---
title: "Q3 2025"
id: "18018"
type: "page"
slug: "q3-2025"
published_at: "2026-05-07T12:18:47+00:00"
modified_at: "2026-05-14T19:26:12+00:00"
url: "https://kulapartners.com/industrial-buyer-pulse/q3-2025/"
markdown_url: "https://kulapartners.com/industrial-buyer-pulse/q3-2025.md"
excerpt: "PublishedJuly 2025 Respondents263 North American decision-makers Presented byKula Partners Research partnerInnovateMR Dear reader, Industrial markets are moving faster. Buyers are navigating new realities, including shifting tariff regimes and geopolitical uncertainty, while simultaneously rethinking how they discover, evaluate, and purchase from..."
---

# Industrial Buyer Pulse **Q3 2025**

### A quarterly research initiative capturing the evolving perspectives of industrial buyers across North America.

[Download the PDF](https://kulapartners.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Kula-Partners-Industrial-Buyer-Pulse-Research-Report-Q3-2025.pdf)

Published**July 2025**

Respondents**263 North American decision-makers**

Presented by**Kula Partners**

Research partner**InnovateMR**

## Dear reader,

---

Industrial markets are moving faster. Buyers are navigating new realities, including shifting tariff regimes and geopolitical uncertainty, while simultaneously rethinking how they discover, evaluate, and purchase from suppliers. Digital channels now dominate the buying journey; with AI-enabled research, e-procurement portals, and self-serve quoting compressing evaluation cycles and raising the bar for industrial customer experience. In parallel, fluctuations in supply chain resiliency post-pandemic are fueling changes in how manufacturers prove reliability and compete on lead times, quality, and service.

At the center of this change sits the industrial buyer. Their expectations are evolving. How they buy is changing. And their reliance on salespeople—or propensity to engage with them at all—has shifted. Brand preference is becoming a function of transparency and trust as much as price and performance, with relationships playing a different role in purchasing than what many manufacturers have been used to. And while trade events and peer recommendations remain powerful, increasingly those interactions are amplified and validated online.

In an effort to provide insights and considerations for manufacturers serving industrial categories, we are launching the **Industrial Buyer Pulse presented by Kula Partners**—a quarterly research initiative that views the market through a buyer-first lens. Each wave tracks momentum across four focus areas that, together, help predict revenue and pipeline outcomes: Buying Confidence, Research & Supplier Selection, Digital Buying Enablement, and Supply Chain Health & Risk.

This inaugural release summarizes responses from 263 North American decision-makers across the manufacturing landscape.

Participants include operations leaders, engineering/technical buyers, and procurement professionals. While the numbers will change quarter to quarter, the lens will not: we trend a consistent set of KPIs so executives can distinguish noise from signal, and we pair those metrics with practical guidance for marketing and sales teams tasked with converting sentiment into revenue.

What you’ll find in the pages that follow is intentionally action-oriented. Our aim is simple: to provide an always-current, decision-grade readout of industrial buying behaviour that helps manufacturers focus resources where they will matter most.

We welcome your feedback and collaboration as we grow the breadth and depth of the Industrial Buyer Pulse in future waves.

Sincerely,  
**Carman Pirie**Principal, Kula Partners

## Key Findings

---

1. **Buyer confidence is in high gear in the second half of 2025 despite looming economic uncertainty.**While economic uncertainty tops the list of potential causes of capex delays, 88% of industrial buyers still believe their capex budgets will grow in the next 90 days. Downside sentiment is practically non-existent, with no statistically significant expectations of large capex budget reductions and only 2% of industrial buyers expecting a modest budget decrease.
2. **The stage is set before sales is at the table.**Industrial buyers are bypassing sales with 82% shortlisting suppliers for a major purchase before speaking with them. 85% of buyers report using AI to research suppliers, with SMEs leading the way in AI adoption. However, despite widespread AI usage, supplier websites still dominate as the first place buyers look when researching suppliers—with almost twice as many respondents preferring them over in-person trade events.
3. **Industrial buyers are ready for advanced self-serve.**Just over 77% of industrial buyers report obtaining pricing or lead time information via self-serve digital tools, showing that buyers are choosing to remain anonymous long into the buying journey. Indeed, many are even willing to complete the entire journey online, with 80% of industrial buyers indicating a willingness to place a ≥50K e-commerce order.
4. **While tariff uncertainty remains high, supply chain fears have dramatically subsided vs what manufacturers experienced during the pandemic.**Strong safety stock levels and high supplier confidence have placed supply chain concerns firmly in the rear view mirror. Shortages ranked well down the list of operations disrupters in the previous quarter, with 94% of industrial buyers indicating they’re confident primary suppliers will meet promised delivery times in the next quarter.

Buyer Confidence

## Buyer Confidence

---

### Capital budget optimism is high, but perception and size matter

Q3 2025 Buyer Confidence Index: 0.52* Scale: −1 to +1

0.52−10+1

Respondents across the board are confident that capex budgets will increase in the second half of 2025, which may be due in part to a relatively flat start to the year.

88% of all respondents reported capital budgets increasing significantly or somewhat over the next six months; however, optimism and behaviour depend on who you talk to and the size of the company.

Thinking about the next six months, how do you expect your plant’s capital-expenditure budget to change?

| Response | % |
| --- | --- |
| Increase | 88.0% |
| No Change | 10.0% |
| Decrease | 2.0% |

   Expected Capex Budget Change — Next 6 Months, Q3 2025 Increase 88.0%, No Change 10.0%, Decrease 2.0%.     88% Increase  Increase — 88.0%  No Change — 10.0%  Decrease — 2.0%  

Q3 2025, n=263. Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR.

* To quantify respondents’ expectations regarding their capital expenditure over the next six months we’ve translated the original five-point Likert scale into a numerical index ranging from negative one, indicating a significant decrease, to positive one, indicating a significant increase, with zero representing no change. By averaging these values, the index provides a straightforward measure of overall sentiment, where a positive score suggests optimism and a negative score suggests pessimism.

### Job title strongly shapes outlook

An individual’s job title and department greatly influence their outlook and confidence. C-Level executives, VPs, and Directors exhibit a higher degree of optimism (over 93% reporting increases) than managers (81%), indicating that optimism can be a function of one’s position rather than just market conditions.

Budget Change by Job Title

| Job Title | % Increase | % No Change | % Decrease |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C-Level or VP | 93% | ~5% | ~2% |
| Director | 94% | ~6% | 0% |
| Manager | 81% | ~11% | ~8% |

 IncreaseNo ChangeDecrease

   Budget Change by Job Title — Q3 2025 C-Level or VP: 93% increase, ~5% no change, ~2% decrease. Director: 94% increase, ~6% no change. Manager: 81% increase, ~11% no change, ~8% decrease.  C-Level or VP Director Manager     93%    94%     81%   0% 25% 50% 75% 100%  

% reporting each budget direction by job title. (p=.027). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

### Department lens influences confidence

Similarly, departmental roles play a crucial part, with Operations staff appearing more cautious (21% reporting no change or decrease) compared to the strong optimism seen in Procurement and Supply Chain departments. This divergence highlights the necessity of tailoring messaging to different members of the buying committee.

Budget Change by Department

| Department | % Increase |
| --- | --- |
| Executive Leadership | 95% |
| Operations | 79% |
| Procurement | 95% |
| Supply Chain/Logistics | 91% |

 IncreaseNo ChangeDecrease

  Budget Change by Department — Q3 2025 Executive Leadership 95% increase. Operations 79% increase. Procurement 95% increase. Supply Chain/Logistics 91% increase. Executive Leadership Operations Procurement Supply Chain/Logistics    95%     79%    95%    91%  0% 25% 50% 75% 100%  

(p=.021). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

### Company size shapes pace, not just optimism

Optimism was also not uniform across all company sizes; smaller firms are significantly more bullish (92% reporting increases) compared to larger firms (77%). This inverse relationship between company size and budget optimism suggests that while buyers are generally ready to spend, smaller businesses are prepared to move much faster.

Budget Change by Company Size

| Company Size | % Increase |
| --- | --- |
| Small | 92% |
| Medium | 87% |
| Large | 77% |

 IncreaseNo ChangeDecrease

  Budget Change by Company Size — Q3 2025 Small firms 92% increase. Medium firms 87% increase. Large firms 77% increase. Small Medium Large     92%     87%     77%  0% 25% 50% 75% 100%  

(r = −0.159, p=0.01). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

### Top factor most likely to delay capital purchases

Economic uncertainty and supply chain risks are the top concerns that could delay upcoming purchases. These concerns had no significant variability and were consistent regardless of company size or who was being asked the question.

Which ONE factor is most likely to delay or cancel planned capital purchases in the next six months?

| Factor | % |
| --- | --- |
| Economic uncertainty | 34% |
| Supply-chain risks | 31% |
| Internal cash-flow constraints | 13% |
| Labour shortages | 11% |
| Technology readiness | 5% |
| Environmental / regulatory hurdles | 5% |
| Other | 1% |

   Top Factor Most Likely to Delay Capital Purchases — Q3 2025 Economic uncertainty 34%, supply-chain risks 31%, internal cash-flow constraints 13%, labour shortages 11%, technology readiness 5%, environmental/regulatory hurdles 5%, other 1%. Economic uncertainty  34% Supply-chain risks  31% Internal cash-flow constraints  13% Labour shortages  11% Technology readiness  5% Environmental / regulatory hurdles  5% Other  1%  0% 10% 20% 30% 40%  

Single-select. Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

### Considerable capex urgency

Considerable capex urgency with over 85% of respondents committing funds in the next 90 days.

When do you expect to commit funds for your next major capital purchase?

| Timeframe | % |
| --- | --- |
| Within 30 days | 12% |
| 31–60 days | 38% |
| 61–90 days | 35% |
| More than 90 days | 14% |
| No spend planned | 1% |

   Expected Timing of Next Major Capex Commitment — Q3 2025 Within 30 days 12%, 31 to 60 days 38%, 61 to 90 days 35%, more than 90 days 14%, no spend planned 1%. Within 30 days  12% 31–60 days  38% 61–90 days  35% More than 90 days  14% No spend planned  1%  0% 10% 20% 30% 40%  

Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

However, smaller firms demonstrate a markedly faster purchasing cycle, with 18% initiating purchases within 30 days, compared to a mere 3% of larger firms. While businesses generally anticipate investments, smaller enterprises are poised for much quicker action.

Funds Commitment by Company Size

| Company Size | Within 30 days | 31-60 days | 61-90 days | More than 90 days | No spend planned |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Small | 18% | 40% | 31% | 11% | 0% |
| Medium | 10% | 38% | 39% | 13% | 0% |
| Large | 3% | 19% | 45% | 29% | 3% |

 Within 30 days31–60 days61–90 daysMore than 90 daysNo spend planned

  Funds Commitment by Company Size — Q3 2025 Small: 18% within 30 days, 40% 31-60 days, 31% 61-90 days, 11% more than 90 days. Medium: 10% within 30 days, 38% 31-60 days, 39% 61-90 days, 13% more than 90 days. Large: 3% within 30 days, 19% 31-60 days, 45% 61-90 days, 29% more than 90 days, 3% no spend planned. Small Medium Large      11%      13%       29%  0% 25% 50% 75% 100%  

Funds commitment timeline by company size. (p=0.015). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

This underscores the need for a dual-speed go-to-market strategy that truly treats SMEs and enterprise prospects differently vs a one-size-fits-all approach.

Research & Selection

## Research & Selection

---

### Shortlists are being made before sales is involved in the conversation

82% of respondents said that during their most recent significant purchase, they had placed suppliers on shortlists before speaking with them live (phone, video or in-person).

This trend, however, is not uniform across all roles; managers are notably less likely to place suppliers on shortlists pre-contact (32% do not) compared to directors and executives.

Suppliers Placed on Shortlist Pre-Contact (Yes) by Job Title

| Job Title | % Pre-Contact Shortlisting (Yes) |
| --- | --- |
| C-Level or VP | 90% |
| Director | 93% |
| Manager | 68% |

   Pre-Contact Shortlisting Rate by Job Title — Q3 2025 C-Level or VP 90%, Director 93%, Manager 68%.  0% 25% 50% 75% 100%       90% C-Level or VP   93% Director   68% Manager  

(p=<.001). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

Departmental differences are also pronounced, with Procurement (95%) and Supply Chain (91%) reporting placing suppliers on shortlists before speaking with them in person, while Operations lags significantly at 66%.

Suppliers Placed on Shortlist Pre-Contact (Yes) by Department

| Department | % Yes |
| --- | --- |
| Executive Leadership | 90% |
| Operations | 66% |
| Procurement | 95% |
| Supply Chain/Logistics | 91% |

  Suppliers Placed on Shortlist Pre-Contact (Yes) by Department — Q3 2025 Executive Leadership 90%, Operations 66%, Procurement 95%, Supply Chain/Logistics 91%.  100% 75% 50% 25% 0%         90%   66%   95%   91%  Executive Leadership Operations Procurement Supply Chain/ Logistics  

% placing suppliers on shortlist before live contact, by department. (p=<.001). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

With shortlists being shaped before the sales team is ever in the picture, brand presence and a robust digital footprint are no longer merely an advantage—they’ve become a fundamental prerequisite for even being considered in the modern procurement process.

### Your website is your first impression—but trade shows show staying power

Your website is your first impression—but the long history of trade shows for industrial buying is showing some staying power.

Q. What was the first source of information you used when researching that purchase?

| Source | % |
| --- | --- |
| Supplier website | 31% |
| Industry event/trade show | 17% |
| Peer/colleague referral | 14% |
| Distributor/channel portal | 12% |
| General Web Search | 11% |
| Trade-media site/blog | 7% |
| AI assistant/Gen-AI search | 6% |
| Social network | 2% |
| Other | 1% |

   First Information Source for Supplier Research — Q3 2025 Supplier website 31%, industry event/trade show 17%, peer/colleague referral 14%, distributor/channel portal 12%, general web search 11%, trade-media site/blog 7%, AI assistant/Gen-AI search 6%, social network 2%, other 1%. Supplier website  31% Industry event/trade show  17% Peer/colleague referral  14% Distributor/channel portal  12% General Web Search  11% Trade-media site/blog  7% AI assistant/Gen-AI search  6% Social network  2% Other  1%   

Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

The choice of information sources for buyers is heavily influenced by their specific roles within an organization, leading to a fragmented research landscape.

Supplier websites (31%) and industry events (17%) are prominent initial research points, preferences diverge significantly across departments.

Supply Chain professionals often prioritize peer recommendations and trade shows, concurrently exhibiting the highest rates of AI tool usage. Executives, on the other hand, predominantly rely on supplier websites and general web searches. Procurement teams tend to gravitate towards direct supplier materials, whereas Operations staff utilize a more diverse array of channels.

These departmental differences are statistically significant (p=0.005), highlighting the absence of a universal approach to information gathering.

Information Source by Department

| Department | Supplier Website | Industry Event | Peer Referral | Distributor Portal | General Web | Trade Media | AI/Gen AI | Social |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Executive Leadership | 35% | 14% | 11% | 11% | 16% | 5% | 5% | 3% |
| Operations | 28% | 19% | 15% | 13% | 8% | 8% | 6% | 3% |
| Procurement | 36% | 15% | 10% | 14% | 10% | 8% | 5% | 2% |
| Supply Chain/Logistics | 22% | 20% | 19% | 10% | 8% | 7% | 11% | 3% |

 Supplier WebsiteIndustry Event/Trade ShowPeer or Colleague ReferralDistributor/Channel PortalGeneral Web SearchTrade Media Site/BlogAI Assistant/Gen AISocial Network

  Information Source by Department — Q3 2025 First information source used when researching a purchase, broken down by department. Supplier websites dominate for all groups, but Supply Chain/Logistics relies more on peer referrals and AI tools. Executive Leadership Operations Procurement Supply Chain/ Logistics          0% 25% 50% 75% 100%  

First information source by department. (p=.005). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

An effective marketing strategy necessitates a multi-channel positioning. Organizations must tailor their outreach to align with the preferred information conduits of their target audience: executives require a strong web and supplier site presence, Supply Chain personnel are best reached through peer networks and trade shows, and Procurement teams respond well to direct supplier communications. Adapting to these varied preferences is crucial for maximizing engagement and impact.

### Despite having more research tools than ever, peer referrals remain highly influential

Q. How influential were peer or colleague referrals in choosing your final supplier?

| Response | % |
| --- | --- |
| Influential | 85.1% |
| Neutral | 11.9% |
| Not Influential | 3.0% |

   Peer Referral Influence in Supplier Selection — Q3 2025 Influential 85.1%, Neutral 11.9%, Not Influential 3.0%.     85.1% Influential  Influential — 85.1%  Neutral — 11.9%  Not Influential — 3.0%  

Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

This reliance on peer recommendations, however, varies with company size; large companies are notably less influenced (71%) compared to small and medium-sized firms (87–89%).

Peer Influence by Company Size

| Company Size | % Influential | % Neutral | % Not Influential |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Small | 87% | ~10% | ~3% |
| Medium | 89% | ~9% | ~2% |
| Large | 71% | ~17% | ~12% |

 InfluentialNeutralNot Influential

  Peer Influence by Company Size — Q3 2025 Small: 87% influential, ~10% neutral, ~3% not influential. Medium: 89% influential, ~9% neutral, ~2% not influential. Large: 71% influential, ~17% neutral, ~12% not influential. Small Medium Large     87%     89%     71%  0% 25% 50% 75% 100%  

Peer referral influence by company size. (p=0.004). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

The impact of peer referrals is particularly pronounced within Procurement and Supply Chain departments, where over 94% report being influenced.

Peer Influence by Department

| Department | % Influential | % Neutral | % Not Influential |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Executive Leadership | 87% | ~10% | ~3% |
| Operations | 76% | ~14% | ~10% |
| Procurement | 94% | ~6% | 0% |
| Supply Chain/Logistics | 91% | ~4% | ~5% |

 InfluentialNeutralNot Influential

  Peer Influence by Department — Q3 2025 Executive Leadership: 87% influential. Operations: 76% influential. Procurement: 94% influential. Supply Chain/Logistics: 91% influential. Executive Leadership Operations Procurement Supply Chain/ Logistics     87%     76%    94%     91%  0% 25% 50% 75% 100%  

Peer referral influence by department. (p=.02). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

This enduring importance of referrals and relationships underscores that even in an increasingly digital world, direct word-of-mouth and trusted peer networks continue to exert considerable influence on purchasing choices.

Digital Buying Enablement

## Digital Buying Enablement

---

### Industrial buyers are bought into AI, with SMEs leading the way

When asked if they had used AI tools to research industrial suppliers in the past 90 days, 85% of survey respondents said yes. This adoption, however, is not uniform across all organizational segments. Smaller firms are notably more engaged with AI (91%) compared to larger enterprises (58%).

AI Use to Research Industrial Suppliers in Past 90 Days by Company Size

| Company Size | % Using AI |
| --- | --- |
| Small | 91% |
| Medium | 87% |
| Large | 58% |

   AI Use for Supplier Research by Company Size — Q3 2025 Small 91%, Medium 87%, Large 58%.  0% 25% 50% 75% 100%       91% Small   87% Medium   58% Large  

(p=<.001). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

Furthermore, a clear hierarchy of adoption exists by job title, with executives and directors enthusiastically embracing AI for industrial supplier research (over 90% usage), while managers lag considerably at 76%.

AI Use to Research Industrial Suppliers in Past 90 Days by Job Title

| Job Title | % Yes |
| --- | --- |
| C-Level or VP | 90% |
| Director | 93% |
| Manager | 76% |

  AI Use to Research Industrial Suppliers in Past 90 Days by Job Title — Q3 2025 C-Level or VP 90%, Director 93%, Manager 76%. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%        90%   93%   76% C-Level or VP Director Manager  

% reporting AI use for supplier research by job title. (p=<.001). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

Departmentally, this disparity is even more pronounced, as 0% of executives reported no AI usage for industrial supplier research, contrasted with 27% of Operations staff who indicated they do not use AI, revealing a highly significant departmental variation.

AI Use to Research Industrial Suppliers in Past 90 Days by Department

| Department | % Yes |
| --- | --- |
| Executive Leadership | 100% |
| Operations | 73% |
| Procurement | 91% |
| Supply Chain/Logistics | 95% |

  AI Use to Research Industrial Suppliers in Past 90 Days by Department — Q3 2025 Executive Leadership 100%, Operations 73%, Procurement 91%, Supply Chain/Logistics 95%. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%        100%   73%   91%   95% Executive Leadership Operations Procurement Supply Chain/ Logistics  

% reporting AI use for supplier research by department. (p=<.001). Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

Marketing and sales materials need to be optimized for AI-friendliness and be structured, crawlable, and concise to ensure visibility within the AI tools buyers are already utilizing.

### Digital self-service is driving pipeline

Digital self-service is driving pipeline with respondents showing strong propensity to obtain critical supplier information without ever speaking to sales.

In the past 90 days, have you obtained a price or lead-time quote directly through a supplier’s digital tool without talking to sales?

77% Yes

### Big-ticket industrial e-commerce is here

Big ticket industrial e-commerce is here with over 80% of respondents likely to place ≥ US $50k orders fully online.

If the right supplier offered it, how likely is your team to place an order of US $50 000 or more entirely online today?

| Response | % |
| --- | --- |
| Likely | 80.8% |
| Unsure | 13.1% |
| Unlikely | 6.1% |

   Likelihood of Placing a US $50,000+ Order Entirely Online — Q3 2025 Likely 80.8%, Unsure 13.1%, Unlikely 6.1%.     80.8% Likely  Likely — 80.8%  Unsure — 13.1%  Unlikely — 6.1%  

Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

However, a notable disparity exists among job titles; managers are less certain about large online orders (20% unsure) compared to executives (less than 10%), indicating a significant job title effect.

Buyers are prepared for, and expect, seamless digital transactions for even high-value purchases. Consequently, suppliers must prioritize enabling robust and intuitive online platforms that facilitate self-service quoting and ordering. Failure to provide such seamless digital capabilities risks losing out to competitors who readily embrace and enable this entrenched digital-first approach to procurement.

Supply Chain Health & Risks

## Supply Chain Health & Risks

---

### Logistics disruptions: a broad but evolving pattern

Freight costs proved most challenging for SMEs in the last quarter, likely driven by tariff fluctuations. For large industrials, more than half of respondents reported regulatory and border disruptions in the last 90-days.

Logistics disruptions are a widespread concern, affecting businesses universally rather than being confined to specific company sizes, job levels, or departments. The most frequently cited issues include high freight costs (56%), regulatory changes (49%), customs and border delays (43%), and carrier capacity shortages (36%).

Which up to THREE logistics-related challenges caused the most disruption to your operations in the past quarter?

| Disruption | % |
| --- | --- |
| High Freight Costs | 56% |
| Regulatory Changes | 49% |
| Customs/Border Delays | 43% |
| Carrier Capacity Shortages | 36% |
| Geopolitical Risk | 30% |
| Port/Rail Congestion | 28% |

   Top Logistics Disruptions — Q3 2025 High freight costs 56%, regulatory changes 49%, customs/border delays 43%, carrier capacity shortages 36%, geopolitical risk 30%, port/rail congestion 28%. High Freight Costs  56% Regulatory Changes  49% Customs/Border Delays  43% Carrier Capacity Shortages  36% Geopolitical Risk  30% Port/Rail Congestion  28%  0% 20% 40% — — — 60%  

% selecting each as one of up to three top logistics disruptions in the past quarter. Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

This pervasive nature of logistics challenges indicates that no single buyer group experiences unique pain points in this area. Therefore, rather than attempting to frame a buyer’s pain as unique, businesses should focus their strategy on demonstrating resilience. This involves showcasing secure supply chains, ensuring predictable delivery timelines, and implementing transparent risk-sharing mechanisms to instill confidence and differentiate offerings.

### Safety stock of critical inputs is providing some buffer

Safety stock of critical inputs is providing some buffer against economic and tariff uncertainty.

Approximately how many weeks of safety stock do you currently hold for your most critical production items?

Max  
# of Weeks

29

Min  
# of Weeks

0

Average (MEAN)  
# of Weeks

6.9

Median  
# of Weeks

5

### Confidence in primary suppliers is remarkably high

Confidence in the ability of primary suppliers to deliver is remarkably high, with no respondents reporting significant concerns for the next quarter.

How confident are you that your PRIMARY suppliers will meet promised delivery times over the next three months?

| Response | % |
| --- | --- |
| Very Confident | 41% |
| Somewhat Confident | 53% |
| Neutral | 5% |
| Somewhat or Very Doubtful | 0% |

   Confidence in Primary Supplier Delivery — Next 3 Months, Q3 2025 Very confident 41%, somewhat confident 53%, neutral 5%, somewhat or very doubtful 0%. Very Confident  41% Somewhat Confident  53% Neutral  5% Somewhat or Very Doubtful  0%  0% 20% 40% — — — 60%  

Source: Kula Partners / InnovateMR, n=263.

This high level of assurance is consistent across all company sizes, job roles, and geographical locations, indicating a universal expectation of baseline performance from suppliers.  
  
Therefore, in a market where basic reliability is a given, differentiation will no longer stem from merely meeting delivery expectations.

## About this Study

---

The data presented in this Buyer Pulse survey was collected in July 2025 via an online survey administered by InnovateMR, which implemented the following data quality measures in collection:

- **Panel controls:** fraud-prevention, digital fingerprinting, geo-verification, attention checks, and speed-trap removal.
- **Screening:** respondents confirmed (a) involvement in evaluating or purchasing production-critical goods/services in the prior 12 months and (b) familiarity with current supplier selection processes.
- **Cleaning:** de-duplication, straight-line and inconsistent-logic removal prior to analysis.
- **Weighting:** results are reported unweighted unless noted; small imbalances by role/industry were reviewed and deemed immaterial to the directional conclusions.

Respondents were selected via a double-opt-in B2B panel with the following profile:

- **Role/Function:** senior practitioners with direct influence over supplier selection and purchasing decisions, including Operations/Plant leadership, Engineering & technical buyers, and Procurement/Supply-Chain managers.
- **Industry:** North American manufacturing (e.g., industrial equipment, automotive, aerospace, food & beverage, specialty chemicals, metals, electronics).
- **Company size:** mix of small, mid-market and enterprise manufacturers (sub-US$100M to 1B+ revenue).
- **Geography:** United States and Canada.

All responses are aggregated and anonymized. No personally identifiable information (PII) or company-identifying information is disclosed. The study adhered to applicable standards for research privacy and consent, including panel partner policies and relevant data-protection regulations.

With a total sample size of 263 respondents, there is a 95% chance that the real value is +/- 5.87% of the measured value (assuming p=.6).

The survey was administered in English and took approximately 10–12 minutes to complete. The instrument combined trended anchors with a small set of rotating spotlights to keep the pulse fresh while preserving comparability wave-over-wave.

### Anchors (tracked every wave)

 Buying ConfidenceThinking about the next six months, how do you expect your plant’s capital-expenditure budget to change? = Average score of 5pt Likert scale of decrease significantly (−1), decrease somewhat (−.5), no change (0), increase somewhat (.5), increase significantly (1). Research & SelectionDuring your most recent significant purchase, did you place ANY supplier on your shortlist before speaking with them live (phone, video or in-person)? = % who placed any supplier on a shortlist before live contact. Digital Buying EnablementIn the past 90 days, have you used any AI-based tools (e.g., chatbots, Gen-AI summaries, comparison agents) to research industrial suppliers? = % who used AI/chatbots/agents during supplier research (past 90 days). Supply-Chain HealthWhich up to THREE logistics-related challenges caused the most disruption to your operations in the past quarter? = % selecting each disruption factor (multi-select). ### Additional KPIs reported this wave

Capex Urgency, Top Delay Factor, First Information Source, Peer-Referral Influence, Self-Serve Quote Usage, Likelihood to place ≥US$50k online, Average/Median Weeks of Safety Stock, Delivery Confidence.

### Things to note when reading this report

- All 263 respondents answered every question, so n=263 for all charts and graphs.
- **Rounding:** Data are shown to one decimal place where relevant; columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding and multi-select questions.
- Quarter-over-quarter deltas will be introduced beginning with Wave 2 (Q4 2025).
- Segment cuts (e.g. role, industry, company size) are provided where statistically robust; smaller bases are noted.

For questions regarding methodology or custom segment analyses, please contact [research@kulapartners.com](mailto:research@kulapartners.com)
.