6sense’s Data:

B2B Buying in The Netherlands and Belgium

6sense’s Data: B2B Buying in The Netherlands and Belgium

Our Approach

The LeadFabric and 6sense teams analyzed survey responses from 103 buyers in the Netherlands and 61 buyers in Belgium, each of whom participated in purchases exceeding $10,000 in annual value within the last two years.

In the sections that follow, we discuss what the data suggest. Some trends we highlight do not meet the standard for statistical reliability, and we’ll note this when applicable.

However, many align with what we’ve observed in our own experience and with insights from Hofstede’s research. They provide an early indication of how cultural traits might manifest in the B2B buying journey, though further research will be needed to confirm or challenge these initial findings.

Looking ahead, we plan to expand this study with larger sample sizes to validate these trends and deepen our understanding of the nuances in how Belgium and the Netherlands approach B2B buying.

The Data

Earlier this year, the 6sense research team conducted a survey involving over 2,500 B2B buyers who had participated in purchases exceeding $10,000 in annual value within the past two years.

Buyers either purchased products—such as hardware, machinery, or software (70%+)—or services (just under 30%).  

Figure 1 - Purchase type (products vs. services) in the Netherlands vs. Belgium

To ensure that any differences we observe reflect distinct buying strategies rather than simply differences in the types of purchases made, we began by examining the types and costs of solutions acquired. 

As summarized in Figure 1, buyers in the Netherlands and Belgium were equally likely to purchase products (73.8% in Belgium, 72.5% in the Netherlands) and services (26.2% in Belgium, 27.5% in the Netherlands).

Furthermore, Dutch and Beligan buyers’ overall average spend is equal at around $200,000 to $300,000 USD.

This suggests that other factors likely play a role in shaping the observed differences in their buying journeys. In the next section, we explore what those differences entail.  

Buyer Journey Complexity in the Netherlands and Belgium  

We know from 6sense’s earlier research that four aspects of the buying journey consistently move together: the number of vendors under evaluation, the size of the buying group, the volume of interactions (both content consumption and direct conversations with vendors), and the length of the buying cycle. In this report, we refer to these four factors as Buying Journey Complexity.

The number of vendors evaluated has a cascading impact on the other three factors and sets the trajectory for the complexity of the buying journey.

As buyers add more vendors to their shortlist, the buying team grows, interactions with vendors increase, and the buying cycle becomes longer and more complex.

The reverse is also true: fewer vendors lighten the workload, involve fewer team members, limit interactions, and result in a shorter, less complex buying cycle.  

When it comes to Buyer Journey Complexity in the Netherlands compared to Belgium, the numbers tell an interesting story.

As seen in Figure 4, Dutch buying groups tend to evaluate fewer vendors—around 3.5 on average—compared to Belgium’s 4.6.

In turn, Dutch buying journeys tend to be shorter (8 months vs. 11.5 months) (Figure 5), involve smaller buying groups (7.6 people vs. 11.4 people) (Figure 6), and include fewer interactions per person, per vendor (12.5 vs. 16.3 interactions) (Figure7).

This suggests that Dutch buyers may have a higher tolerance for calculated risks by evaluating fewer options, opting for streamlined decision-making over complex, prolonged evaluation processes.  

This is supported by Hofstede’s research mentioned earlier, indicating that the Dutch score lower on uncertainty avoidance than Belgians.

Figure 4 - Average number of evaluated vendors in the Netherlands vs. Belgium

* The differences in the chart above are statistically reliable at p < .001, meaning we are over 99.9% confident that these results accurately represent typical Belgian and Dutch buyers.  

Figure 5 - Average buying cycle length (in months) and avergage number of vendors evaluated in the Netherlands vs Belgium

* The differences in the chart above are statistically reliable at p = .003, meaning we are 99.7% confident that these results would hold with a new, similar group of Belgian and Dutch buyers. 

Figure 6 - Average buying group size and average number of vendors evaluated in the Netherlands vs. Belgium

* The differences in the chart above are statistically reliable at p < .001, meaning we are over 99.9% confident that these results would be consistent with a new, similar group of Belgian and Dutch buyers. 

Figure 7 – Average number of interactions per vendor per person and average number of total vendors evaluated in Belgium vs. The Netherlands

* The differences in the chart above are statistically reliable at p = .03, meaning we are 97% confident that similar results would be observed with a new, similar group of Belgian and Dutch buyers. 

Buying Team Dynamics in the Netherlands and Belgium 

The study also looked at which roles are most involved during the buying process, including core members like the Champion, Financial Ratifier, Influencer, Procurement, and the Ultimate Decision Maker.

As seen in Figure 8, in the Netherlands, these interactions are spread more evenly across the team, showing a collaborative decision-making style.

In Belgium, on the other hand, the Champion and Ultimate Decision Maker play a bigger role, suggesting a more hierarchical approach where the key players drive the conversation. 

Figure 8 – Average number of interactions per person, per vendor in Belgium vs. The Netherlands

* The differences in the chart above are not statistically reliable (p = .492), which means we are only 50.8% confident that we’d see similar results if we sampled a new but similar group of Belgian and Dutch buyers. 

The behavior of Dutch and Belgian buyers looks meaningfully different, especially for Champions and Ultimate Decisionmakers. However, our statistical test found that we cannot conclude that we would find these same differences if we surveyed another sample of Dutch and Belgian buyers.

This situation arises sometimes in cases where individual respondents vary substantially from one another in ways that are not related to their role. In other words, people are not consistent in how many activities they engage in simply due to their role in the buying process.

Purchase Drivers in the Netherlands versus Belgium  

The study also examined the factors buyers prioritize when selecting a vendor. When it comes to vendor or brand reputation, Belgian buyers pay more attention to this than their Dutch counterparts (Figure 9).

Customer advocacy also carry more weight in Belgium’s decision-making process (Figure 10).  

Figure 9 – Average rating of how important Vendor/Brand Reputation is in Belgium vs. The Netherlands

*The differences in the chart above are not statistically reliable at the p = .326 level, meaning we are only 67.4% confident that we’d observe similar results if we sampled a new but similar group of Belgian and Dutch buyers. 

Figure 10 – Average rating of how important Customer Advocacy/Referrals are in Belgium vs. The Netherlands

*The differences in the chart above are not statistically reliable at the p = .197 level, meaning we are only 80.3% confident that we would observe similar results if we sampled a new but similar group of Dutch and Belgian buyers. The Dutch, on the other hand, tend to rely less on others’ opinions and pay more attention to thought leadership pieces and expert knowledge sources (Figure 11 & Figure 12).

Future research

Could this suggest that the Dutch display more confidence in their decision-making than the Belgians?

Or, could it be because Dutch buyers operate in smaller buying groups, therefore leading to a reliance on group deliberation and hard evidence rather than external testimonials?

Alternatively, could Belgian buyers be more reliant on customer advocacy and referrals because they are more uncertainty-avoidant compared to the Dutch?

These are ideas are worth considering in future research, even though the difference observed in this case was not statistically significant.

Figure 11 – Average rating of how important Thought Leadership is in Belgium vs. The Netherlands

*The differences in the chart above are not statistically reliable at the p = .289 level, meaning we are only 71.1% confident that we’d observe similar results if we sampled a new but similar group of Dutch and Belgian buyers. 

Figure 12 - Average Rating of the Importance of Domain Expertise in the Netherlands vs. Belgium

*With a p-value of .586, the differences observed between Dutch and Belgian buyers lack statistical reliability, meaning there’s only a 41.4% chance that similar results would appear if we sampled a new but similar group. 

A Recap of the Data and How Hofstede’s Dimensions Apply

Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)

Netherlands (Low UA)

The shorter buying cycles (8 months vs. 11.5 months in Belgium, Figure 5) and fewer vendors evaluated (3.5 vs. 4.6, Figure 4) indicate a streamlined, less risk-averse approach, consistent with lower UA scores.
Their emphasis on domain expertise and thought leadership aligns with a preference for strategic guidance over rigid structure.

Belgium (High UA)

The longer buying cycles in Belgium (11.5 months vs. 8 months in the Netherlands, Figure 5) and the larger number of vendors evaluated (4.6 vs. 3.5, Figure 4) suggest a more cautious and thorough approach to decision-making, indicative of high UA.
Their reliance on customer advocacy, referrals, and vendor reputation underscores a need for external validation to mitigate uncertainty.

Power Distance (PDI)

Netherlands (Low PDI)

In the Netherlands, interactions are spread more evenly across team members (Figure 8), pointing to a flatter organizational structure and more democratic decision-making. This reflects low PDI, where contributions are valued regardless of hierarchy.
Dutch buying groups tend to be smaller – in part due to the lighter workload from evaluating one fewer vendor than buyers in Belgium, but it may also reflect a democratic structure that allows everyone’s voice to be heard, and fewer people are needed to reach consensus.

Belgium (High PDI)

In Belgium, the Champion and Ultimate Decision Maker play larger roles (Figure 8), suggesting a hierarchical decision-making process where authority is concentrated in key individuals. This aligns with higher PDI, where not all team members have equal influence in decision-making.
Larger buying groups in Belgium may result from the hierarchical structure requiring input from multiple layers within the organization, particularly as more vendors are evaluated. This adds to the complexity of distributing evaluation tasks across the group.

Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)

Netherlands (Very High)

Dutch buyers’ preference for thought leadership and expert knowledge (Figures 11 and 12) highlights their tendency to rely on independent judgment and personal expertise, reflecting high individualism.

Belgium (High)

Belgium, while still individualistic, scores lower than the Netherlands. This could reflect previous findings indicating that Belgian buyers are more likely to seek input from others and pay attention to external advice—such as vendor reputation and referrals—which aligns with their tendency to involve more people in the decision-making process.

Indulgence vs. Restraint (IVR)

Netherlands (High Indulgence):

The Dutch willingness to act quickly, shorter buying cycles, and openness to thought leadership and expert knowledge suggest a more relaxed, indulgent approach, with a focus on efficiency and innovation.

Belgium (Moderately Indulgent)

Belgian buyers’ cautious approach, longer decision-making timelines, and focus on reputation and referrals reflect restraint, with a disciplined and measured approach to purchases.

join us

Shape the next B2B Experience Report and be part of the next industry benchmark. Share your experience and help us uncover key industry trends!

Participate