TCM-AVC Model: A Systematic Literature Review on Value Co-Creation in B2B and Research Agenda

Abstract

The frequency of publications on value co-creation (VCC) in marketing has significantly increased. However, in business-to-business (B2B), it is underexplored, and there is no consensus regarding its antecedents and consequences. This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to identify, define, and categorize the antecedents and consequences to have a better comprehension of VCC in B2B. We conducted a comprehensive search for the keyword value co-creation, B2B, relationships, antecedents, consequences, and relationship quality in the Web of Science (WoS) core collection database and Scopus. By following Denyer and Tranfield’s five-step approach for SLR, we established research questions and selected, analyzed, and synthesized the relevant studies. We also followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA 2009, 2020) guidelines for screening articles, which led us to the analysis of 39 relevant articles. Our findings contribute to the research of VCC through the identification and categorization of antecedents and consequences of VCC into 20 initial groups, respectively, which provided a holistic view. Furthermore, notably, we revealed that the 39 papers employed 30 theoretical frameworks and models, which guided us to the presentation of the Theories Context Methods—Antecedents Value Co-creation Consequences model (TCM-AVC). The model further reduced the initially identified 20 groups into 6 and 5 categories of antecedents and consequences, respectively. Additionally, the findings extracted from those papers were segregated into eight novel streams, which opened fresh avenues for future research. These findings collectively enrich our understanding and provide practical implications for business practitioners in regards to the implementation of short-, medium-, and long-term sustainable VCC strategies to be effective and sustainable co-creators.

1. Introduction

Value co-creation (VCC) is a hybrid of three words: (a) value, (b) co, or mutual, and (c) creation. VCC is a concurrent, collaborative, joint, and peer-interactive process that creates new value for suppliers, producers, manufacturers, and consumers [1]. VCC may also be defined as actions conducted by multiple, interrelated actors, who may be aware or unaware of their contributions towards the wellbeing of their co-creators [2]. Value in a Business-to-Business (B2B) context is the subjective outcome of the co-creation process whereby value propositions (a product, service, or solution) act as the vehicles of the potential value in commercial exchanges [3]. However, a group of researchers believes that the frequency of publications on VCC primarily focuses on consumer-based (CB) or business-to-consumer (B2C) relationships [4,5] compared to VCC in B2B [6,7,8]. Therefore, an analysis of the contextualized factors that constitute VCC in B2B needs to be further discussed.

Firstly, the factor of service quality is an important aspect of B2B relationships [9,10], as it develops trust, commitment, and satisfaction [11,12,13,14]. The existing literature positions relationship quality (RQ) as a dynamic and long-term construct based on the intangible attributes arising from continuing interactions between relational partners [15,16]. Furthermore, Li et al. [17] identified RQ as the quality of business interactions among providers and customers, which is grounded in dyadic relationships [18]. At the core of these dyadic relationships is communication, which is the foundational human activity for establishing and maintaining relationships between parties [19]. When service quality, RQ, and communications contribute to heightened firm satisfaction, the firm’s willingness for the continuity of the relationship also increases [20,21].

When considering the interaction between multiple stakeholders, contemporary research on CB VCC processes predominantly focused on CB or B2C relationships [4,5]. Meanwhile the phenomenon that explains how CB value is co-created within industrial or B2B contexts has yet to be extensively examined [6,7,8]. Despite an increased focus from both industry practitioners [22,23], and marketing scholars [24,25], very little is known on whether examining the complementarity of traditional B2B and B2C sectors may yield any new findings. Furthermore, research has also called for the boundaries in co-creation research to be extended to include customer and organizational network relationships, as well as for a further interrogation of factors that affect co-creation in B2B contexts [2,26,27,28,29]. Additionally, a group of researchers believes a lack of consensus still exists regarding the antecedents and consequences of VCC [30,31,32,33,34]. Therefore, we believe a further comprehensive analysis in the form of SLR would be the right platform to answer these gaps.

The overarching purpose and significance of this SLR lies in its contribution to the existing literature by thoroughly investigating the 39 research papers, characterizing their findings into 8 novel clusters, and solving the puzzle of antecedents and consequences of VCC in B2B relationships. The structure of the paper is described as follows: Section 2 provides a detailed overview of the research methodology applied, data sources, and data analysis. Section 3 is about the findings, while the penultimate section discusses avenues for future research followed by the study’s conclusion.

2. Methodology

2.1. Formulating the Research Questions and Method

The rationale behind selecting qualitative SLR as the method for conducting this research is grounded in its relevance, significance, and reliability of having higher chances of achieving the desired results. This SLR follows a five-step approach, including: (a) establishing research question(s), (b) locating the studies, (c) selecting and assessing the studies, (d) analyzing and synthesizing these studies, and (e) reporting on the results [35]. The systematic review approach is also useful for emphasizing the essential procedural measures required to arrive at conclusions and offer vital recommendations for future research [36]. Herein, we provide a detailed explanation of our reasoning and decision-making process for each of the above-mentioned five steps, based on the evidence gathered from our literature set. The procedure for formulating research questions is driven and informed by existing literature on value co-creation, recent developments in B2B research, and relevance to our research. Through a continuous process of reviewing and interrogating this body of knowledge on antecedents and consequences of VCC in B2B, we managed to identify the gaps. Further investigations and analysis of the relevant literature rendered us with three crucial research questions that identify gaps in the recent literature, which are presented below.

RQ1: What are the emerging research streams for advancing the knowledge on VCC in B2B?

RQ2: What are the antecedents and consequences of VCC in B2B and how are they systemically categorized?

RQ3: What is the structured framework for understanding the antecedents and consequences of VCC in B2B?

2.2. Search Strategy and Locating Studies

Our research also followed the guidelines of [37] by conducting a systematic review of existing published qualitative, quantitative, conceptual studies, and case studies to gain a better understanding of VCC, specifically in the context of B2B. We selected Web of Science (WoS), a search engine and tracking platform of leading journals in the fields of social science, arts, humanities, and basic science [38]. According to Merigo et al. [39], WoS has access to more than 50 million research publications, 151 categories, and 22,000 journals, and it includes 70 languages. Scopus was launched by Elsevier in November 2004 and is also a similar selective and multidisciplinary database [40]. Scopus provides a wider coverage of the academic literature compared to WoS and Cross Ref open DOI-to-DOI citations and showcases similar coverage [41]. Due to the robustness, we selected WoS and Scopus over SciELO, Google Scholar, and other less comprehensive academic databases.

Our initial search of the keywords “antecedents”, “consequences”, “relationships”, “relationship quality”, “B2B”, and “value co-creation” in the core collection database of WoS only resulted in identifying two publications in July (2024). Thereafter, we then conducted a deeper two-step search. In the first step, we searched “value co-creation” or “value co creation” or “value cocreation” and “business-to-business” or “B2B”, “relationships” or “business relationships” or “B2B relationships” or “business-to-business relationships”, which received 112 results. In the second step, we searched “antecedents”, “consequences”, “relationships”, “B2B”, and “value co-creation”, which resulted in 16 published results. After removing the cross-search repetition, the data were refined to 112. Then we conducted a similar search in Scopus database and received 88 records and 23 records, respectively. After removing cross-search duplication, the dataset was refined to 99.

2.3. Selection and Quality Assessment Criteria

Based on their knowledge of the literature domains in question, the authors of this paper worked together as a review panel to evaluate the articles extracted from the SLR process in terms of the inclusion and exclusion criteria that were laid out prior to this review. No restriction was placed for the extraction of papers regarding their year of publication to provide a holistic and realistic view, and to incorporate all papers. This approach ensured authors’ non-biasedness and provided a platform to include all papers regardless of their year of publication. English journals were exclusively selected for this study due to the dominant and universal use of English in qualitative and quantitative research around the world. However, fortunately, all the papers that appeared in the initial searches were in English. We did not want to discriminate papers on the basis of type of research, context, and methodology, and emphasis was made to ensure the research was relevant to VCC in B2B. Hence, papers that were not relevant were eradicated. To add to the study’s rigor, a variety of article types were reviewed, but only peer-reviewed papers were chosen for analysis. Additionally, papers from the literature domain of business, operations research, management science, and management were selected on the basis of their relevance to our research domain.

Table 1. Selection criteria.

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion	Rationale
Relevance to review	Discusses VCC/B2B (relationships)	Do not discuss VCC in B2B context	Provides information that addresses our research question
Years	All	None	Provide findings of all issues, challenges, and trends with all the methodologies, models, frameworks, and theories.
Language	English	All other languages except for English	English is regarded as a universal language for its qualitative academic contribution.
Journal ranking	All	None	Journal articles that address our review topic were included, regardless of ranking.
Publication type	Peer-reviewed academic journals	Books and chapters, reports, proceedings, dissertations, theses, conference papers, etc.	Peer-reviewed journals are generally regarded as the highest level of contribution to existing knowledge.
Literature domains	Business, operations research, mgt science, management	All others	Only articles addressing VCC in the context of business and commercial relationships will be included.
Type of research	All	None	All kinds of papers are relevant in addressing the review question.
Methodology	All	None	All methodologies will be considered in the review.
Context	All	None	All papers on VCC in B2B (relationships) across all cultures will be included
Sample	Study employees of organizations in B2B	All other than B2B	This review focuses specifically on VCC in B2B context (relationships)

below provides a detailed list of the selection criteria for this review and a concise yet concrete rationale behind choosing each and every criterion.

2.4. Search Results and Final Review Articles

The initial dataset of 112 articles extracted from WOS was refined to 99 by selecting articles published in the fields of business, management, operations research, and management science in WoS categories. This process eliminated 13 articles, while the results for Scopus did not change and remained the same at this stage. The SCOPUS and WOS datasets were then merged into 198 articles and then reduced further to 159 articles after removing 39 cross-database duplications. We conducted a thorough investigation of title, abstract, and keywords, which reduced the data set to 103 after eliminating further 56 articles. The 103 articles were then applied to our rigorous quality assurance process, where each paper was evaluated on the basis of our six rigorous criteria. These criteria, outlined in

Table 2. Quality assessment criteria.

Element	Level
	0 Absence	1 Low	2 Medium	3 High	Not Relevant
1. Does it add to or deepen our comprehension of prior theory?	Insufficient info to evaluate this criterion	Does not make a clear or significant contribution	While leveraging on other ideas, it extends the existing theory	Advances and broadens existing knowledge	Not relevant.
2. Are all constructs and theoretical foundations clearly stated?	Insufficient info to evaluate this criterion	Unclear motivation, constructs/hypothesis less defined, minimal reference to theory	Constructs and motivations are defined, and they demand further amplification	All constructs are defined with clarity	Not relevant
3. Do the study or data substantiate the claims?	Insufficient info to evaluate this criterion	Few claims are not backed by data	Overstated claims exceed the support provided by data	There is abundant data supporting the claims	Not relevant
4. Has the methodology been clearly incorporated?	Insufficient info to evaluate this criterion	Data are inaccurate and irrelevant to theory. Improper or meager methodology	Argument-related gaps suggest research design may be improved	The arguments are strongly supported by a robust research design	Not relevant
5. Is the paper well-structured and easy to understand?	Insufficient info to evaluate this criterion	Disorganized and makes it hard to follow the argument	Well-structured, but the arguments are weakly constructed	Well-structured and articulated, making it easy to understand	Not relevant
6. Do the results have practical relevance and generalizability?	Insufficient info to evaluate this criterion	Hard to implement concepts and ideas, irrelevant for practitioners, valid to the population studied	Implementable ideas with slight modification, valid to alike organizations	Implementation of ideas with a high level of validity could be beneficial	Not relevant

, identify how the dataset was refined to 67 articles after eliminating a further 36 articles. Figure 1 illustrates how the dataset was then thoroughly revised through a full text analysis and reduced by 28 articles to arrive at a total of 39 articles, all the selected articles and their respective quality assessment criteria score are presented in (Appendix A). These resulting 39 articles form the basis of the comprehensive SLR analysis (Figure 1). The sub-sections depict the quality assessment criteria in accordance with the SLR guidelines [42].

2.5. Reporting the Descriptive Results

To prepare the articles for analysis, we used a deductive approach in extracting the subject-specific, relevant information from each article. After adopting a multiple-perspective approach in analyzing each title, type of study, methodology used, and the analytical techniques applied, each article was then coded in MS Excel into relevant categories. We then categorized the 39 articles based on their research findings and the type of VCC and relationship studied. The results of this analysis are discussed in the following section.

2.5.1. Frequency of Citations and Publications per Year

The number of publications, citations per year, and average citations per article are represented below. The 39 articles contained a total of 946 citations, with an average citation of 25.57 per article. In Figure 2, publications are represented by the bars, while citations per year are depicted by the line graph. Figure 2 also demonstrates that the year 2021 had the highest number of publications, with six in total, and the year 2022 had the highest number of citations, with a total of 256. Among the 39 articles, 37 were published after 2012, while the remaining two were published in 2007 and 2010, which highlights the emergence and contemporary nature of the topic.

2.5.2. Keywords Analysis

Table 3. Keyword analysis extracted from HISTCITE.

#	Word	N (39)	% of N	TLCS	TGCS
1	B2B	24	61.5	20	733
2	Value	18	46.15	23	759
3	Creation	13	33.33	14	515
4	Relationships	8	20.5	6	167
5	Customer	7	17.9	11	219
6	Service	7	17.9	6	228
7	Business	6	15.38	6	170
8	Engagement	5	12.82	6	333
9	Exploring	5	12.82	8	211
10	Relationship	5	12.82	0	64
11	Role	5	12.82	4	133
12	Perspective	4	10.25	0	20
13	Quality	4	10.25	0	52
14	Services	4	10.25	6	132
15	Antecedents	3	7.6	2	43
16	Creating	3	7.6	5	166
17	Management	3	7.6	0	286
18	Marketing	3	7.6	5	126
19	Outcomes	3	7.6	2	59
20	Participation	3	7.6	2	67

below depicts the frequency of keywords, total local citations (TLCS), and total global citations (TGCS). TGCS shows the number of times a specific article is referenced by other articles globally, and TLCS demonstrated number of times an article is referenced by the articles of the retrieved set. The significance of the keywords was demonstrated by the size of the circle and label. A large circle indicates more significance and keywords of the same color belong to the same cluster [43]. Keyword B2B showed the highest value for frequency with 24, followed by Value 18 and Creation 13. Similarly, the keyword “Value” showed the highest value of 18 for TLCS, followed by B2B with 20 and creation with 14. Additionally, keyword “Value” showed the highest value of 759 for TGCS as well, followed by B2B with 733 and creation having 515. Similarly, Figure 3 below depicts the cartography analysis using VOS Viewer. A map was constructed for frequently occurring keywords of all papers. During the analysis, we chose co-occurrence for the type of analysis, all keywords for the unit of analysis, and a minimum of two repetitions. This led us to 73 frequently occurring keywords out of 238 segregated into 6 clusters. Cluster 1, being the largest, was presented in color red and showcased 15 results. Dominant logic showed the highest links value of 33 and links strength value of 46, followed by relationship marketing at 29 and 44 and business-to-business at 20 and 22. Dominant logic and relationship marketing showed the highest value of 6 for co-occurrences.

Cluster 2 also possessed 15 articles and was depicted by the color green. Management showed the highest value of 49 for links and 81 for link strength, followed by market orientation with 23 and 32 and dynamic capabilities with 22 and 33, respectively. Management showed 11 co-occurrences, dynamic capabilities showed five, and market orientation four. Cluster 3, represented by the color blue, showcased 13 articles. Performance showed highest value of 43 for links and 80 for link strength, followed by customer value of 40 and 68, respectively. Similarly, performance and customer value showed 12 and 9 co-occurrences, respectively.

Cluster 4 was represented by the color yellow and possessed 12 articles. Value co-creation was the seminal keyword, not just for this cluster but the whole cartography analysis as well. It showed 72 links, 249 link strength value, and 36 co-occurrences. Similarly, Cluster 5 had 11 keywords and was represented by the color purple, b2b showed the highest value of 38 for links, and trust showed the highest value of 67 for link strength, while impact and trust had the highest value of 8 for co-occurrences. Lastly, Cluster 6 was represented by the color turquoise and had seven keywords. Keyword “perspective” showed the highest value of 39 for links, 65 for link strength, and 9 for co-occurrences.

2.5.3. Co-Citation Analysis Using HISTCITE

Figure 4 above shows HistCite co-citation analysis. HistCite graph maker of 39 nodes revealed 34 links (relationships among articles), which depicts the interconnection between the 39 articles and their citation behavior. It exposed three clusters, with Numbers 10 and 22 being the most connected in Cluster 1. Number 25 and 19 in Cluster 2, Number 7 and 6 in Cluster 3, were the central articles. Based on TLCS value, the article depicted by Number 10 was the highest-cited article showing five citations, followed by Keranen and Jalkala [44] depicted by the Number 3 showed four and Hofacker et al. [45] represented by Number 7 showed three TLCS.

2.5.4. Categorization of Articles

The 39 papers were studied and sorted into four categories based on the nature of the research. These categories include 21 pure empirical studies, 8 conceptual studies, 6 theoretical studies, and 4 literature reviews. Simultaneously, on the basis of type of relationship and co-creation studied, these papers were segregated into seven different categories, which includes VCC and other relationships that were studied by 12 papers each. Nine papers analyzed B2B relationships, six studied business relationships, and five focused on other values. Value creation was studied in three papers and relationship marketing was studied in two papers.

2.5.5. Methodology and Data Collection Techniques

With regards to methodology, we divided all the selected papers into four categories: qualitative, quantitative, reviews and others, and case studies.

Table 4. Methodology and data collection techniques used.

Methodology	N (39)	Percentage of N	Data Collection	N (39)	Percentage of N
Qualitative	17	43.58	Interviews	15	38.46
Quantitative	11	28.20	Survey	12	30.76
Reviews and others	7	17.94	Others	7	17.94
Case Studies	4	10.25	Secondary data	5	12.82

depicts that 43.58% of the total papers were qualitative studies and 28% were quantitative studies, both accounting for 71% of the total. Similarly, we also divided the data collection techniques used into four categories: interviews, survey questionnaires, others, and secondary data. Further, 38.46% of the studies used interviews, while 30.76% collected data through survey questionnaires.

3. Findings

3.1. Theories

Theories serve as a vital and foundational driver for comprehending academic progress [46]. Theory offers a universally accepted language that augments the communication among scholars, empowering them to capitalize on one another’s work effectively [47]. It also assists scholars in answering research questions and helps them in achieving their research [48]. We unearthed 30 theories that were employed by these 39 papers, among which 12 theories were considered multiple times. Notably, service-dominant logic (SDL) was followed 15 times, and resource-based view (RBV) was followed 8 times.

These theories, frameworks, and models have been followed, implemented, and extended in multiple capacities and directions to better comprehend VCC in B2B. The research of Vargo and Lusch [49] shifted the focus from goods-dominant logic to a service-centered view, highlighting the role of customers as co-creators of value. Since then, SDL has been explored in various contexts. Keranen and Jalkala [44] connected SDL with RBV by developing a framework for customer value assessment in B2B settings, identifying processes such as baseline assessment and systematic data management. Zhang et al. [50] integrated a conceptual model linking firm capabilities like innovation and networking to brand equity through VCC, showing their influence on brand performance. Similarly, Marcos-Cuevas et al. [51] linked SDL with organizational capability theory by presenting VCC practices as mechanisms for sustained engagement. Komulainen [52] extended SDL by emphasizing the role of motivation and absorptive capacity in the co-creation process, underscoring the impact of learning on perceived value. Corsaor and Murtarelli [53] provided a holistic and systemic view of VCC in B2B, emphasizing joint value spheres and the limitations of ignoring these dynamics.

Immonen et al. [54] applied the decision-making theory (DMT) and RBV, examining how factors like risk perception and supplier relationships affect purchasing decisions in B2B services. Zhang and Zhu [55] extended RBV by exploring how customer participation in B2B innovation influences organizational capabilities when moderated by inter-organizational relationships. Drummond et al. [56] examined digital engagement in B2B marketing, showing how social media strategies align with RBV principles to create a competitive advantage. Minerbo et al. [57] extended RBV and SDL by unpacking value capture and creation in B2B relationships, accentuating the interplay between interaction processes, value appropriation, and resource integration among business partners.

In a similar vein, Baumann and Le Meunier-FitzHugh [58] extended SDL by exploring the mutual benefits of customer–salesperson interactions, while Prior et al. [59] studied customer participation in B2B service exchanges, identifying goals that drive active engagement in service co-creation. Makkonen et al. [60] explored the transition from goods to SDL, positioning relationships critical to this shift. Hofacker et al. [45] emphasized digitalization’s impact on B2B dynamics, while Berenguer-Contri et al. [26] examined relational variables like trust and shared goals in enhancing value creation in B2B environments.

Sales-Viv et al. [61] linked SDL with RQ theory, exploring how VCC affects RQ and satisfaction. Chowdhury et al. [62] explored the darker side of VCC, highlighting how ambiguity, power dynamics, and conflicts can disrupt B2B networks, while Mora Cortez and Johnston [63] examined recovery strategies in failed online B2B auctions, identifying communication, trust, and commitment as essential elements for relationship recovery. Kumar and Kumar [64] examined the dark side of loyalty in B2B relationships, showing how the unethical practice of analytics impacts organizational outcomes. Taylor and Stanworth [65] applied the relationship marketing theory (RMT) to explore how managing supply service quality enhances long-term B2B relationships. Kaufmann et al. [66] introduced curative international marketing to address relationship repair in contexts like Poland. Fuentes-Blasco et al. [67] integrated RMT and the technology acceptance model (TAM), highlighting how information and communication technologies influence industrial market segmentation strategies.

Lasrado et al. [68] explored the role of relationship management in enhancing RQ in B2B contexts, identifying commitment, trust, and communication as key drivers. Jyh-Liang et al. [69] tested RMT and social exchange theory (SET), studying both economic and non-economic factors affecting buyer–seller interactions in B2B relationships. Kaski et al. [70] emphasized rapport-building strategies in B2B sales, such as active listening and empathy, which promote VCC and enhance relational depth. La Tocca and Snehota [71] studied how organizations create value at boundaries through external and internal activities. Murthy et al. [72] examined VCC in B2B IT outsourcing, focusing on customer engagement and relational governance as key drivers of co-creation. Tanzeeb and Ross [73] explored the role of communication in B2B value creation, highlighting the importance of salesperson communication in driving satisfaction.

Nyadzayo et al. [74] expanded SET by investigating how loyalty and customization influence purchase behavior and engagement in B2B relationships. Gupta et al. [75] examined fairness in resource distribution and its impact on VCC in B2B. Corsaro and Maggioni [76] explored dynamic capabilities in B2B sales transformation, identifying customer orientation and digitalization as key capabilities for value-based selling. Holmes et al. [77] emphasized the significance of capabilities required for big data analytics in co-creation and value generation. Aarikka-Stenroos [78] applied an ecosystem approach to study interconnected business environments, while Soltani [79] examined B2B engagement within the Internet of Things (IOT) ecosystem. Jaakkola and Aarikka-Stenroos [80] explored the impact of customer referencing on VCC in business networks, while Park and Lee [81] applied the Actor Network theory to study the co-creation process in high-tech B2B networks. Bag et al. [82] applied the Ethical Theory of Organizing and Relational View to study the impact of ethics audits on RQ in B2B sharing economies. Ahmad et al. [83] explored the role of bricolage strategies in fostering salesforce ambidexterity in B2B, enhancing our comprehension of how organizational resilience drives co-creation and performance.

Categorization based on the context of findings: We extracted the findings of the 39 papers and sorted them into eight novel research themes that provoke future researchers to delve into these themes and yield novel avenues.

Digitalization and transformation: Hofacker et al. [45] explored future trends in digital marketing, highlighting digital trust, social presence, and social media’s influence on B2B relationships. They argued that technologies like IoT and blockchain improve customer experience and VCC. Digital platforms facilitate global collaboration, allowing VCC without physical proximity. Holmes et al. [77] categorized B2B data-driven customer value projects into talent, technology, marketing capabilities, and management, stressing the importance of avoiding siloed approaches. Zhang and Zhu [55] argued that customer participation (CP) enhances product innovation capability, with strong inter-organizational relationships driving VCC. Fuentes-Blasco [67] found that effective ICT use boosts communication, enhancing RQ and fostering VCC through personalized interactions. Considering digital B2B contexts, five joint value spheres should be considered: VCC, value appropriation, value representation sphere, value communication, and value measurement Corsaro and Murtarelli [53].

Engagement and VCC: Marcos-Cuevas [51] identified linking, materializing, and institutionalizing practices as essential for VCC in B2B systems. Practices like co-ideation and co-design, supported by sustained engagement, are critical for collaborative value creation. Gupta et al. [75] showed that equity positively influences VCC, and this relationship is mediated by shared responsibility and moderated by buyer–seller dependence. Ahmad et al. [83] demonstrated that outcome-based and behavior-based control systems improve salesperson bricolage, which, in turn, enhances VCC. Drummond et al. [56] developed strategies for social media marketing, enhancing connectivity and engagement, which foster VCC in B2B networks. Furthermore, customer referencing as a behavior of business actor engagement amplifies value by establishing credibility and solidifying relationships. Jaakkola and Aarikka-Stenroos [80] underscore the value of customer referencing, noting that VCC supports reputation-building and promotional efforts for sellers while improving decision-making and reducing risk for potential buyers, thus creating valuable outcomes for all parties involved. Murthy et al. [72] unearthed six antecedents for VCC in IT services outsourcing their relationship with VCC: strategic intent, service actualization, intrapreneurship, collective capabilities, resource management, and alliance relationship. Ullah et al. [84] investigated VCC in B2B via bibliometric analysis and explored four crucial and novel research streams: VCC and relationships, VCC and organizational capabilities, VCC and actor engagement, and VCC processes. They urged future research to focus on sustainable VCC processes and relationship utilization, thereby enhancing VCC in B2B.

Relationship quality and dynamics: Corsaro and Maggioni [76] identified acceleration, contextualization, and a “lose fast” approach as crucial in sales transformation, enhancing decision-making and collaboration. Nyadzayo et al. [74] highlighted communication, trust, and commitment as key drivers of B2B purchase engagement, fostering loyalty and enhancing VCC. Kaski et al. [70] found that rapport-building strategies such as empathy and active listening strengthen customer relationships and promote VCC. Lasrado et al. [68] revealed that commitment, satisfaction, and trust significantly enhance VCC through collaboration and long-term partnerships. Prior et al. [59] identified customer participation profiles in B2B service exchanges, showing that RQ and knowledge sharing are critical for fostering innovation and aligning value-in-use goals. This distinction highlights the significant role of VCC in enhancing satisfaction, loyalty, and overall relationship strength. Sales-Viv [61] examined models connecting satisfaction and RQ and revealed that VCC not only strengthens RQ but also promotes mutual benefits and collaborative efforts, leading to greater satisfaction and loyalty among business partners.

Relationship recovery and performance: Mora Cortez and Johnston [63] investigated recovery strategies after failed online reverse auctions, emphasizing the significance of trust restoration and transparent communication in VCC. Taylor and Stanworth [65] argued that managing supply service quality strengthens buyer–supplier relationships, improving supplier performance and fostering shared value in supply chains. Soltani [79] contends that real-time data sharing and connectivity in IOT ecosystems are critical for improving operational efficiency and strengthening inter-organizational relationships. Baumann and Le Meunier-FitzHugh [58] emphasized that equitable dialogue in customer–salesperson interactions enhances both relationship and episodic value. Meanwhile, Park and Lee [81] identify three types of business relationships in B2B—supplier-customer mutual, supplier-centric, and network-based, emphasizing the critical importance of intellectual and efficient resources in each. This framework sheds light on the expansion of VCC into the early stages of the value chain, where it facilitates technological innovation and reinforces business relationships, demonstrating the strategic importance of VCC across diverse B2B relationship types and stages.

Networking, integration, and adaptation: Aarikka-Stenroos and Ritala [78] argued that managing business networks involves understanding co-evolutionary dynamics and interdependence, enhancing VCC through collaboration and innovation. La Rocca and Snehota [71] found that inter-firm collaboration and boundary-spanning activities facilitate VCC by integrating knowledge and resources across organizational boundaries. Immonen et al. [54] emphasized the importance of service integration and customization in B2B purchasing strategies in promoting deeper customer engagement. Makkonen et al. [60] analyzed the shift from goods to SDL, revealing that relationship positioning fosters VCC through mutual adaptation.

Knowledge, capabilities, and resources: Wang et al. [85] explored that customer knowledge sharing, driven by perceived benefits, socialization, and technological capabilities, improves project performance. According to Komulainen [52] customer learning, absorptive capacity, and sacrifices are vital for promoting VCC in technological B2B services. Keranen and Jalkala [44] proposed a framework for assessing customer value in B2B markets, emphasizing the significance of resource integration and collaboration in co-creating value. Zhang et al. [50] demonstrated that marketing and innovation capabilities enhance VCC, leading to a competitive advantage.

Ethics and unethical practices in B2B: Bag et al. [82] cautioned that excessive ethics training can negatively affect RQ, impeding VCC. Kumar et al. [64] revealed the impeding role of the unethical use of analytics in eroding behavioral loyalty and trust and hindering VCC. Jhy-Liang et al. [69] argued that opportunism leads to conflict, which diminishes non-economic satisfaction in B2B relationships, and emphasized the importance of the effective management of conflict to enhance VCC. Kaufmann et al. [66] highlighted curative international marketing’s role in restoring corporate and supply chain health in Poland, contributing to VCC.

Dark side of value co-creation: Chowdhury et al. [62] revealed the dark side of VCC, highlighting role conflicts, ambiguity, and power plays that complicate B2B relationships. Tanzeeb and Ross [73] exposed the role of responsive communication and active listening in mitigating these challenges, thus fostering stronger business relationships and enhancing VCC. Minerbo et al. [57] explored value capture and creation, underscoring the need for mutual investment, transparent negotiations, and coordination to achieve a balanced VCC.

With this discussion, we managed to answer our RQ1.

3.2. Antecedents and Consequences

We thoroughly investigated the 39 papers and extracted the antecedents and consequences of VCC in B2B, processed them, and categorized them based on their interpretation in those papers, and also their linkage to our research. We extracted 69 antecedents and 81 consequences; collectively, the 39 papers repeatedly studied them more than 200 times each. These antecedents and consequences were then transferred to Excel, analyzed, processed, and categorized into 20 initial groups on the basis of similarities, along with their sources (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The analysis and categorization provide an enhanced, concrete, and complete comprehension of how VCC happens in the B2B context, providing a diverse pool of antecedents and consequences and their relationship with VCC based on the input process output model.

3.2.1. Categorizations of Antecedents

Figure 5 below depicts the categorization of the antecedents and their respective sources. There are three categories in total that are related to relationships, two of which are antecedents, while the third one shows the types of relationships. Trust, commitment, and communication are the foundations of every relationship, including B2B, and we regard them as relationship-building antecedents. Relationship-management antecedents, which include governing, positioning, and management, inform us how to manage relationships to be more effective co-creators. These 39 papers have studied VCC from a range of relationships. However, we place them into bilateral, trilateral, and inter-organizational relationships. For VCC in B2B to happen, it also requires certain capabilities (collective, networking, firm, relational, innovation, and interaction capabilities). Parties involved or to be involved in VCC need to allocate, optimize, and integrate their resources for the capacity building of their partners in VCC through knowledge sharing, information sharing, and learning. Furthermore, a significant amount of interface is also required so that the parties engage, interact, and collaborate in a well-defined strategic direction that assures that both partners are moving in the same direction. This cooperation includes value realization, strategic alignment, strategic intention, and continuous performance evaluation of the programs required.

Parties involved in VCC also need to define what is ethical and what is not. Cultures of organizations or countries make them different from each other, and an act that might be considered ethical in one part of the world may not be in the other. There must be a consensus between the parties regarding what one can and cannot do. Therefore, we placed conflicts, opportunism, unethical access, unethical use of analytics, and breaches as important aspects. In rapidly changing technology eras, for organizations to survive and grow, and for VCC to succeed, there must be enough serious focus provided to servitization which includes delivery, integration, and actualization. The provision of customized offerings, which include tailored services, customer demandingness, and flexibility in process and offerings, needs to be emphasized. The ever-changing technology and business environment places digitalization, which includes innovative networks, tools, and platforms, as critical for VCC and organizational success. Organizations must be prepared and quick to adapt to new technologies and incorporate novel information and communication tools to connect (emotionally, personally, socially, and technologically) effectively.

Market forces, which include risk, motivation, baseline assessment, and benefits of collaboration programs, including economic, non-economic, and relational, also drive organizations to adopt VCC. As B2B is not episodic but involves long-term interactions, it is costly and time-consuming to change partners. Hence, strategic collaboration is also critical for VCC, which includes joint goals, problem-solving, shared responsibilities, and shared interests, as this enhances customer retention. We also explored behavioral factors, including willingness, influence, dependence, and the ability to sacrifice, as well as emotional connectivity, which includes emotional effectiveness and emotional intelligence to influence VCC. There are certain antecedents that we placed as miscellaneous, including systematic data management and value potential identification, which drive organizations towards VCC.

3.2.2. Categorization of Consequences

After a thorough investigation of the 39 articles, we managed to extract 81 unique consequences of VCC in B2B, which the 39 papers repeatedly studied 200 times. Figure 6 below depicts the categorization of these consequences into 20 different groups with their respective sub-categories and sources. The consequences were transferred to Excel, analyzed, processed, and categorized on the basis of their similarities, relevance to the study, and the way they were analyzed and incorporated by these 39 papers. The first category of consequences that we identified was enhanced market positioning, an effective co-creation program will provide its parties with an enhanced competitive advantage and will assist the parties in better aligning their strategies and decision-making processes, eventually placing them in a better market position.

Effective VCC programs bring loyalty among parties involved, and because of the long-term nature of such encounters in B2B, the other outcomes of VCC and their dependence on each other bring in satisfaction, which includes eco-social, customer, and relational. VCC also helps in enhancing the quality of engagement and interaction via delivering personalized, optimized, and sustained engagement and interactions. By sharing and exchanging information about novel technologies among the parties, it enhances their innovation skills, which include connectivity, digitalization, co-innovation, and designing. Better utilization of novel technologies and connectivity tools enhances process and operations efficiency. We discovered that an effective VCC program enhances the ethical and behavioral aspects of business encounters and collaborations, including willingness, solving conflicts of interest, and power imbalances.

We explored that VCC enhances the resource management capabilities of the collaborating parties by educating each other about how and where should the resources be reallocated and reintegrated to optimize it and achieve the targets. VCC also aids in customer and personnel development via employee development and growth, customer retention, participation, and confidence, which also leads to enhanced relationships via enhancing trust, enhanced RQ, sustained and strengthened relationships, and successful relationships on bilateral, trilateral, and intra-organizational levels. Among other financial benefits are the ones that every organization strives for. An effective VCC intercourse also delivers and boosts financial benefits, which include, increased revenue, increased sales, image building, and profitability.

In the era of dynamic business environments, it is of paramount importance to retain old clients and receive new ones. One way of achieving that is customization and servitization, where the organizations involved in VCC receive and provide tailored, user-friendly, and enhanced offerings, including services, solutions, and products. We explored that, by enhancing strategic orientation via long-term collaboration, relational intent leads to strategic outcomes. VCC delivered valued offerings on multiple levels, which include collaborative, episodic, perceived, strategic, and transactional. We found out that VCC was also handy in enhancing performance, which includes business performance, economic performance, and supplier performance.

We discovered that by sharing knowledge, experiences, and learning, and by organizing training and development programs, we enhance capabilities, including customization capabilities and innovation capabilities, and align their newly learned and old capabilities. This interplay further enhances the quality of collaboration by delivering sustained collaborations and partnerships, enhanced interdependence, and customer integration. By delivering customized offerings and capacity building, VCC leads to sustainability and effectiveness via risk minimization, cost-effectiveness, diminishing waste, and enhancing efficacy. If VCC is not handled properly, it can also deliver some negative outcomes like trust dissolution, relationship termination, dissatisfaction, and reduced RQ. However, VCC can be utilized as a platform to not let negative outcomes escalate and conduct continuous performance appraisals to highlight it at the initial stages to avoid higher losses, start over again, and avoid previous mistakes. With this discussion we answer our RQ2.

4. Avenues for Future Research Based on the TCM–AVC Framework

4.1. Theories–Context–Methods

4.1.1. Theories

This systematic literature review reveals that research on value co-creation in B2B contexts is primarily anchored in the following three well-established theoretical frameworks: Service-Dominant Logic, Resource-Based View, and Relationship Marketing Theory. Additionally, four other theories, Relationship Quality, Social Exchange Theory, Trust–Commitment Theory, and Dynamic Capabilities Theory, are also identified as significant but relatively underexplored. While these foundational theoretical frameworks have provided valuable insights, the continuous evolution of business environments and technological advancements warrants comprehensive reinvestigation of these frameworks to explore new perspectives that better address the diverse and emerging aspects of VCC in the B2B context.

We revealed a total of 30 theoretical frameworks and models that were employed by the 39 papers (Figure 7). However, notably, only eight theories were followed multiple times, while the remaining theories and models were applied only once, indicating a fragmented theoretical landscape. Organizational capabilities, Actor Engagement Theory, and dynamic capabilities remain underutilized and underexplored in current literature. Therefore, they possess significant potential, and a reexamination of the complexities of VCC in B2B may yield fresh insights. Furthermore, research work on these theories has predominantly focused on the investigation of the positive aspects of VCC, overlooking its potential challenges. Furthering inquiries on the negative aspects of VCC and the role of technological integration in B2B interactions is also a promising area for future research. The application of the Technology Acceptance Model could also offer crucial insights regarding adaptation barriers. Its further exploration may yield different and novel insights into their connection to VCC in B2B settings, guiding both theory and practice.

4.1.2. Context

This SLR reveals that research work on VCC in the B2B context has been extensively studied across various industries, particularly in manufacturing. However, understanding VCC in B2B remains challenging due to the adaptation of new technologies to counter the ever-changing business environment, allocating and utilizing resources efficiently and developing a wide array of capabilities. The review also identifies that VCC possesses distinct challenges for adapting technologies across sectors, such as manufacturing and services. Further exploration of the root causes of these differing challenges and their possible mitigating strategies could yield fresh avenues. Furthermore, to cope with the dynamic business environment, rapid technological changes compel organizations to adopt fresh technologies. It requires B2B organizations to emphasize optimizing the resources required to manage this evolving landscape effectively.

This continuous technology adaptation highlights the significance of building, enhancing, and sustaining robust business relationships as a core component of VCC in B2B. Such relationships not only broaden the capacity and depth of collaboration but also necessitate a reexamination of ecosystems to fully comprehend their role in B2B dynamics. Further research is required to explore how these altering technologies and their adaptation affect B2B relationships across industries, how are they positioned within these ecosystems, and their possible connection with VCC processes. This perspective emphasizes the need for building an integrative understanding of ecosystems and their connection with VCC in B2B, which may deliver more adaptable, resilient, and value-generative collaborations.

4.1.3. Methods

This SLR underscores the need for comprehensive analysis via longitudinal data to facilitate in-depth studies on both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies in VCC in B2B contexts. The review reveals that quantitative studies predominantly rely on direct surveys, while qualitative studies are mostly based on interviews, with very few case studies employing longitudinal approaches. This divulges a critical gap, as longitudinal methods could deliver deeper and more nuanced insights into the evolving and dynamic realm of VCC in B2B. Furthermore, this SLR also revealed that most studies in the field employ quantitative methodologies, frequently using regression analysis, highlighting the need for innovative analytical techniques in future research. The limited number of literature reviews and case studies provide an opportunity to broaden the methodological and analytical diversity in VCC research by employing different analytical software, potentially uncovering new insights into the B2B context. As emerging technologies are increasingly applied in B2B, they also call for diverse and novel data collection techniques. Employing such methodologies could enhance the understanding of VCC in B2B, facilitating more precise analyses and potentially unveiling new research pathways in this evolving field.

4.2. Antecedents and Consequences

4.2.1. Antecedents

This study indicates that research on antecedents of VCC in B2B is considerably mature, identifying key factors related to capabilities, technology, adaptation, strategies, relationships, etc. However, several areas warrant further investigation to deepen understanding and address gaps. First, while much research has accentuated technology, innovation, and digitalization, further investigation is needed into the barriers and challenges associated with technology integration and adaptation, especially in diverse organizational contexts. Furthermore, researchers should also focus on strategies for developing sustained capabilities to achieve sustained technology adaptation. Secondly, the ethical concerns related to VCC, including their individual and collective impacts, as well as effective countermeasures to mitigate these risks and challenges, should be focused on. Although collaboration and customization have been widely studied, examining these factors in synchronization could provide new insights and open promising research directions. Strategic collaboration, particularly in terms of achieving sustainability and cost efficiency, is another area waiting for further exploration. Finally, the emotional and behavioral dimensions of both individual and organizational actors in VCC remain underexplored, and a focused examination could unearth treasured acumens into how these factors influence co-creation dynamics. Addressing these areas can help build a more comprehensive framework for understanding and leveraging VCC in B2B contexts.

4.2.2. Value Co-Creation

In current dynamic marketing, technology, and business environments, it is of paramount importance that future research explores the strategies required for navigating these constant shifts. As technology and digitalization compel organizations toward greater adaptability, it becomes very important for organizations to swiftly identify which capabilities to develop, and when and how to cultivate them to achieve smooth technology adaptation. Factors that can affect such decisions also need to be explored to help firms identify the technological trends and organizational capabilities required for solving existing problems. While existing studies have primarily addressed early-stage technology adaptation, such as the pivotal decision to implement new technologies [86], future studies should investigate the subsequent phases and the hidden connections that evolve over time. It is also vital to investigate the challenges that organizations face in technology adaptation, focusing on underlying causes, response strategies, and approaches for mitigating these barriers. Moreover, VCC can be leveraged as a predictive tool, offering a simulated environment to anticipate challenges, repercussions, and strategic responses based on past interactions. By addressing these areas, future research can contribute to a more comprehensive framework for managing technological adaptation and enhancing VCC’s role in organizational resilience.

4.2.3. Consequences

The section below discusses the recommendations for future research regarding the consequences of VCC in B2B. While extensive research has examined VCC broadly, there is a significant gap in the B2B context regarding how to achieve strategic and sustained outcomes.

Additionally, the relationship between VCC and connectivity warrants further exploration, particularly its effects on interaction, engagement, collaboration, and B2B relationships. The effect of AI technologies implementation and its outcomes via VCC, especially cost effectiveness, integration, and connectivity, need to be further explored. Recent studies have tended to underemphasize the role of technology adaptation; longitudinal case studies are needed to investigate the behavioral and emotional aspects of both employees and clients to study its dimensions pre-, during, and post-adaptation, and the dynamic nature and outcomes might have rich insights for further exploration. Such studies would provide insights into the challenges these actors face, their contributions to VCC, and the impact of these dynamics on forecasting relationships and collaborations. Lastly, a comprehensive investigation is necessary to understand the root causes of the behavioral and emotional challenges, during and after technology adaptation phases, and develop possible mechanisms for addressing them. Future research should explore how VCC can serve as a platform to identify these challenges in a timely manner, allowing for early interventions and corrective actions to sustain B2B partnerships and optimize VCC outcomes.

With the discussion above and Figure 7 below, we answer the RQ3 of this study.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Theoretical Implication

This SLR provides substantial theoretical implications by deeply examining VCC within B2B. Our first contribution lies in the detailed descriptive analysis that highlights the status of research in this area, revealing emerging trends and patterns. This analysis includes metrics such as annual publication and citation rates, methodologies, data collection techniques, and the classification of articles based on study nature. By offering an overview of methodological approaches and study characteristics, we provide a foundation for future research in this domain. Our second contribution lies in the categorizing of the 39 articles based on their findings, which resulted in the identification of eight novel research streams. These streams represent diverse avenues within VCC research in B2B, enriching the understanding of topics ranging from technological adaptation to collaborative practices. Such classification enhances the literature’s organization and highlights emerging areas for future inquiry.

The third contribution is an interpretative analysis based on theoretical frameworks. Through careful review of the 39 papers, we managed to identify 30 distinct theories that have been applied. This finding not only enriches the SLR but also underscores the theoretical diversity and complexity within VCC research. It underscores the potential for theory building by integrating perspectives that may offer a broader understanding of VCC dynamics. Our fourth contribution provides an in-depth review of antecedents and consequences examined in prior studies. This review identified 69 unique antecedents and 81 consequences, including recurring factors, which were initially categorized into 20 thematic groups (Figure 5 and Figure 6). These categories provide a holistic view of the drivers and outcomes of VCC in B2B settings. Finally, we established the “TCM–AVC” model (Figure 7), which synthesized these findings to present a comprehensive model of antecedents and consequences in VCC for B2B contexts. This model further refines the preliminary 20 groups into six concrete categories of antecedents and five categories of consequences. The extraction, analysis, identification, initial categorization, and final categorization of antecedents and consequences of VCC in B2B via the “TCM–AVC” model is a substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Together, these contributions create a valuable, structured knowledge base for VCC in B2B, offering a robust foundation for both researchers and practitioners and reflecting a rigorously applied methodology that ensures the reliability and depth of our findings.

5.2. Managerial Applications

This SLR also provides valuable managerial applications for enhancing VCC within B2B, identifying 69 influential antecedents and 81 consequences, and its categorizations can guide effective strategies for managers. Relationships are important in every walk of life and business, with business relations in B2B, not an exception, being the first pillar of future interactions. Managers are encouraged to harness the potential of strong business relationships by fostering a culture of collaboration and mutual investment. Our findings indicate that strategic relationship building strengthens partnership trust by delivering on commitments and having transparent and continuous relationships with partners to further enhance trust within relationships. Continuous commitments are required to manage such organizations, which must strategically utilize intra- and inter-organizational relationships and bilateral and trilateral relationships in order to maximize their resources, skills, capabilities, and collective knowledge for the benefit of the organization. Managers should consider formal and informal engagement strategies to foster these connections.

In dynamic environments, organizations must collaborate with partners to help each other be equipped with the kinds of skills and capabilities that are needed to grow technologically, in customization, and in service innovation. Managers can benefit from allocating resources toward collaborative training, shared technology, and capacity-building initiatives, ensuring that their partners are well-equipped with the adaptable skills that empower them to counter the evolving market demands and technological shifts. Our findings show that market forces, customization, servitization, and digitalization all play critical roles in successful VCC. Managers can use these insights to adapt their strategies to market trends, leverage digital tools to enhance collaboration, and focus on personalized service offerings that resonate with client needs, thereby increasing competitive positioning. External and internal market forces are also critical for organizational success and competitiveness. Employees and partners need to be educated about the importance of market forces, and managers must be educated enough to deal with employees and partners having low emotional and behavioral levels. Managers must have the capability to encounter a variety of behaviors and properly communicate the positive and negative sides of these behaviors and the risks involved with them.

Continuous interactions are required for organizations to be strategic partners. This ensures that partners are working together to mutually solve problems. Collaborating towards the achievement of joint goals enhances the partner’s strategic alignment and connectivity. VCC further enhances the quality of interaction and engagement, which is critical for fostering long-term collaboration and innovation. Establishing regular, transparent, and long-term communication channels with partners is also essential, as established by Mora-Cortez and Jonston [63], as it improves feedback, helps to resolve conflicts quicker, builds stronger business relationships, and enhances VCC [73]. These structured feedback loops and collaborative problem-solving sessions, when properly managed, can further strengthen these engagements. Managers looking to position their organizations as effective leaders in co-creation should focus on building and enhancing the kinds of skill sets that make them adaptive and competitive and lead to long-term sustainability. Proactively and continuously developing these co-creation capacities will ensure that partners are better equipped with what it takes to adopt new technologies and processes, positioning the organization as agile, strategic, and resilient in a competitive landscape. Managers and organizations can be guided by our model and findings, as well as their educational applications, and focus on continuous improvements, which can help partner organizations be effective, strategic, and sustainable co-creators.

The TCM–AVC framework provides multifaceted managerial applications designed to enhance strategic, financial, relational, and behavioral outcomes.

By aligning countering market forces and positioning the organization with a strategic orientation, which includes realization, alignment, and strategic intent, managers can further improve the competitiveness of their organization. Long-term collaborations that prioritize relationships enhance the strategic outlook and orientation of the organizations and strengthen their relational security. Adopting an adaptive disposition helps organizations build the capabilities required to explore new technologies and dynamic synergistic relationships, which helps managers enhance firm performance and meet new and changing market demands. When this adaptive approach is backed by the effective and continuous management of resources, managers can deliver and boost the financial outcomes of VCC.

VCC can also foster loyalty among stakeholders and partners as a direct and indirect result of relationship building (trust, commitment, and communication). Loyal stakeholders are also economically and socially satisfied because of the operational flexibility and service and the customer orientations of the organizations. Managers can potentially enhance all aspects of their organizations through effective relationship management approaches that nurture stakeholder engagement and minimize power imbalances and conflicts.

Managers can improve business growth, customer participation, and employee retention by enhancing stakeholder and partner connectivity, which, when backed by increased knowledge and information sharing, shared learning, effective training, and development programs, can improve organizational flexibility capabilities, which are critical for dynamic markets and environments. Managers can also deliver episodic, perceived, strategic, transactional, and collaborative value, while these may also bring some potential risks such as dissatisfaction, trust, relationship dissolution, and reduced RQ.

Overall, the TCM–VCC framework, when well-managed and accompanied by the most beneficial antecedents, can deliver a range of positive outcomes, which can enhance the financial performance, strategic position, and relational dynamics of a business. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that businesses invest in and focus on building and enhancing strong relationships, managing resources effectively collaborating with partners, sharing knowledge, and building the kinds of capabilities required for countering and embracing digitalization to fully realize the benefits of a VCC.

5.3. Limitations

Like other studies, this SLR also faces certain limitations. First, we restricted our data sources to Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus, which, while regarded as high-quality databases, may introduce publication bias and limit the generalizability of our findings. This constraint could inadvertently exclude relevant studies, despite our rigorous search, selection, and quality assurance criteria. Additionally, in terms of data analysis, while the TCM–AVC framework offers a robust foundation for categorizing and organizing information, it may inadvertently introduce researcher bias. The predefined structure of the framework may overlook critical data that do not align with its elements, potentially reducing the inclusiveness of our analysis. Finally, this SLR focuses on published academic literature, potentially neglecting industry reports, white papers, and unpublished studies that might offer valuable insights. Recognizing these limitations allows future researchers to address them by expanding data sources and frameworks to improve the comprehensiveness and applicability of VCC research in B2B contexts.