1 | P a g e
The effects of acquisitions on key
external stakeholders of the acquired
company.
2 | P a g e
ABSTRACT
Acquisitions are common in business nowadays. In the media almost daily you hear or read about acquisitions between large companies. But you hear little to nothing about the effects on the external stakeholders of the acquired company, such as suppliers, customers and competitors.
Since the focus in the literature is on the acquiring companies and it connected companies it would be interesting to study the effects that acquisitions have on the external stakeholders (the customers and suppliers) of the acquired company. In the literature possible (subjective) effects are described on suppliers and customers.
The aim with this paper is to discuss the effects of acquisitions for the key external stakeholders. Do they experience any effects/ changes, and what are these effects/ changes as a result of the acquisition?
Based on the obtained data we can classify some effects. In this study these effects are divided into three categories; financial effects, relational effects and positional effects. Suppliers and customers experience both positive and negative effects, such as higher discounts on orders, deals sold out soon and higher price discounts on products.
3 | P a g e CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION ... 5 1.1BACKGROUND... 5 1.2PROBLEMDISCUSSION ... 6 1.3RESEARCHOBJECTIVES ... 7
1.4STRUCTUREOFTHESTUDY ... 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8 2.1ACQUISITIONS ... 8 2.1.1DEFINITIONSOFACQUISITIONS ... 8 2.1.2 TYPES OF ACQUISITIONS……… 8 2.1.3 MOTIVES OF ACQUISITIONS………. 8 2.2KEYSTAKEHOLDERS ... 11
2.3RELATIONSHIPCOMPANYANDSTAKEHOLDERS ... 13
2.4THEEFFECTSOFANACQUISTION(INGENERAL) ... 14
2.5THEEFFECTSONKEYSTAKEHOLDERSOFTHEACQUIREDCOMPANY ... 16
3. METHODOLOGY ... 21 3.1RESEARCHAPPROACH ... 21 3.2DATACOLLECTION ... 21 3.3DATAANALYSIS ... 24 3.4RESEARCHCREDIBILITY ... 24 3.5RESEARCHETHICS ... 24 4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ... 25
4.1HISTORYOFTHEACQUIREDCOMPANY ... 25
4.2THEACQUISITION ... 26
5. ANALYSIS ... 28
5.1THEEFFECTSONTHESUPPLIERS ... 28
5.2THEEFFECTSONTHECUSTOMERS ... 31
4 | P a g e
6. DISCUSSION EN CONCLUSION ... 33
6.1 RESULTS ... 33
6.2 LIMITATIONS ... 35
6.3 SUGGESTIONFORFURTHERRESEARCH ... 35
6.4 CONCLUSIONS ... 36 7. REFERENCES... 37 7.1 ARTICLES ... 37 7.2 WEBSITES ... 40 8. EXHIBIT ... 41 8.1 INTERVIEWQUESTIONS ... 41 8.2 EMAILSUPPLIERS ... 45
5 | P a g e
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
According to several trend reports acquisitions are still booming these days. In today’s economy many companies are involved in acquisitions. The latest report shows that year 2015 was a record year. Value increased 28 per cent from 2014 Globally, M&A activity reached a volume of $6.1 trillion, beating the record of 2007.
The top-performing countries by value were the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and Australia, with each beating their achievements of 2014. The year's largest deal was worth $160 billion.
Many market watchers have predicted that 2016 will still be a powerful year for merger and acquisitions, largely stimulated by a series of smaller deals.
Figure 1: Zephyr (2015). Zephyr is a database of M&A, IPO, private equity and venture capital deals with links to detailed financial information on companies (www.zephyrdealdata.com).
Prior researchshows that acquisitions affect not only the two companies but also the stakeholders of a company (customers, suppliers and rivals). In every acquisition there are both positive and negative implications for key stakeholders. Shareholders, customers, employees and communities are all impacted (in their own way). From the television or papers we almost daily hear about acquisitions. But very rarely we hear the effects on the stakeholders.
6 | P a g e And looking at the yellow line in 2015 (number of deals) this means many
stakeholders are affected by this huge number of acquisitions.
1.2 Problem discussion
Considering the numbers of acquisitions that have appeared in 2015 and in all those years before, you might think it is all positive. Take all these acquisitions, at least two companies per acquisition are involved. This means that there are still more
stakeholders involved (employees, suppliers, rivals etc.) Much is described about the acquiring companies and the internal stakeholders. According to Siegel (2008)
acquisitionmay cause employee anxiety, stress, role conflicts (employees are not being treated equally and fairly, management turnover, and cultural clashes, these are just some of the potential effects. These effects are also identified by Olah (2011). When employees are acquired, their lives are filled with a certain amount of uncertainty. They may not remain employed. There may be different processes and procedures that govern their work. There may be new expectations and other changes that will cause anxiety levels to rise. Uncertainty about the future of their retirement plan money. The effect of acquisitions on top level management may actually involve a "clash of the egos". There might be variations in the cultures of the two organizations. Under the new set up the manager may be asked to implement such policies or strategies, which may not be quite approved by him (Butler et al. 2012).
The effects of acquisitions on the external stakeholders of the acquired company are less described in the literature. Holtström (2000 and 2003) studied the effect of acquisitions on the connected companies of the acquired company (external stakeholders). These connected companies are in this case the suppliers and customers. The effect that an acquisition has on the network, i.e. companies and organizations in the surrounding environment, might mean that the co-operation between the ‘new’ company and their former customers and suppliers will be either stronger or weaker than before (Holtström, 2000). From his point effects that appear due to an acquisition might be many. There are only a few possible and subjective effects described in his paper. According to Holtström (2000) not only customers and suppliers will be effected as external stakeholders, but most probably also
7 | P a g e competitors of the acquired company. Studies have not taken into account the effect on competitors of the acquired companies. But the companies’ position on the market will probably change (stronger or weaker position) as an outcome of the acquisition. The acquisition might create substantial market power and might enable the acquired firm to control prices.
As mentioned by Holtström effects that appear due to an acquisition might be many, however in his papers there are only a few possible and subjective effects described (for customers and suppliers). And because his studies are the only ones in this area, we do not know what the actual effects are due to acquisitions. He also mentioned that rivals will probably also experience effects of an acquisition. This is not further discussed in his paper. It is crucial to know all effects on the external stakeholders of the acquired company. This because many acquisitions take place worldwide and with each acquisition several stakeholders are involved. The company can (before and/ or during the acquisition) take into account these effects concerning the stakeholders.
1.3 Research objective/ question
The aim of this study is to identify the effects of an acquisition on the key external stakeholders of the acquired company.
The research question is what are the effects of an acquisition on the key external stakeholders of the acquired company (customers, suppliers and rivals).
1.4 Structure of the study
The paper is structured as follows; In the following section, we review the literature on acquisitions (motives and types of acquisitions, etc.), key external stakeholders of a company and the possible effects of an acquisition. Then data collection will be retrievedthrough interviews with external stakeholders and it will be analysed. The collected data will then be assessed against the theory. In the last section of this paper a discussion for open gaps and conclusion will be provided.
8 | P a g e
2. Literature review
In this chapter the theoretical framework, which my research is based upon is presented. We begin by discussing acquisitions, followed by the key stakeholders. Then the effects on the stakeholders due to acquisitions will be discussed, Lastly, a summary is presented of our theoretical findings.
2.1 Acquisitions
2.1.1 Definition of Acquisition
An acquisition is when one business is purchased by another one and then no new company is formed. Such purchase may be of 100%,or almost 100%, of the assets or ownership equity of the acquired entity (www. wikipedia.org).
According to Schnitzer (1996) there are two general types of acquisitions: friendly and hostile. When the board of directors and managers of the target company agree an acquisition from the acquiring firm, it is called a friendly acquisition. The top managers of the target firm will keep their positions within the newly created firm. In contrast, a hostile takeover takes place in a situation when the acquired firm resists an acquisition from others; in this case the top managers in the target firm may lose their jobs after the hostile takeover (Schnitzer, 1996).
Whether a purchase is observed as being a "friendly" one or "hostile" depends on how the acquisition is reported to and welcomed by the target company's board of directors, employees and shareholders (www. wikipedia.org).
2.1.2 Types of Acquisitions
From the view of business structure and the relationship between two companies, according to Gaugham (2005), there are four important categories of acquisitions: horizontal, vertical, conglomerate and cross-border. Each type has its own features and nature.
9 | P a g e Horizontal Acquisitions
Here one company acquires another one from the same business field. The
companies involved in a horizontal acquisition produce the same goods or services. For example, an acquisition of one energy producer by its larger rival would be a horizontal acquisition. This kind of acquisition is the most popular (Brealey et al., 2006). Horizontal acquisitions may occur from the possible side effects on
competition in the same industry. Horizontal acquisitions usually happen between small or immature companies and when there is no dominant leader. An example of Horizontal acquisition is: Walt Disney Company acquired Lucasfilm (October 2012).
Vertical Acquisitions
Vertical acquisitions refer to the vertical integration of two companies, which operate in the same production line. For example, an acquisition of one oil refining company by an energy producer. Specifically speaking, there are two major categories of vertical acquisitions which are forward integration (the acquirer expands forward of the ultimate consumer) and backward integration (the buyer expands backward to suppliers of raw materials) (Brealey et al. 2006). An example of this kind of is Google and Motorola Mobility Holdings (June 2012).
Conglomerate Acquisitions
This is a combination of two companies which do business in various fields (Brealey et al.2006). There are three groups of conglomerate acquisitions: product extension mergers, geographic market extension mergers and the other conglomerate mergers. The first type is when two companies acquire in related businesses in order to
broaden the product lines. The second one take place when two companies, which have no overlapping businesses, merge in different geographic areas. The last type refers to a pure conglomerate acquisition in different business fields.
Cross - Border Acquisitions
Cross-border acquisitionsrefer to acquisitions across national boundaries and
involving significant cash flow into other countries (Sudarsanam, 1995). It seems that cross-border acquisitions have an increasing trend over the past couple of years due to the globalization and the development of internet. With the arrival of globalization, companies prefer to seek a competitive area that is worldwide in scale in order to
10 | P a g e have customers worldwide. Cross-border acquisitions can be divided as horizontal, vertical and conglomerate.
2.1.3 Motives acquisitions
Acquisitions play an important role in the majority of companies’ strategies. The motives for acquisitions can be indicated as the acquirer’s corporate and business strategy objectives, which are varied in different companies. Empirical evidence has presented many possible motives. According to Shi et al. (2012) reasons for a
company to engage in acquisitions are achieving economies of scale, scope, market share, prestige, survival, and other outcomes crucial to temporary or sustained competitive advantage. In the article by Holtström (2000) reasons for companies to join in an acquisitions are, to reduce risk and increase company effectiveness in both production and distribution. Holtström believes that acquisitions could be to
strengthen the market position of the acquired and the acquiring company, increase company growth in present and developing markets, and diversification – developing into new businesses. The reason according to Seth (1990) is market power “the ability of a market participant or group of participants to control the price, the quantity or the nature of the products sold, thereby generating extra-normal profits”. Also creating a better environment for development and improving managerial efficiency; a company may prefer to acquire a target to improve managerial efficiency by
reorganize its operations (Copeland et al., 2005). Another important point why acquisitions occur according to Seth et al. (2000) is synergies; It refers to acquire with the resources of two separate firms and thus it contributes to the value of the newly combined firm greater than that of two separate unities. One important source of synergy is from the transfer of some valuable intangible assets, such as know-how, between targets and acquirers (Seth et al., 2000). The synergy motive creates shareholders value for the acquirer and the acquired or the new company.
Specifically speaking, according to Chatterjee (1986), there are three types of synergy creation: operational synergy, financial synergy and collusive synergy.
11 | P a g e
2.2 Key Stakeholders
In the literature there is much written about the stakeholders of a company.
According to Mitchell et al (1997) there is not much argument/ discussion on what kind of entity can be a stakeholder. People, groups, neighborhoods, firms, services, associations, and also the natural environment is qualified as actual or potential stakeholders. Freeman's (1984) definition of stakeholder is: "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives".
There are many types of stakeholders:
• Primary stakeholders are the persons or groups that stand to be straightly
affected (positively or negatively), by actions of a firm
• Secondary stakeholders are persons or groups that are indirectly affected (both
positive and negative), by actions of a firm (often external stakeholders).
• Key stakeholders, are the persons or groups who might belong to both or neither
of the first two stakeholders, are those who can have a positive or negative effect by an action, or who are essential within or to a firm engaged in an effort.
In this study we focus only on the key external stakeholders (outside the company). To
further narrow the external stakeholders we use Porters five forces model.This is a framework to analyze level of competition within an industry and business strategy development. Threat of entry: Newcomers to an branch of industry bring new
capacity to obtain market. These newcomers can become rivals. Powerful suppliers
& buyers: Suppliers can apply bargaining power on contestants in an industry by
raising prices or reducing the quality of purchased goods and services. Customers likewise can urge on down prices, demand better quality, and play competitors off against each other. Substitute products: The existence of products outside of the domain of the common product boundaries (Competitors).
12 | P a g e Jockeying for positions: Rivalry among existing competitors takes the familiar form of jockeying for positions – using methods like price competition and product
introduction (Porter, 2008).
It is important for a company to find a position in the industry (among its
stakeholders) where the company can influence them in its favor. And mentioned by Cartwright and Schoenberg (2006) acquisitions appear to provide at best a mixed performance to the broad range of stakeholders involved.
In this paper we focus on the customers and suppliers. This because these stakeholders play a central role in Porter’s framework. But also in Porter´s Value chain (1985), see below:
This framework focuses on how inputs are transformed into outputs acquired by consumers. Porter outlines a chain of activities common to all companies and he divided them into primary activities and support activities (see the table below.
In Porter’s Value chain customers and suppliers play an important role. Mainly with the primary activities. These activities connect directly to the physical creation, sale and support of a product/ service. They consist of the following:
Inbound logistics – the processes connected to receiving, storing and distributing
inputs internally. relationships with suppliers are an important element in creating value.
13 | P a g e Operations – these activities change inputs into outputs and are sold to the
customers.
Outbound logistics – activities that bring the product/ service to the customer, like,
storage and distribution systems.
Marketing and sales – the processes that are used to persuade customers to buy
your product/ service instead of your competitors.
Service – activities related to maintaining the value of your product/ service to your
customers, once it has been purchased.
Support activities support the primary functions above. For example, supporting marketing and sales with other activities.
As already mentioned above suppliers and customers play a critical role in Porter’s framework as well as in Porters Value chain. Another conclusion is that they are affected the most from acquisitions.
2.3 The relationship between a company and its stakeholders
For a company relationships with stakeholders are important. Stakeholders can influence/ impact companies as a result of various sources of power, urgency or legitimacy (Mitchell et al. 1997). Power is defined as the extent to which a
stakeholder has or can obtain access to powerful, utilitarian or normative means to apply their will. Urgency is defined as 'the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention' (Mitchell et. al, 1997). The definition of legitimacy is taken from Suchman (1995) who defines legitimacy as 'a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions'. The more attributes the stakeholder has, the more interest he gets from managers. In other words the
greatest priority will be given to stakeholders who have power, legitimacy and
urgency. Additionally, company policies, processes and procedures have an effect on stakeholders, forming the basis of a relationship that can perhaps contribute to the company’s success, a resource for the company. Because stakeholders are affected
14 | P a g e by and can affect company practices, companies develop good stakeholder- related practices because it is in their best interests (Waddock, 2006) Additionally, such practices represent ways of developing long-term relationships with stakeholders. Also good stakeholder practices can potentially bring a basis for the type of valuable, rare, inimitable and non- substitutable resource that serves as a source of
competitive advantage (Barney 1991; Barney et al. 2001).
An acquisition can affect the relationship between the company and its key stakeholders. It is important to study the effects per stakeholder. This (for the company) to keep a good relationship, create value and to anticipate other players, reactions to your actions. If you know the effects, you can look forward into the business (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1997).
According to Håkansson (1994) a company has relationships mainly with two types of divisions: actors that act as resource providers (suppliers) and actors using a
resource (customers of products or services) provided by the company.”
Therefore, In this study we only focus on these stakeholders.
2.4 The effects of an acquisition (in general)
Capital Structure and Financial Position
As mentioned in the article by Picado (2014) an acquisition obviously has longer-term effects for the acquiring company than it does for the target company in an
acquisition.
For the acquirer, the impact of an acquisition transaction depends on the deal size relative to the company’s size. The larger the acquired company, the bigger the risk to the acquirer. A company may be able to resist the failure of a small-sized
acquisition, but the failure of a huge purchase may seriously put in danger its long-term success (Picado, 2014).
The acquirer’s capital structure will change, depending on how the deal of the
acquisition was formulated. An all-cash deal will substantially decrease the acquirer’s cash holdings. But as many companies rarely have the cash available to make full
15 | P a g e payment for a target company, acquisitions are often financed through debt. While this additional debt increases a company’s indebtedness, the higher debt may be filled up by the additional cash flows contributed by the acquisition. Many acquisitions are also financed through the acquirer’s stock (Picado, 2014)
Market Reaction and Future Growth
Another effect mentioned in the article by Picado (2014) is the reaction of the market by an announcement of an acquisition, this can be either positive or negative. This depends on the perception of the participants in the market about the merits of the deal. In most cases, the acquired company’s shares will increase to a level close to that of the acquirer’s offer.
There are cases in which the acquired company may trade below the announced offer price. This generally occurs when part of the purchase consideration is to be made in the acquirer’s shares and the stock sinks when the deal is announced.
There are number of reasons why an acquirer’s shares may decline when it announces an acquisition. Market participants may think that the price tag for the purchase is too high. Or investors believe that the acquirer is taking on too much debt to finance the acquisition.
An acquirer’s future growth prospects and profitability should ideally be improved by the acquisitions it makes. Analysts and investors often focus on the “organic” growth rate of revenue and operating margins – which excludes the impact of an acquisition – for such a company.
In incidents where the acquirer has made a hostile bid for a company, the
management of the acquired company may recommend that its shareholders turn down the deal. One of the most common reasons for such refusal is that the target’s management believes the acquirer’s offer significantly undervalues it
16 | P a g e
2.5
The effects of an acquisition on key stakeholders of the
acquired company
There has been some attention in the literature dedicated to evaluating the effects of acquisitions on connected companies/ external stakeholders. Holtström (2000 and 2003) studied the effect of acquisitions on the connected companies of the acquiring and acquired company. These connected companies are in this case the suppliers and customers. According to Holtström companies interact with a market because they have something that is required by other actors in the market and/or they
interact with the market because they need something provided by other actors in the market. Close co-operation in a network between companies and their stakeholders is important. Competition in the market is getting harder. Due to shorter product life cycles, there is a need to reach the market more quickly. Due to interaction between companies a relationship is developed between them, and relationships are social exchange processes where trust is of importance (Holtström, 2000). It is not only important to have a strong position within the network in which they operate, but also to build relationships with external stakeholders. External stakeholders are affected by activities who are carried out in/by a company. Companies must therefore apply some level of adaptation to effects/ reactions from outside the company. As already mentioned by Brandenburger & Nalebuff to anticipateto other players, reactions to your actions. If you know the effects, you can look forward into the business. If one company acquires another company, what are the effects on the suppliers and customers of the acquired company? The new goals of the acquired company, such as gaining greater market share, entering into a new geographical or business market, etc., can bring along possible effects for its customers and/ or suppliers (Tunisini, A and Bocconcelli, R). In the article by Holtström (2000) some of the
suppliers might have been suppliers to both companies, and they now have only one customer instead of two. Relationships with suppliers can be terminated, they can be replaced. In the article by Tunisini and Bocconcelli these changes in relationships have produced different re-actions by different stakeholders of the acquired company:
- Positive re-actions: stakeholders have chosen to invest more into the relationship and to strengthen it;
17 | P a g e - Problematic re-actions: conflicts have emerged that produced the weakening or the terminating of the relationship.
The problematic re-actions are related to different motivations. In most cases the increased degree of formalization generated problems to stakeholders. They may not get used to such formalization, they are used to informal relationships. Very often, lower intensity in social exchange created problems to stakeholders used to personal contacts. Another possible effect according to Holtström (2003) is the frequency or volume of sales/ purchase can change. Especially suppliers that are more reliant on the acquired firm for sales revenue (i.e., suppliers that face potentially higher costs of switching output to another industry or customer) experience significantly larger reductions in cash flow margins subsequent to the acquisition (Fee and Thomas, 2003). Also acquired companies may conspire with rivals to reduce purchases to market levels and thereby lower input prices at the expense of their suppliers. Effects on customers resulting from acquisitions are mostly negative in their eyes. Customers satisfaction depends on the price and quality of the company, and the ability to meet expectations. In 50% of the acquisitions, customers gave the company lower marks in at least one of the three categories. Customers thought they got better service or prices from only 29% of the acquisitions. "Customers are increasingly frustrated because they perceive they have a lack of choice" (Bloomberg). Customers to the two companies may also have been purchasing from both
companies and now they buy from one. Customers of both companies face a broader product pallet, This lessening the need to turn to other companies for the
complementary assortment (Holtström, 2003). Another effect for customers may be that the company becomes a preferred choice for large customers, each buying more. The acquired company is now focusing more on large and geographically spread customers. The company could have grown past some of its prior customers, and the customers might consider the new company as being too big to do business with.
Important is to observe how closely the customers and suppliers (external
stakeholders) have been working together with the acquired company. The effect that an acquisition has on the network, i.e. companies and organizations in the
18 | P a g e company and their former customers and suppliers will be either stronger or weaker than before (Holtström, 2000). Probably the supplier with a single relationship to one of the companies faces an insecure and unstable future, being known only to one of the companies. The supplier with relationships with both of the companies faces a situation known and this might be an improved position. Also the position of
customers can change, from a strong negotiation position to a weak(er) negotiation position. Also the market might become more concentrated and the alternatives for customers would be fever. Many times the customers' needs are not considered by acquired companies. Companies are chosen based on value, product, service, and reputation. An acquisition can lead to changes in service or product availability. A company and customer builds customer relationships over time. Many times with acquisitions, some of the support people you have known for years will become collateral losses (Ehow.com). Not only customers and suppliers will be effected as external stakeholders, but most probably also competitors of the acquired company (Holtström, 2000). The companies’ position on the market will likely change (stronger or weaker position) as an outcome of the acquisition. The acquisition might create substantial market power and might enable the acquired firm to manage and control prices, and this will probably have an effect on its competitors.
To identity the effects more clearly we divided them into three categories. This to compare the effects with our findings:
- Financial effects: the literature shows that customers, suppliers and competitors experience these effects as key external stakeholders of an acquisition. Financial effects have to do with costs (purchasing products), orders (sales volume) and prices (control prices and the price of products). In the literature these effects are described as an economic impact. This means a financial effect that something, especially something new, has on
a situation or person (Cambridge Business English Dictionary). According to Holtström (2003) this can be the change in frequency or volume of sales/ purchase.
- Relational effects: business relationships exist between the acquired company and its external key stakeholders. When the company is acquired some effects are experienced, this is already mentioned in the literature. The relationship
19 | P a g e will become stronger or terminate. According to Håkansson and Snehota (1995) business relationships have three layers, activity links, resource ties and actor bonds. The first consists of technical, administrative and other
activities that connect internal activities between the two parties. Resource ties are ties that connect the various resource elements between the parties
(technical, material and knowledge resources). Actor bonds is about how the two parties perceive, evaluate and treat each other. For this research we will use these layers in relational effects. With the suppliers we expect to see effects on these layers.
- Positional effects: These are effects on the position of the stakeholder in relation to the acquired company (network position). Effects that are mentioned in the literature are related to the negotiating position and the market position of the key external stakeholder (stronger or weaker after the acquisition). It is possible that the acquisition might create market power for the acquired company.
We summarized the effects described in the literature below:
Financial effects Relational effects Positional effects Suppliers * Frequency or volume of
sales/ purchase can change (orders)
* Larger reductions in cash flow margins
* Lower input prices
* The relation may terminate (replaced) or become stronger (actor bonds),
* Co-operation between the acquired company and its suppliers will be either stronger or weaker than before (resource ties - ties that connects the various resource elements between two companies),
* Suppliers that are more reliant on the acquired company experience a weaker position (negotiating position)
20 | P a g e Customers * The market might become
more concentrated
* The alternatives for
customers would be fever, lack of choice. This brings higher costs.
* Change in service and prices
* The acquired company is now focusing more on large and geographically spread customers. The company could have grown past some of its prior customers
* Co-operation between the acquired company and its customers will be either stronger or weaker than before (resource ties),
* From a strong negotiation position to a weak(er) negotiation position.
Competitors * The acquisition might
create substantial market power and might enable the acquired firm to control prices, and this will
probably have an effect on its competitors (prices),
* Not mentioned in the literature
* The position compared to the acquired company on the market will probably
change (stronger or weaker position)
With this research we want to investigate of the effects mentioned in the literature are correct and if these effects are all the effects external stakeholders experience
21 | P a g e
3. METHODOLOGY
In this chapter we explain how the research was conducted. We begin with the discussion of the research strategy where we explain the reasons for our choice of research design and method. We then explain the data collection method and how the interviews were conducted. Lastly we discuss research credibility, research ethics and the limitations of this thesis
3.1 Research approach
The purpose of this study is to identify the effects of acquisitions on the key
stakeholders of the acquired company. The theoretical framework is developed prior to the data collection. This research approach is called a deductive approach. To be able to answer the research question: what are the effects of an acquisition on the key external stakeholders of the acquired company (customers, suppliers and rivals), we need an understanding of the current and past organizational setting.
The classification of the research purpose is explanatory where the focus is on studying a situation in order to explain the relationships between variables. In this case the company is acquired, what are the effects on the key external stakeholders as a result of the acquisition.
The research will be carried out as a qualitative case study at a large health and beauty retail company in the Netherlands. A case study is an “empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context” and often used in an explanatory study (Saunders et al. 2009). In this paper a multi method
qualitative research approach, where more than one data collection method, will be used. Company documentation (secondarydata) and Interviews (primary data) is what I will use to answer the research question.
3.2 Data collection
The literature review highlighted the possible effects of an acquisition on suppliers and customers of the acquired company. I want to investigate this phenomenon further at an acquired company with experiences with all key external stakeholders. Therefore, we performed a case study of an acquired retail company.
22 | P a g e A.S. Watson
A.S. Watson is the world's largest health, beauty & lifestyle retailer with over 10,000 stores operating 20 retail brands in 33 markets worldwide. The year 2002 A.S. Watson expanded into the Netherlands with the acquisition of Kruidvat and also adding a number of different brands to its portfolio, ICI Paris XL and Trekpleister. For this research we only focus on the chain Kruidvat. We will interview the key
stakeholders of Kruidvat, this to get a clear picture of the effects of the acquisition.
Many key external stakeholders of A.S. Watson have long been involved with the company. The customers and suppliers chosen for the interviews have been in contact with the company before and after the acquisition. They both have good knowledge and insight of the company. The stakeholders are divided in large, average and small suppliers as well as loyal and ordinary customers. This to get a clear picture of the effects per stakeholder.
Below you can find a list of the key stakeholders who will be selected for an interview:
1.Suppliers
We will use a heterogeneity sample, the suppliers are divided into three groups; large (of the top 5 suppliers of A.S. Watson), average and small suppliers. These suppliers also deliver all kinds of products, from Beauty and Health to Fashion and Intellectual products. Also they all did business with A.S Watson before the acquisition. This allows us to examine the effects by supplier. Have small suppliers experienced more effects? And are there any difference (between small and large suppliers) in what effects they experience?
The interviewees were all owners or sales directors of the companies.
1 Large supplier Henkel/ Schwarzkopf Supplier Beauty Care 1 Average supplier LTG Europe BV Supplier Electronics
23 | P a g e 2. Customers
We divided the group customers into two groups; loyal and ordinary customers. We will also interview different age groups, this because the acquisition is already a few years ago. The customers must have experienced this period (before and after the acquisition). The customers will be interviewed at the Kruidvat stores.
Loyal customers 35 - 50 years (4 customers)
51 - 65+ years (4 customers) Ordinary customers 35 - 50 years
(4 customers)
51 - 65+ years (4 customers)
Per group (loyal and ordinary) eight customers were interviewed. The age of the respondents varies from 37 to 82 years. The customers come to the store once a week on average, a single twice a week. Also most of the interviewees are customers of Kruidvat for a long-time, and are familiar with the acquisition (75% are familiar).
The interviews
For this research semi-structured interviews are the preferablechoice. This to ask for attendant question to attain full knowledge about the effects. It also allows the
respondents to discuss and raise issues that may not have considered. Questions will be asked in Dutch and will be recorded with the consent of the respondent. The interviews were conducted face-to-face and by mail. Two different interviews are drawn up, one for each stakeholder. This because the literature already has shown that the effects on stakeholders are different.
The layout of the interviews are practically the same. The first few questions are asked with the purpose to get a clear picture of the supplier and customer. The following questions relate to the effects mentioned in the literature (financial effects, relational effects and positional effects). The last questions are asked for additions related to the effects and new insights. The interviews can be seen in appendix 1.
24 | P a g e
3.3 Data analysis
We use a multi method approach to analyse the result of both primary and secondary data. The semi-structured interviews that were used were in-lined with the theoretical framework, which is used as a guide in our analysis. The results and analysis
answers my research question “ What are the effects of acquisitions on key external stakeholders of the acquired company?”
3.4 Data credibility
A proper research design is important to reduce the possibility of obtaining wrong answers (Saunders et al, 2009). The reliability refers to which the data collections and analysis technique will yield consistent findings (Saunders et al, 2009). To increase reliability and reduce risk of subject and/or participant bias, I informed the participants about the nature of the outputs to which the research was intended to lead, and I also told that they were anonymous. I gathered secondary data about the company before conducting interviews. I was also well familiar with the literature before I started the interviews. Validity on the other hand, refers to whether the findings are really what they appear to be about (Saunders et al, 2009). To maximize this, I conducted test interviews on peers to see what kind of answers I could expect. As a result, I made some reformulations of the questions. Also to ensure validity in the analysis I compared results from different participants/ respondents to ensure I obtained consistent findings. At least, to increase validity, my conclusions are based on supporting literature regarding the issue studied.
3.5 Research ethics
The ethical consideration of this research design is not to expose the respondents to embarrassment, harm or other types of difficulties (Saunders et al., 2009). All the respondents have voluntarily agreed to be interviewed and they were all informed about the anonymity of the thesis.
25 | P a g e
4. Empirical findings
This chapter describes the company I have chosen. First the secondary data of the acquired company is presented. This gives a brief historical view of the organization. At last we present the results from the interviews.
4.1 History of the acquired firm
The first Kruidvat was opened in 1975 by Dick Siebrand. The company is a retail, pharmacy and drugstore chain. Kruidvat is an important and the large market player in the field of Health and Beauty.
Only eight years after its foundation the 100th store was opened. In 1992 Kruidvat extended to the Belgian market and also in Belgium it is a large market player.
26 | P a g e Kruidvat offers a cheap, varied and high-quality range of Health & Beauty articles, added with non-industry related products (toy, clothes, electronics, etc.). The
company is also known for its surprising actions, perfumery department and its own (discount) diaper line.
The company now employs more than 15,000 employees in various positions. Kruidvat has now more than 860 stores in the Netherlands and 200 stores in Belgium. It employs more than 15,000 employees in various positions and has 3 million customers per week. The headquarter is located in Renswoude with its main distribution centre in Heteren.
In addition to Kruidvat itself, Kruidvat Holding also owned ICI Paris XL and Trekpleister in the Netherlands and Belgium. It also holds 50% of Rossmann in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in addition to Superdrug in the United Kingdom.
4.2 The acquisition
In 2002 Hutchison Whampoa Limited (Hutchison) has, through its wholly owned subsidiary A.S. Watson, acquired one of Europe's leading Health & Beauty retail businesses, the Kruidvat, for approximately € 1,300 million.
The addition of the Kruidvat improves A.S. Watson 's presence in Europe, its leading market position, its earnings growth, and in addition provides synergies with ASW's existing operations.
The Kruidvat stores, in combination with A.S. Watson 's existing personal care stores, makes A.S. Watson one of the world's largest health and beauty chains.
According to Mr. Canning Fok, Hutchison's Group Managing Director, "Kruidvat was chosen for its exceptional reputation and market leader position. It is an excellent fit for our expanding retail business, giving us a more diversified portfolio and better geographical balance. The acquisition also provides us with many opportunities for synergies pan Europe and Asia."
Ian Wade, Group Managing Director of A.S. Watson said, "A.S. Watson is proud to add the Kruidvat to the personal care retail family. Kruidvat has a similar business
27 | P a g e culture and store format as A.S. Watson and we believe this will provide strong synergies between us."
With the addition of the Kruidvat Group in 2002, ASW's European portfolio expanded from nine to twelve countries. The acquisition provides a strong platform for
continued expansion into the European health and beauty market.
Dick van Hedel, Chief Executive Officer of Kruidvat Group called the acquisition, "a rarity in today's business world, the acquisition of a company by a shareholder with significant strategic value," adding that, "the experience and global strength of Whampoa Limited (Hutchison) will help Kruidvat achieve new heights."
A.S. Watson (ASW)
With history dating back to 1828, A.S. Watson has evolved into an international retail and manufacturing business in Asia and Europe, with over 12,000 stores operating 13 retail brands in 24 markets worldwide.
Each year Deloitte publishes a report “global powers of retailing”. This report identifies the 250 largest retailers around the world based on their performance (geographic region, e-commerce activity and other factors). In the report of 2016 A.S. Watson is on place fifty.
28 | P a g e A.S. Watson has one of the world's largest portfolio of retail formats, retail brands and geographical presence. Supported by a global family of over 110,000 staff, the Group is also a member of the world renowned multinational conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa Limited, which has major interests in ports and related services; property and hotels; retail; infrastructure; energy and telecommunications in over 50 countries.
5. Analysis
In this chapter the effects of the acquisition on the external key stakeholders will be analyzed.
5.1 The effects on the suppliers
Small Supplier
Financial effects according the small supplier are higher discounts on orders. There remains little margin left for the supplier and therefore they earn less on orders.
Also bonuses on products and turnover are higher now than before the acquisitions. The growth bonus is calculated on the turnover and varies between the 2 - 3,75 % (a year). In addition they also have to pay 1% advertising fee.
And A.S. Watson has the appointment with suppliers if they pay the invoices for orders within the payment term that they receive a discount (varies per supplier, often 1% - 3%).
Also, another financial effect mentioned by the small supplier is that buyers of Kruidvat do not always respond to offers. They are waiting for a reply, and send multiple reminders to the buyer department. He said: “no is also an answer, I then
can present the offer to third parties”.
The effect of an acquisition on sales is also mentioned by Holtström (2003), he says the frequency or volume of sales/ purchase can change. And in the case of the small supplier this indeed changed in a negative way. The supplier appointed the
decrease in orders multiple times as an effect of the acquisition.
Another effect appointed by the respondent is the relationship. The relation and contact between Kruidvat and its supplier is less personal and less direct. Kruidvat
29 | P a g e takes less time for personal conversations with its suppliers. The buyers are hard. As already mentioned, they react sometimes not at all on offers/deals, even after several reminders. This change in relationship is also described in the paper by Tunisini and Bocconcell, The small supplier is used to the informal relationship. An effect of the acquisition is lower intensity in social exchange and this created problems. Conflicts have emerged that produced the weakening of the relationship.
Co-operation between A.S. Watson and its small supplier is become less intensive. According to Håkansson and Snehota (1995) the relationship between the company and its suppliers consist of three layers. If we are looking at this, the resource ties connect less after the acquisitions as they did before. The orders and knowledge is less needed. A.S. Watson has more options for obtaining these products. The small supplier does depend on the orders of Kruidvat. The layer called actor bonds is about how the two parties perceive, evaluate and treat each other. The small supplier mentioned clearly the difference in treatment before and after the acquisition (less friendly, direct, etc.)
The position towards Kruidvat is, for the small suppliers, not gotten better. This has to due to the effects mentioned above. They prefer doing business with Kruidvat before the acquisition. And also mentioned by Holtström, a supplier with a single relationship to one of the companies faces an insecure future. With the small supplier this is also the case. The company has a single relationship with A.S. Watson and is more reliant on A.S. Watson than the other way around. Therefore they experience a weaker position. A.S. Watson has become bigger after the acquisition and obtained a stronger position towards its (small) supplier (s) and on the market.
Average Supplier
Financial effects on average suppliers are also noticeable. Bonuses are higher (as also mentioned by the small supplier) and are settled directly with the invoices/ payments. The supplier also indicates that the financial effects are a combination of the acquisition and the changed market conditions such as the extremely weak euro, rising costs and rising CE costs. This supplier does not appoint the effects directly to the acquisition.
30 | P a g e The relation (both business and personal) has changed since the acquisition. The average supplier gives as an example: A deal is a deal! Where there was “coulance”,
we do not see this anymore.
And especially now in these (difficult) times. The supplier had expected more of the relation with Kruidvat. As the supplier mentioned: “You work and operate together in
the same field, you have to help each other and keep each other alive”.
These above mentioned effects have to do with the actor bonds. This is according to Håkansson and Snehota (1995) one layer of a business relationship. This is about how the two parties treat each other. The supplier sees this relationship as a co-operation but they clearly experienced a negative change/impact.
If we look at the resource ties, the connections between the various elements, there is not an clear effect after the acquisition. The company needs the average supplier more than the small supplier. They were before the acquisitions and are after the acquisition a resource for each other. Also the average supplier is less dependent of Kruidvat than the small supplier.
Large Supplier
A financial effect according to the large supplier is that there is more focus and control on the key figures, numbers, Profit and Loss accounts and balance sheet numbers.
The respondent describes the relation as strictly business based on mutual dependence. This means the activity links between both parties, the technical,
administrative and other activities connect internal activities between them. They are also connected by resource ties, such as products, knowledge and advertising. The supplier cannot mention concrete changes concerning their business relation with A.S Watson after the acquisition.
Also before the acquisition the large supplier had already relationships with both of the companies. And mentioned in the article by Holtström (2000) suppliers with relationships with both of the companies faces a situation known and this might be a better position. This is definitely the case with the large supplier.
31 | P a g e The position compared to Kruidvat has changed but this is not an effect of the
acquisition but is due to market conditions and market developments. The acquisition has resulted in a stronger market position, but Kruidvat is depending on the products of the large supplier. The supplier is a large player in the market concerning Health and Beauty. Kruidvat needs these products in its stores.
The large supplier has no preference concerning doing business with Kruidvat before or after the acquisition.
Below an overview of the most important findings/ effects experienced by suppliers due to the acquisition.
Financial effects Relational effects Positional effects Suppliers *Higher discounts and
bonuses (all suppliers)
*Decrease in orders (small supplier)
*Average and large suppliers also appoint market development as a reason
* Small supplier Less direct and less personal.
* Average supplier: No “coulance”.
* Small & Average: Expected more of the relationship. *Large supplier: No concrete changes * Small suppliers: Less strong (single relationship). * Small suppliers: Reliant on ASW * Average supplier: Same position
(resource for each other)
* Large supplier: Same position
(still a large player in the market)
5.2 The effects on the customers
If we look at the customers of Kruidvat, we see a lot of loyal customers. They visit the shop once or twice a week, for years. Some already from the beginning of Kruidvat. One respondent said: “I started shopping at Kruidvat 40 years ago, as long as I can
remember I come to these stores”.
The customers do experience some effects of the acquisition of Kruidvat. Where the literature mentioned the alternatives for customers to buy their products (next to Kruidvat) would be fewer, the customer think there are enough alternatives where they can buy the same kind of products. Stores that were mentioned by the customers are Etos and Trekpleister. Etos is a large competitor of Kruidvat but Trekpleister is also part of the AS Watson group.
32 | P a g e Kruidvat does well in the eyes of the customers compared to its competitors (DA, Etos and Action). The stores a highly rated by all the respondents. One customer said: “Kruidvat is the best store there is”.
Effects mentioned by all the customers are related to the offers and actions Kruidvat offer. They experience more price discounts and more 1 + 1 actions. However the stock of these products/ offers are not always well planned (20% of the respondents). The top deals are often sold out soon and then no longer orderable/ available, this clearly is a negative effect.
The position of the customers according to this group is still strong. According to the customers Kruidvat is really listening to them. One customers said “when I come to
the store, the employees are always customer friendly”. The store knows the
customers’ needs and sells these wanted goods through good and sharp deals.
As the literature already mentioned the co-operation between the acquired company and its customers can become weaker or stronger. In the case of Kruidvat this is definitely stronger. The store has a strong position in the customers mind but also the other way around. People are aware of the acquisition and have experienced little effects. And the effects they experienced are generally all positive.
None of the respondents experienced a change in the focus of Kruidvat on its customers. This effects is mentioned by Holtström, 2003), it is possible that the company is now focusing more on large and geographically spread customers. The company could have grown past some of its prior customers, and the customers might consider the new company as being too big an actor to do business with. But this effect is not mentioned by any customer/ respondent.
Below an overview of the most important findings/ effects experienced by suppliers due to the acquisition.
Financial effects Relational effects Positional effects Customers *The products are
offered with higher price discounts, 1+1 actions
*The stock is not always well planned.
*Co-operation is stronger. Kruidvat is listening to its
customers. And as a result, good actions!
*The position of the customer is still strong (customer friendly, wanted actions/ products).
*The focus is not changed on (more)
33 | P a g e *Deals are sold out to
soon.
*Enough alternatives for customers to buy same kind of products
large and geo-graphically spread customers
6. Discussion and Conclusion
In this chapter the findings and conclusions will be discussed. Thereafter suggestions for further research will be proposed.
6.1 Results and discussion
Research of the effects of acquisitions on the external stakeholders of the acquired company are less described in the literature, however effects on the acquiring companies and the internal stakeholders has been widely studied.
This research is based on literature, company information and interviews with key external stakeholders of an acquired company. Our analysis of the interviews of close stakeholders allows us to see directly if there are any effects of an acquisitions on external stakeholders en what these effects are. For each stakeholder we have data from different levels; the suppliers were divided into size and categories and
customers into age and type of customer (loyal or ordinary).
With the use the interviews this thesis has found support that acquisition indeed have some effects on the company’s key stakeholders.
The research question what are the effects of an acquisition on the key external stakeholders of the acquired company (customers, suppliers)? can now be answered.
My research has shown that most of the effects mentioned in the literature are indeed effects of an acquisition on external stakeholders. The effects experienced most are the financial effects.
Suppliers appoint high discounts on orders and products. Also bonuses are higher and are settled directly with the invoices/ payments. A.S Watson has a dominant
34 | P a g e position with regard to the payments. According to the large suppliers the focus and control has shifted on key figures, numbers, Profit and Loss accounts and balance sheet numbers. Unfortunately the financial effects experienced by suppliers are only negative.
On the other hand the customers are generally more positive. The financial effects according this group are low prices asked for products and good actions (sales and discounts).
Other clear effects experienced by the suppliers and customers are the positional effects:
The position of the supplier compared to Kruidvat is not gotten better (in all cases) but this depends according the literature to the relationship. According to Holtström (2000) the large supplier had already relationships with both of the companies before the acquisition, the small supplier on the other hand with one. The suppliers position is not only changed by the acquisition but also due to the changing
conditions and market developments (this is not an effect of the acquisition).
The position of the customer is still strong, they feel Kruidvat is really listening to them. The store knows the customers’ needs and sells these desired goods through good and sharp deals.
And where Holtström and Bloomberg both mention the lack of choice for alternatives (where customers can buy the same kind of products), this research shows the opposite. The customer appointed stores such as Etos, Trekpleister and Action.
Another effect according the literature for customers may be that the company becomes a preferred choice for large customers, focusing more on large and geographically spread customers. But none of the respondents experienced a change in the focus of Kruidvat on its customers
35 | P a g e 6.2 Limitations
A limitation of this thesis lies in its generalizability. My survey has been conducted in the retail sector. The effects may be different to stakeholders of companies operating in a different sector. Therefore the question arises whether this thesis can be applied to companies in other sectors. Each sector has its own customers and suppliers that all experience other effects from acquisitions.
Due to less cooperation, another limitation is to conduct interviews with more suppliers based on my theoretical framework. This to make the research more in-depth.
The last limitation is that the customers were all interviewed at Kruivat stores in Arnhem. It is possible that customers from other regions experience other effects.
6.3 Suggestion for further research
Within this thesis we studied the effects of acquisitions on the external stakeholders, only the customers and suppliers. However, the external stakeholders consist of a larger group than just these two. This needs to be studied further. Are other key stakeholders also experiencing effects form acquisitions and what are the effects? A suggestion is to interview competitors of the acquired company. It would be favorable to know the effects on this group. As already mentioned in the literature not only customers and suppliers will be effected as external stakeholders, but most probably also competitors of the acquired company. I have tried to do research to this group also but this is unfortunately not succeeded. These competitors did not want to give information to me as an employee of Kruidvat.
Also interesting is to compare the situation of the key external stakeholders before and after the acquisition. This to see if there are any noticeable differences or changes that are an effect of the acquisition. This can be done by conducting interviews with these groups before the acquisition and again after the acquisition.
Last, as a reaction to the acquisition, do stakeholders make strategic choices? And what are these actions?
36 | P a g e 6.4 Conclusions
This thesis shows that the acquisition of Kruidvat bring some effects. Each group within the stakeholders of A.S Watson experience effects due to the acquisition. These effects also vary by group. During the period of the acquisition and after A.S. Watson has a very important role; dealing with the acquisition and at the same time dealing with its stakeholders. Important for the company is to retain its relationship with these groups. Kruidvat is nothing without its suppliers and customers. And to use this study they will know the effects in advance if they acquire more companies in the future. They can use this information to prepare for these effects, this may lead to less effects or less noticeable effects for the stakeholders.
The results of this thesis can also be used by other companies who are acquired. They can take into account the effects mentioned in this paper to prepare themselves and their stakeholders for such effects (financial, relational en positional effects). The cooperation between the acquired company and its stakeholders is very important in this process. They can cooperate together.
And last, suppliers of acquired companies can also apply the effects mentioned in this paper. With the results they can prepare themselves for possible changes. Suppliers can make arrangements with the acquired company such as agreements on frequency of sales and adjustments in their conditions (margins and bonuses) before and during the acquisition. Then they will not encounter unexpected effects and can make strategic choices in time. As mentioned by Brandenburger & Nalebuff if you know the effects of an acquisition, you can look forward into the business
37 | P a g e
7. References
Articles
Öberg, C, Grundström, C and Jönsson, P (2008), “Acquisitions and network identity
change”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 9/10, pp. 1470-1500
Teerikangas, S (2012), “ Dynamics of Acquired Firm Pre-Acquisition Employee Reactions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 599-639
Holtström, J,(2000), "Effects on customers’ and suppliers’ due to mergers and acquisitions", 10th Nordic Workshop on Interorganisational Research
Holtström, J and Öberg, C (2003), “Cross-border acquisitions - Effects on the acquired companies’ customers and suppliers”, 13th Nordic Workshop on Interorganizational Research
Shi, W, Sun, J and John, E, (2012), "A Temporal Perspective of Merger and
Acquisition and Strategic Alliance Initiatives: Review and Future Direction". Journal of
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, 164-209
Håkansson, H, Snehota, I (1995), “Developing Relationships in Business Networks”,
Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane
Olah, M,(2011), “Impact of Merger & Acquisition ACTIVITY ON RETIREMENT
“.Strong Investments, Inc.
Andrade,G, Mitchell, M and Stafford, E (2001), “12 New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No 2 , pp. 103–12
Mitchell,R, Agle, B and Wood, D (1997). ”Toward a Theory of Stakeholder
Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”,
38 | P a g e Savage,G, Nix,T, Whitehead, C and Blair, J (1991), “Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Stakeholders”, Academy of Management, Vol. 5, No. 2 pp. 61-75
Waddock, S and Graves, S (2006), “The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on Corporate Stakeholder Practices”, School of Management.
Caniëls, M, Gelderman, C (2007), “Power and interdependence in buyer supplier relationships:A purchasing portfolio approach”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, Issue 2, p. 219-229
Wang, J (2007), “Motives and Effects of Mergers and Acquisitions”.
Mitchell, R, Bradley, A and Wood, D (1997),” Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 853-88
Philips, C, “Negative effects acquisition”, Ehow
Butler, F, Perryman, A and Ranft, A (2012),” Examining the effects of acquired top management team turnover on firm performance post-acquisition: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of managerial Issues.
Porter, M (2008),”The five competitive forces that shape strategy”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol.86(1), p.78
Brandenburger, Co-opetition 1. Revolutionary Mindset that Redefines Competition and Co-operation 2. The Game Theory Strategy that's Changing the Game of Business”, Journal of Marketing, Volume 61, No 2, pp. 92-95.
Hergery, N and McCorristonz, S (2013), ” Horizontal, Vertical, and Conglomerate FDI: Evidencefrom Cross Border Acquisitions” , Study Center Gerzensee
Jenniges , D (2013), “The Determinants of Horizontal and Vertical Cross-border Mergers”, Department of Economics, University of Kentucky
39 | P a g e Herger, N and McCorriston, S (2012), “Disentangling Strategies of Multinational Integration from Cross Border Acquisitions”, European Trade Study Group
Picado, J (2014), “How mergers and acquisitions can affect a company”,
investopedia
Cassiman, B, Colombo, M, Garrone, P and Veugelers, R (2003), “The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market- relatedness”, ESE Business School – University of Navarra
Arora, M and Kumar, A (2012), “ A Study on Mergers and Acquisitions - Its impact on Management and Employees”, www.theinternationaljournal.org, Vol. 01, No 05
Dilshad, M (2013), “Profitability Analysis of Mergers and Acquisitions: An Event Study Approach”, Cardiff Business School,Cardiff University, Vol. 3, No. 1
Porter, M (1985),” The Competitive Advantage: “Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance”, NY: Free Press
Tunisini, A and Bocconcelli, R, “Corporate Acquisitions and Market Relationships”,
University of Urbino
Fee, E and Thomas, S (2003), “Sources of Gains in Horizontal Mergers: Evidence from Customer, Supplier, and Rival Firms”, Michigan State University
40 | P a g e Websites: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mergers+and+Acquisitions http:// www.zephyrdealdata.com http://finance.mapsofworld.com/merger-acquisition/impact.html http://www.b2b-enews.com/issues/vol3/mergers.htm http://smallbusiness.chron.com/different-stakeholders-business-20363.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/can-company-merger-affect-consumers-37226.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/happens-employees-acquisition-occurs-33636.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate) http://www.mergersandacquisitions.in/acquisitions.htm http://www.ehow.com/info_10045357_negative-effects-acquisition.html http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etos http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA_%28drogisterij%29 http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28winkel%29 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102914/how-mergers-and-acquisitions-can-affect-company.asp http://www.riverwealthadvisors.com/mergers-and-acquisitions-impact.html http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/economic-impact http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/acquisitions.pdf http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2004-12-05/why-consumers-hate-mergers http://detailhandel.info/index.cfm/branches/persoonlijke-verzorging/drogisterijen/ https://insights.abnamro.nl/visie-op-sector/2014/visie-op-drogisterijen/
41 | P a g e
8. Exhibit
Appendix 1. Interview questions.
Interview Suppliers
1. Hoe lang doet uw bedrijf al zaken met Kruidvat? En sinds wanneer heeft u zelf te maken met Kruidvat?
2. Wat is uw functie binnen het bedrijf?
3. Wat voor producten levert u aan Kruidvat?
4. Kruidvat is in 2002 overgenomen door AS Watson, wist u dat?
5. Heeft u door de jaren heen veranderingen ervaren bij de Kruidvat? Zo ja wat voor veranderingen? (voor en na overname)
6. Heeft u op financieel vlak ook effecten ervaren van de overname? Kunt u enkele voorbeelden noemen m.b.t orders, marges op producten en kosten?
7. Als u kijkt naar de zakenrelatie tussen u en Kruidvat. Wat voor een relatie heeft u met Kruidvat? Waar is deze relatie op gebaseerd?
8. Kunt u in de relationele sfeer enkele concrete veranderingen benoemen (voor en na de overname)?
9. Als u kijkt naar uw positie ten opzichte van het Kruidvat. Hoe ziet u uw positie ten opzichte van Kruidvat? Is uw positie veranderd door de overname
