Managerial Risk‐taking in International Acquisitions in the Brewery Industry: Institutional and Ownership Influences Compared

The purpose of this paper is to review and summarize earlier studies analyzing the determinants of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As). We primarily describe the motives of cross-border acquisitions and present the market performance for corporate control transactions over the period 1994-2013. Then, we illustrate the factors affecting cross-border investments and acquisitions in various taxonomies, namely deal-specific factors, firm-and industry-specific attributes, organizational learning and prioracquisition experience, and country-specific factors. We draw special attention to the country-specific taxonomy for various reasons include economic and financial markets environment, institutional and regulatory framework, political situation (including corruption), tax system, accounting and valuation matters, geographical factors and cultural issues. We also provide a synopsis of earlier studies addressing the diversification motive in M&A decision. We thus propose that a host-country's institutional laws and regulatory system, accounting and tax provisions, economic performance, financial markets development, investor protection, geographical, political and cultural factors distinctly affect cross-border acquisition's completion. Lastly, we outline contemporary issues in M&A research, and suggest promising areas for future exploration. JEL Classification: G34

Section: Theoretical Backdrop: Cross-border Mandasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: [Insert Figure 3]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions: A Comprehensive Review and Future Direction

Reddy

2015

“…Some researchers might argue that the proposed deal had broken because of cultural factors between two countries (e.g., Geppert et al, 2013;Hitt et al, 2006;Reus, 2012).…”

Section: External Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Qualitative researchers suggest that the case study method recommends two directions, namely to answer 'why and how' questions, and to build theory from thick evidence (Stake, 1994;Yin, 2003). For instance, recent studies have used the case method for various tasks and thereby blended the analysis using not only primary data, but also linking with secondary data [media texts] (e.g., Child & Tsai, 2005;Geppert, Dörrenbächer, Gammelgaard, & Taplin, 2013;Halsall, 2008;Kim & Lu, 2013;Reddy, 2015aReddy, , 2015bRiad & Vaara, 2011;Serdar Dinc & Erel, 2013;Tienari, Vaara, & Björkman, 2003;Vandenberghe, 2011;Wan, 2014;Wan & Wong, 2009). We also find that few studies conducted case analysis based on published cases (Conklin, 2005).…”

Section: Research Design: a Multi-case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Cross-Border Merger/Acquisition Deals Become Delayed, or Unsuccessful? A Cross-Case Analysis in the Dynamic Industries

Reddy

2015

The purpose of this paper is to analyze three litigated cross-border inbound acquisitions that associated with Asian emerging market-India, namely Vodafone-Hutchison and Bharti Airtel-MTN deals in the telecommunications industry, and Vedanta-Cairn India deal with oil and gas exploration industry. To do so, we adopt a legitimate method in qualitative research, that is, case study method and thereby perform a unit of analysis and cross-case analysis. We suggest that government officials' erratic nature and ruling political party influence were more in foreign inward deals that characterize higher bid value, listed target company, cash payment, and stronger government control in the industry. Importantly, the liability of foreignness and liability of localness was found to be severe in Indian-hosted deals that describe higher valuation, cash payment and dynamic industry. We eventually propose implications of mergers and acquisitions for extractive industries thus to enhance productivity and improve welfare measures during post-integration phase. JEL Classification: G34

“…For instance, in-depth case analysis (Blaško et al, 2000;Cambra-Fierro et al, 2012;Conklin, 2005;Duncan and Mtar, 2006;Geppert et al, 2013;Halsall, 2008;Knoerich, 2010;Quah and Young, 2005;Singer and Yankey, 1991;Sim, 2006;Ullrich et al, 2005;Yip et al, 2006), testing the existing theories/models and propositions/hypotheses (Fang et al, 2004;Kshetri and Dholakia, 2009;Liu and Zhang, 2014;Altenborg, 2007, 2008;Nicholson and Kiel, 2007;Sinkovics et al, 2011), building theories/models and offering propositions/ hypotheses (Boehe, 2011;Deng, 2009;Dieleman and Sachs, 2008;Huang et al, 2008;Lynes and Andrachuk, 2008;Maguire and Phillips, 2008;Reddy et al, 2014;Tsamenyi et al, 2013;Wei and Clegg, 2014), and other ideas (Jonsson and Foss, 2011; longitudinal case study: Nadolska and Barkema, 2007; case survey method: Larsson and Lubatkin, 2001; surveybased studies : Bjursell, 2011;Ito et al, 2012;Krug and Nigh, 2001;London and Hart, 2004;Meyer et al, 2009;Very and Schweiger, 2001; teaching cases: Nangia et al, 2011;Reddy et al, 2012). These studies are summariz...…”

Section: [Insert Table 1] [Insert Figure 2]mentioning

confidence: 99%

The State of Case Study Research in Mergers & Acquisitions: A Review of the Literature in Different Management Streams

Reddy

2015

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the state of case study research in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) literature that account for different management streams. It also recommends directions for future research and suggests fruitful guidelines for establishing better research rigor in qualitative methods.Methodology: This study draws attention to the case study method in qualitative research and thereby aims to review previous studies using said approach in M&A related literature. Findings:The main findings include, 57 journal articles are found to be using different qualitative methods of which 40 (17) articles have focused on developed (emerging) markets, single (multiple) case based studies are 29 (24) and remaining four have used survey and interview methods.Importantly, a meager number of studies have accomplished the purpose of case study research in business administration, i.e. testing extant theory and building new theory. Albeit, doing case study research among emerging markets is exiting and these institutional countries provide a unique setting to build theory as well as advance the current knowledge because of increasing prospects for M&A and other growth strategies. Research limitations:This stylized review of case study research in M&A literature is limited to journal publications and qualitative methods. Hence, a survey of qualitative and quantitative methods in growth strategies is left to future research. Practical implications:Qualitative researchers, in general, would benefit from the bibliometric analysis and comprehensive summary of past research. While, case study researchers, in particular, would benefit not only form the later content but also from suggestions reflecting the research quality and validity.Originality: This study, indeed, is an original attempt at presenting the current state and review of case study method in M&A research, provided no earlier study claims this.