Dyadic analysis demonstrates that supplier corporate social responsibility boosts buyer trust and longevity in B2B partnerships, indicating CSR drives strategic interorganizational value.
Purpose This study examines how suppliers’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) orientation and CSR activities influence buyer trust and relationship performance in business-to-business (B2B) supplier–buyer relationships. Specifically, the study investigates whether suppliers’ engagement in business practice and philanthropic CSR activities strengthens buyers’ perceptions of supplier benevolence and expertise and, consequently, enhances relationship performance.Design/Methodology/Approach The study employs a quantitative dyadic research design using data from 205 B2B supplier–buyer dyads. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to assess the hypothesized relationships among CSR orientation, CSR activities, buyer trust, and relationship performance.Findings The results show that suppliers’ CSR orientation significantly promotes engagement in both business practice and philanthropic CSR activities. In turn, these CSR activities positively influence buyer trust, reflected in buyers’ perceptions of supplier benevolence and expertise. Enhanced buyer trust subsequently contributes to stronger relationship performance, demonstrated through greater long-term orientation and relationship extendedness.Originality/Value The study contributes to the B2B marketing and CSR literature by empirically demonstrating the mechanisms through which suppliers’ CSR orientation and activities translate into buyer trust and improved relationship performance. By adopting a dyadic perspective, the study moves beyond the predominantly single-sided approach to CSR research and provides a more relationship-oriented explanation of how CSR can generate value within B2B supplier–buyer relationships. The findings also highlight the strategic role of CSR in fostering durable interorganizational relationships and supporting long-term business success.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: