摘要
成功完成跨国并购整合对于并购企业实现战略意图至关重要,然而已有文献尚未揭示出跨国企业如何对并购整合过程中的制度复杂性作出战略响应。本文从制度逻辑视角切入,以我国跨国企业173项并购交易实证检验了跨国并购整合过程中的制度复杂性战略响应对创新绩效的影响,以及战略导向、产业增长与战略响应行为的匹配效应进行研究。研究发现,制度适应、制度共创对创新绩效均具有正向影响,同时战略响应方式选择应与内部战略导向、外部产业环境相匹配。具体而言,实施低成本战略、所处产业增长较慢的并购企业,选择制度适应能获得更佳的创新绩效;实施差异化战略、所处产业增长较快的并购企业,选择制度共创能获得更佳的创新绩效。
Successful completion of cross-border M&A integration is critical for MNEs to achieving their strategic intent.However,in the process of cross-border M&A,firms face institutional logic conflicts originating from the difference between home country and host country,which has been defined as institutional complexity.The question of“how MNEs respond to institutional complexity”can be traced back to the two major areas of strategic management and international business.Researchers of the strategic school focus on the degree and activity type of integration to describe integration decision-making,and leave the integration strategy research(how to integrate)still stays at the macro-concept level.Existing studies on integration degree and types regard M&A integration decision-making as an event isolated from the institution,and do not regard institutional factors as an endogenous variable of the integration decision.Although the typological research on integration strategy has responded to the question of how to integrate from the perspective of institution to a certain extent,existing studies have only proposed a number of strategic classifications from the macro level,and have not been further verified theoretically and empirically.Therefore,it is necessary to introduce the analytical framework of institutional theory into existing research paradigm,define the cross-border M&A integration decision as a strategic response to institutional conflict in the integration,and explore its influence mechanism on the final performance.In recent years,scholars in the field of international business have realized that the institutional logic perspective provides a theoretical basis for strategic response to institutional complexity,but the application of this theory in the field of international business is still in the early stage,only has distinguished several strategic responses through theoretical derivation and case studies in the context of overseas subsidiaries of multinational companies.Although existing research can provide theoretical enlightenment for the strategic response of institutional complexity in the context of cross-border M&A integration,it still cannot accurately solve the response problem.In addition,case studies in the context of overseas subsidiaries do not reveal the contextual conditions under which strategic response affects performance,and these issues are also important topics in the study of institutional complexity response in the process of cross-border M&A integration.Therefore,future research urgently needs to clarify the strategic response methods of M&A firms in the context of cross-border M&A integration,and at the same time use large samples to empirically test the ways and contextual conditions that different strategic responses affect performance.Based on institutional logic perspective,this study divides the strategic responses of institutional complexity in the process of cross-border M&A integration into institutional adaptation and institutional co-creation,and empirically tests the impact of different strategic responses on innovation performance by 173 M&A transactions of Chinese MNEs,and the moderating effect of strategy orientation and industrial growth.The reason for paying attention to the innovation performance is that scholars have recently discovered that an important motivation for firms to carry out cross-border M&A is to obtain high-quality innovation sources.At the same time,the new knowledge and technology acquired from the international market will more directly affect the company’s new products development and process improvement.The findings show that institutional adaptation and institutional co-creation both have a positive impact on innovation performance,and the choice of each strategic response must be matched with internal strategic orientation and external industrial environment.Specifically,M&A companies that implement low-cost strategy and operate in such industry with slower growth should choose institutional adaptation to achieve better innovation performance.Otherwise,M&A companies that implement differentiation strategy and operate in such industry with faster growth should choose institutional co-creation to get better innovation performance.This research has certain practical guiding significance.On one hand,for managers of Chinese MNEs,they should be aware that in order to successfully complete M&A and realize their original intentions of innovation,they can not only choose to adapt to the institutional characteristics of the host country and target company through the integration process,but also co-create a new institution with the acquired party to respond to external institutional conflicts.Compared with institutional adaptation,institutional co-creation has higher requirements for resource input and integration capabilities of M&A firms,but it can promote deeper integration of both M&A parties.On the other hand,managers of MNEs should attach great importance to the matching of strategic response with internal strategy and external environment.For M&A firms that generally implement low-cost strategy and own slower growth in their industry,choosing to implement institutional adaptation strategy can achieve better innovation results;for M&A firms that implement differentiated strategy on the whole and own faster growth in their industry,choosing to implement institutional co-creation strategy can achieve better innovation results.
作者
吴航
陈劲
WU Hang;CHEN Jin(College of Economics,Jiaxing University,Jiaxing 314001,China;School of Economics and Management,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)
出处
《管理工程学报》
CSCD
北大核心
2024年第2期51-61,共11页
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
基金
国家自然科学基金项目(71972075)。
关键词
跨国并购整合
制度复杂性
战略响应
制度适应
制度共创
Cross-border M&A integration
Institutional complexity
Strategic response
Institutional adaptation
Institutional co-creation
