Until recently, power was understood primarily as a feature of business relationships. Large firms held an advantage over smaller ones, global players over local companies, and technology owners over its users. These relationships formed relatively clear hierarchies. Today, this picture is beginning to dissolve.
This is not because power in business relationships has become irrelevant. On the contrary, it remains present and continues to play a crucial role. What has changed is the way it manifests and how it is distributed. This shift is the focus of an article published in Industrial Marketing Management. Its authors, Dariusz Siemieniako (Kozminski University), Hannu Makkonen (University of Vaasa) and Maciej Mitręga (University of Economics in Katowice), bring together previously fragmented research on power in B2B relationships and propose a framework that integrates these perspectives.
From relationships to systems
For years, research on power in business has focused primarily on relationships between firms. This is understandable, as it is within these relationships that negotiations, conflicts and dependencies are most visible. One can observe who sets the terms of cooperation, who bears more risk, and who can withdraw at lower cost. However, this perspective has its limitations. It assumes that a relationship is relatively closed and can be analysed in isolation from the broader environment.
The authors argue that this assumption is increasingly outdated.
Business relationships today are deeply embedded in broader structures such as supply chains, partnership networks, technological ecosystems, as well as institutional and political frameworks. What happens between two firms is often only a fragment of a larger process shaped by decisions made elsewhere or by shifts occurring at the level of entire markets.
This is why the authors propose moving beyond a focus on individual relationships toward a systemic perspective. Such an approach requires analysing multiple levels simultaneously: organisations, networks of connections and the wider institutional environment. While this shift may appear theoretical, it has very practical implications. It changes how dependencies between firms are understood.
Power as a function of interdependencies
Within a systemic perspective, power does not arise solely from a firm’s resources or market position. It emerges through relationships and flows: who depends on whom, who controls access to key resources, and who can shape the rules of cooperation. Importantly, these dependencies rarely remain confined to a single relationship. They extend across entire networks.
A firm may hold a strong position vis-à-vis one partner while simultaneously depending on another, often less visible actor within the system. It may also fail to recognise that its own decisions strengthen the position of others further along the value chain. As a result, power increasingly resembles a dynamic configuration of tensions rather than a stable structure.
A less predictable world
One of the key drivers of this transformation is geopolitics. In recent years, it has become a tangible factor shaping business operations. Sanctions, trade tensions, industrial policies and export restrictions not only redirect flows of goods and technologies but, more importantly, reshape inter-firm dependencies, often suddenly and unpredictably. Relationships that once appeared stable can quickly become risky. Partners previously seen as easily replaceable may suddenly prove critical. Decisions made at the level of states can shift the balance of power across entire sectors.
A second factor is the development of digital technologies. Platforms, data and algorithms create new forms of dependency that are not always immediately visible. Power is no longer held solely by those who produce or sell, but increasingly by those who control infrastructure, the spaces where market participants interact, and the rules governing these interactions.
A third element is the growing importance of ESG-related regulations and standards. The introduction of reporting obligations and requirements for responsibility within supply chains means that issues once considered voluntary now have tangible business consequences. Those who define standards and determine what is measured gain influence over others.
These three processes, geopolitical, technological and regulatory, overlap and reinforce each other. Together, they create an environment in which power becomes more fluid and harder to grasp.
Unintended consequences of business decisions
One of the more intriguing observations made by the authors is that actions taken by firms often produce effects that extend beyond their immediate environment. A company may attempt to increase its resilience to disruptions by changing suppliers, relocating production or building up inventories. From its own perspective, such actions are rational and justified. At the level of the entire system, however, they may generate new tensions, increase pressure on other market participants, shift risks or create new dependencies.
This challenges the intuitive belief that each firm can simply “take care of itself” without affecting others. In reality, these effects are unavoidable and often return in the form of unintended consequences.
This becomes particularly evident in times of crisis. During disruptions such as shortages of key components or broken supply chains, formal hierarchies do not always reflect the actual distribution of power. Firms previously perceived as dominant may suddenly become dependent, while less visible actors, such as suppliers of specialised technologies, gain unexpected importance.
A multi-level view of power in business relationships
Power in business relationships is increasingly dynamic. It is no longer a stable attribute of a firm or a relationship. Instead, it behaves like something that moves across supply chains, between sectors and across different levels of the system. Sometimes it resides where resources are concentrated. Sometimes where data is controlled. And sometimes where actors are able to define the rules others must follow. This is why it is now more difficult than ever to answer the question of who truly holds power in business. There is no single answer, and it rarely remains the same for long.
The article concludes a special issue of Industrial Marketing Management. Based on a systematic review of 110 empirical studies, the authors propose an analytical model that explains the principles governing multi-level B2B systems. This approach is intended to help managers not only build strategic positions but also better understand the direction in which the global business environment is evolving.
This text was machine-translated.
