The effects of acquisitions on key external stakeholders ...
Transcript of The effects of acquisitions on key external stakeholders ...
1 | P a g e
The effects of acquisitions on key
external stakeholders of the acquired
company.
Elizah Bouderij – 10278613
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
1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 PROBLEM DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................ 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 8
2.1 ACQUISITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 DEFINITIONS OF ACQUISITIONS .............................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 TYPES OF ACQUISITIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
2.1.3 MOTIVES OF ACQUISITIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
2.2 KEY STAKEHOLDERS ......................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 RELATIONSHIP COMPANY AND STAKEHOLDERS .............................................................................. 13
2.4 THE EFFECTS OF AN ACQUISTION (IN GENERAL) .............................................................................. 14
2.5 THE EFFECTS ON KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE ACQUIRED COMPANY .............................................. 16
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 21
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 24
3.4 RESEARCH CREDIBILITY .................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 RESEARCH ETHICS ............................................................................................................................ 24
4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 25
4.1 HISTORY OF THE ACQUIRED COMPANY ........................................................................................... 25
4.2 THE ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................................ 26
5. ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 28
5.1 THE EFFECTS ON THE SUPPLIERS ...................................................................................................... 28
5.2 THE EFFECTS ON THE CUSTOMERS .................................................................................................. 31
5.3 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 33
4 | P a g e
6. DISCUSSION EN CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 33
6.1 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 33
6.2 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 35
6.3 SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 35
6.4 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 36
7. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 37
7.1 ARTICLES ......................................................................................................................................... 37
7.2 WEBSITES ........................................................................................................................................ 40
8. EXHIBIT ................................................................................................................................ 41
8.1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................. 41
8.2 EMAIL SUPPLIERS ............................................................................................................................ 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 research shows 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)
acquisition may 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
retrieved through 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 acquisitions refer 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 anticipate to 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
surrounding environment, might mean that the co-operation between the ‘new’
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
(completeness of the literature).
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 (secondary data) 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
1 Small supplier Kalshoven Productions Supplier Intellectual/ Books
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 preferable choice. 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.
(Deloitte: Global powers of retailing 2016, Published on Jan 16, 2016)
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”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 853-886
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 (onderhandelingspositie)?
42 | P a g e
10. Als u mocht kiezen doet u dan liever zaken met het “oude” Kruidvat of met het Kruidvat na de overname?
11. Heeft u verder nog toevoegingen en/ of vragen m.b.t dit onderzoek?
Interview Customers
1. Wat is uw leeftijd?
2. Hoe lang bent u al klant bij de Kruidvat?
3. Hoe vaak komt u gemiddeld per week bij de Kruidvat?
4. Ziet u zichzelf als een trouwe klant van Kruidvat?
5. Kruidvat is in 2002 overgenomen door AS Watson, wist u dat?
6. Heeft u door de jaren heen veranderingen ervaren bij de Kruidvat? Zo ja wat voor veranderingen?
7. Vindt u dat u nog genoeg alternatieven heeft naast Kruidvat? Andere winkels waar u dezelfde artikelen kunt kopen. Welke winkels zijn dat?
8. Hoe ziet u Kruidvat ten opzicht van Etos, DA en Action?
9. Heeft u door de jaren heen veranderingen in de prijzen/ acties van Kruidvat ervaren?
10. Heeft Kruidvat volgens u haar focus op klanten aangepast of behouden? (breder geografisch, grote klanten)
43 | P a g e
11. Vindt u dat Kruidvat samenwerkt en luistert naar u als klant?
12. Hoe ziet u uw positie als klant ten opzichte van de organisatie Kruidvat? Is uw positie veranderd naar de overname (sterker/ zwakker)? Zo ja wat is er veranderd en in welke mate is uw positie veranderd?
13. Heeft u verder nog toevoegingen en/ of vragen m.b.t dit onderzoek?
Interview Competitors
1.Wat is uw functie binnen het bedrijf?
2. Hoelang werkt u al bij dit bedrijf?
3. Ziet u Kruidvat als één van u concurrenten?
4. Kruidvat is in 2002 overgenomen door AS Watson, wist u dat?
5. Kunt u vertellen hoe u Kruidvat zag als concurrent voor de overname en ziet als concurrent na de overname?
6. Heeft u als concurrent door de jaren heen veranderingen ervaren bij de Kruidvat? Zo ja wat voor veranderingen? (voor en na overname)
7. Hoe ziet u Kruidvat na de overname (als concurrent)? Is dit verandert ten opzichte van voor de overname.
8. Welke partijen zijn volgens u sterke marktspelers in de Retail branche?
44 | P a g e
9. Beschikt Kruidvat volgens u over bepaalde marketpower (het bepalen van en/of de controle hebben over de prijzen van producten)?
10. Welke partij is bepalend in het neerzetten van prijzen en acties? Welke rol voor Kruidvat ziet u hierin?
11. Heeft het bepalen van prijzen en acties door andere partijen ook invloed/ effect op u? En wat voor invloed/effect heeft dit precies op uw bedrijf?
12. Vindt u, als er een zakelijke relatie is tussen uw bedrijf en Kruidvat, dat deze relatie is veranderd na de overname? Hoe ziet deze relatie er uit? en wat is er precies veranderd?
13. Vindt u dat uw positie ten opzichte van Kruidvat is veranderd na de overname? Zo ja wat is er precies veranderd (marktpositie)?
14. Hoe ziet u de positie van Kruidvat ten opzichte van andere marktspelers zoals Etos, DA en Action?
15. Heeft u verder nog toevoegingen en/ of vragen m.b.t dit onderzoek?
45 | P a g e
Appendix 2. Email to suppliers
Beste,
Wij hebben eerder contact gehad aangezien u een leverancier bent van Kruidvat. Dit ging toen over de nog openstaande facturen. Nu ben ik op dit moment bezig met mijn scriptie, de laatste fase van de studie Bedrijfskunde. Ik doe onderzoek naar de effecten van een overname op leveranciers. Ik zou u graag willen vragen om mij te helpen met mijn onderzoek.
In de bijlage vindt u een vragenlijst bestaande uit 11 vragen. Het invullen vergt niet veel tijd en u zou mij daar enorm mee helpen. Uw naam en bedrijf zullen uiteraard niet vermeld worden. U blijft geheel anoniem
Ik hoop van harte dat u de vragen wilt beantwoorden en terug wilt mailen.
Mocht u nog vragen hebben dan kunt u mij altijd mailen of telefonisch bereiken op 06- 46414832.
Alvast bedankt voor uw tijd
Met vriendelijke groet,
Elizah Bouderij
Afdeling debiteurenbeheer- Supplier Management
A.S. Watson (Health & Beauty Continental Europe) B.V.
E-mail: [email protected]