Resumo

B2B brand alliance research is scarce (Kalafatis et al., 2016). Although B2C evidence available, its replicability in the industrial market remains to be seen, mainly because of the differences in the purchasing process (Mohan et al., 2018). Questions remain regarding the impacts on the financial performance of partner firms and the perceptual value of the brands (Bengtsson & Servais, 2005; Mas et al., 2021), as well as the contingencies involved in implementing initiatives and the factors influencing the selection of allies (Erevelles et al., 2008; Kalafatis et al., 2012).

This article aims to systematically investigate the academic literature on the antecedents and outcomes associated with adopting co-branding by B2B companies. Four sections follow this introduction.

Co-branding has emerged to enhance a firm's brand equity through alliances and to facilitate business performance improvement (Turan, 2021). For these results to occur, a positive spillover effect among brands must be present (Newmeyer et al., 2018). Existing B2C knowledge assumes that lesser-known brands are the ones that benefit the most (Cunha et al., 2015).

As for B2C companies, industrial companies benefit from investing in activities that increase the value of their brands (Erevelles et al. 2008). B2B co-branding allows companies to mutually endorse each other, engage in cooperative branding activities, and build relationships and networks (Bengtsson & Servais, 2005). Moreover, as the perception of brand quality assumes a crucial role in B2B relationships and fosters commitment among the parties involved (Mas et al., 2021), the strategic significance of B2B co-branding is reinforced.

This SLR reveals a scattered body of evidence, potentially influenced by the limited volume of scientific research in this area. Nonetheless, the review highlights significant antecedents and positive outcomes of B2B co-branding, similar to those observed in B2C markets. These include the importance of partner selection in forming alliances, the potential for enhancing brand equity (particularly for weaker brands), positive customer attitudes towards co-branding, and the possibility of achieving financial returns.

Bengtsson and Servais (2005): http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.06.004; Cunha et al. (2015): https://doi.org/10.1086/679119; Erevelles et al. (2008) http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.002; Kalafatis et al. (2012): http://doi.org/10.1108/08858621211273574; Kalafatis et al. (2016): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.028; Mas et al. (2021) http://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2021.1893029; Mohan et al. (2018) http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.03.014; Newmeyer et al. (2018): http://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9467-4; Turan (2021): http://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12682