradoxical tensions, buyers in most cases develop sophisticated coping strategies that are not aimed at resolving tension, but rather at dealing with them. In this sense, buyers adopt what Keller and Sadler‐Smith (Reference Keller and Sadler‐Smith2019) describe as a ‘both/and’ approach, allowing contradictory elements to coexist and leveraging them strategically. The ‘both/and’ approach represents a fundamental shift from traditional binary thinking aimed at eliminating contradictions through ‘either/or’ solutions. Instead of viewing paradoxical tensions as problems to be solved, this approach recognizes that opposing forces can coexist and create value when managed strategically (Smith & Lewis, Reference Smith and Lewis2011). In the context of buyers, this means acknowledging that seemingly contradictory demands can be simultaneously embraced rather than forcing artificial resolutions.
The empirical material revealed how this approach is particularly meaningful for buyers operating in today’s complex B2B environments. For instance, regarding the tension #1, buyers can adopt a ‘both/and’ mindset by accepting their cyclical influence while building capabilities that prepare them for both crisis and routine periods. Similarly, the tension #2 can be managed by developing sophisticated communication strategies that simultaneously foster openness and protect organizational interests, recognizing that transparency and defensiveness can function as complementary rather than contradictory approaches. The tension #3 demonstrates how buyers can embrace their dual role as relationship brokers, simultaneously strengthening supplier relationships while building internal coalitions. Finally, the tension #4 can be addressed by developing hybrid strategies that leverage digital efficiency while preserving essential human connections, rather than viewing these modalities as mutually exclusive. This paradoxical thinking allows buyers to transcend traditional role limitations and emerge as sophisticated buyer-orchestrators who can balance multiple, often conflicting, stakeholder demands while maximizing value for their organizations.
Conclusions
This study examined CE in buyer–supplier relationships from the buyer’s perspective, aiming to enrich the CE literature by exploring the paradoxical tensions faced by those directly managing procurement in contemporary markets. Contributions are drawn from the theoretical and managerial standpoint.
Theoretically, this research enriches the CE literature by combining two original perspectives: on the one side, embracing the buyer’s view and, on the other side, applying the PT as the main analytical lens. The value of this combination is twofold. First, authors provide the first comprehensive buyer-centric analysis of CE, revealing paradoxical tensions that remain invisible when focusing solely on supplier-side dynamics or organizational-level outcomes. The buyer’s unique position as buyer-orchestrator between internal organizational pressures and external market forces offers unprecedented insights into how CE actually unfolds in practice. Second, the present work shows how buyers manage contradictory tensions through complementary rather than resolution-based strategies. This demonstrates that paradoxical thinking is not merely a coping mechanism but a fundamental requirement for effective CE management in contemporary B2B environments (in line with broader studies on CE including Blome et al., Reference Blome, Paulraj, Preuss and Roehrich2023; Corsaro, Olivieri & Maggioni, Reference Corsaro, Olivieri and Maggioni2021).
Another relevant insight of the study is contributing to the micro-foundations of CE by highlighting how individual buyers’ actions and decisions aggregate to shape organizational-level engagement outcomes. The paradoxical tensions we identify operate at three interrelated levels, namely the relational level, the technological level, and the organizational level – finally resulting in new dynamics in terms of supplier relationship management. Substantially, the study clarifies how recent changes in B2B interactions – including the impact of digital transformation and organizational dynamics – are reshaping the formation and sustenance of CE in the B2B context.
At the managerial level, the work highlights that buyers may not always perceive CE as a form of added value, suggesting that suppliers and account managers should adjust their CE strategies accordingly. Practitioners are encouraged to integrate digital tools, such as SRM systems and KPI dashboards, into procurement processes while preserving space for relational and human-centered engagement. This hybrid approach may reduce buyer resistance, support decision-making, and help mitigate the tensions outlined in the study. Indeed, buyers are required to navigate paradoxical tensions, such as the simultaneous need for personalization and standardization within decision-making processes. With reference to the aforementioned digital tools, it emerges that these should not replace human contact but rather support a more efficient and selective management of interactions. It also becomes apparent that buyers should develop specific capabilities enabling them to integrate technological inputs, internal expectations, and long-term dynamics in supplier relationships. For sellers, recognizing the paradoxes faced by buyers can support suppliers in adapting their communication and value proposition more effectively.
This study presents limitations that also identify opportunities for further research. Table 3 presents these opportunities for future studies.
Avenues for further research. Source: authors’ elaboration
Like most qualitative inquiries, the findings lack generalizability. Nonetheless, this approach allows us to offer theoretical insights that future quantitative research could build upon. Second, while this study focused on identifying the tensions that shape CE in B2B interactions, preliminary evidence suggests that buyers often choose to live with such tensions rather than resolving them outright. However, their strategies warrant deeper investigation through longitudinal or process-based research aimed at understanding how these coping mechanisms evolve. Third, the sample primarily consists of senior professionals from medium- to large-sized firms with well-established purchasing centers. As such, the study may not fully capture the experiences of younger buyers or those working in small enterprises with less formalized structures. Similarly, the sample of this study is functioning as an exploratory investigation of the topic. However, the geographically limited sample could bias results because of cultural factors. Future research could explore these alternative contexts and extend the geographical and cultural scope to examine how CE is shaped in different market environments.
Conflict(s) of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgement
This research project originated from the authors’ participation in the 2022 edition of the competition in memory of Professor Stefano Pace (Premio Stefano Pace), promoted by the Società Italiana di Marketing (SIM) and the association “Il Sorriso di Stefano.” The authors, who had not previously met before taking part in the competition, wish to extend their profound gratitude to SIM, particularly to the SIM Junior Faculty Climber Community, and to the association “Il Sorriso di Stefano” for providing a meaningful occasion to initiate a fruitful research collaboration, and develop a sincere and lasting friendship.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the University of Siena in enabling Open Access publication through the CARE-CRUI initiative.
Serena Galvani. Ph.D. in Global Studies -Department of Economics, Society and Politics (DESP) - University of Urbino Carlo Bo. Postdoctoral researcher - Department of Economics, Society and Politics (DESP) - University of Urbino Carlo Bo.
Niccolò Piccioni. Ph.D. in Communication, Social Research and Marketing – Department of Communication and Social Research (CORIS) - Sapienza University of Rome.
Niccolò Fiorini. Ph.D. in Economics, Markets, Institutions – IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca. Postdoctoral researcher - Department of Business and Law (DISAG) – University of Siena.
Open access
