Search results

Aspects of ESG have become key considerations during many M&A transactions. This ranges from the type of assets a firm purchases, to evaluating the management practices of target firms, to incorporating ESG assessments into due diligence checklists and valuation models, to including specific ESG provisions in the sale and purchase agreement (SPA). Companies are increasingly concluding that a more robust focus on ESG in deal-making allows for greater value to be captured. This article identifies how companies can go about incorporating ESG throughout the deal process, from pre-deal analysis through post-transaction integration. A case example is provided.

This article provides key actions firms can take to incorporate ESG throughout the deal process, from pre-deal analysis through post-transaction integration. A case example from a large state-owned Norwegian utility is provided.

Various components of ESG have rapidly become key considerations in transactions. Firms that incorporate ESG across their M&A process, both pre- and post-deal can reap significant benefits. While firms that ignore ESG during M&A not only miss the upside potential, but also risk making damaging and costly deal mistakes.

M&A practitioners will find this article particularly useful, as many firms struggle with how to effectively include ESG in their transactions. This article provides M&A practitioners with key actions they can take to incorporate ESG throughout the deal process, from pre-deal analysis through post-transaction integration. A case example from a large state-owned Norwegian utility is provided.

The body of literature about M&A transactions is extensive, as is the recent writing about the importance of ESG to firms' costs, revenue, and societal impact. This article brings these two aspects together by providing M&A practitioners with key actions they can take to incorporate ESG throughout the deal process, from pre-deal analysis through post-transaction integration.

The Oxford Strategy Insights Project was designed to assess the current approaches, aims, and focus of strategists across industries and geographies.

The project received input from 167 executives and managers across twenty-six industries, spanning over thirty countries, regarding their firm’s strategy process.

The biggest gap highlighted by the Oxford Strategy Insights Project is effective strategy execution. An overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that their organization’s strategy execution efforts are ineffective and slow, with accelerated implementation being the exception rather than the norm. In line with these findings, few firms appear to be applying the best practice of establishing an implementation management infrastructure including a “Program Manager” tasked to manage and coordinate the firm’s strategy implementation effort. The one positive element related to strategy execution is that most firms seem to have an effective strategic measurement and reporting process.

Organizations that can execute their strategies increase the likelihood of realizing the full potential of their plans. However, the study’s main finding is that effective strategy execution is severely lacking. Strategists need to become more foresighted, with a much greater focus on implementation.

Although the value of effective strategy execution has been well documented for over five-decades in both academic and management practice literature, new research has found that most strategists are still short-sighted, viewing strategy as primarily planning with a limited focus on implementation.

Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) have become the preferred growth strategy for many executives. However, simply “doing deals” is not enough to create a competitive advantage for their companies. Only focusing on M&A as a financial transaction is too narrow of an approach, which is easily duplicated across firms. Using Woodward, Inc. as a case example, this article shows how using an actionable, end-to-end process model, and embedding integrated capabilities within the organization, across the entire process, managers can make M&A a core competence to provide a valuable, rare, and inimitable advantage for their firms.

A mixed-methods approach, combining action research with a narrative synthesis of empirical and practice literature was used to develop a comprehensive M&A process model - the Deal Flow Model - consisting of ten stages across three phases. The resource-based view, core competencies, and the VRIO framework provide a theoretical foundation for the model. An application of the Deal Flow Model using Woodward Inc. as a case example is also presented.

Only focusing on M&A as a financial transaction is too narrow of an approach, which is easily duplicated across firms. Instead, using an actionable, end-to-end process model, and embedding integrated capabilities within the organization across the entire M&A process provides a valuable, rare, and inimitable advantage for firms.

Researchers will find the Deal Flow Model useful as a structure to examine the M&A process as a whole or to frame single-stage, single-discipline research in the broader context of the overall M&A process.

A practice-oriented Deal Flow Model, providing a cross-disciplinary, end-to-end view of the M&A process is presented. The model is designed to be actionable by managers, who can apply the process to build the M&A competence of their organization.

The Deal Flow Model is unique as it is designed to be actionable by managers, who can apply the process to build the M&A competence of their organization. Likewise, researchers will find the model useful as a structure to examine the M&A process as a whole or to frame single-stage, single-discipline research in the broader context of the overall M&A process.

A seven-step Strategy Execution Model provides a tested guide to agile implementation.

Pragmatic actions, key deliverables and a case example for each of the seven steps in the model are presented.

Firms that focus more on strategic planning than implementation are often plagued with execution issues. Whereas, organizations that are able to execute their strategies as a well managed, integrated process have a much better chance of realizing the full potential of their plans.

Supporting the experience of numerous management teams, research indicates that poor execution often squanders the value companies anticipate from innovative, advantageous strategic initiatives. To minimize the likelihood of mismanagement, companies need a repeatable process that provides an integrated and actionable approach to effective strategy execution.

Senior executives and middle managers need a structured, coordinated system for managing strategy implementation. The author’s seven-step method has been tested in practice and refined. It emphasizes communication and agile adaptability.

Although M&A transactions often destroy shareholder value for corporate strategic buyers, PE firms, whose business model is predicated upon repeating M&A, have a better record of creating value for their investors.

The critical aspects that comprise the PE playbook are organized around the three main deal phases Pre-deal, Deal and Post-deal.

Research has found that 60 percent of surveyed strategic buyer executives indicated their companies do not have a comprehensive end-to-end M&A approach using a playbook.

Ample evidence exists demonstrating that corporate strategic buyers experience significant difficulty in creating value from their transactions.

Though many view PE firms as value-destroyers, various peer-reviewed studies have found that PE-backed firms have a surprisingly favorable record.

The purpose of this paper is to determine how and to what extent firms are using “environmental choice architecture” to “nudge” innovation across the organization. The Cultural Alignment Model was designed based on the concept that individual and collective workforce behaviors are formed by an organization’s environment. Although existing since the 1950s, behavioral theory has seen a recent resurgence of popularity in shaping culture. Described in the book Nudge, compelling research demonstrates that individual and collective behavior can be influenced through what is termed “environmental choice architecture.” The Oxford Innovation Insights Project was established to test the Cultural Alignment Model, by answering the question – How and to what extent are firms using “environmental choice architecture” to “nudge” innovation across the organization?

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 60 “C-Suite” executives, representing 15 different industries. Each executive was asked to respond to the same four items: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement – innovation is a strategic priority for our firm; on a scale of 1 (low innovation) to 10 (high innovation) please rate your firm’s organization-wide level of innovation; Which of the following processes does your firm use to encourage innovation across the organization? And for the processes that your firm uses, please provide examples of how each is designed to encourage innovation behaviors across your workforce.

Eighty-six percent of respondents identified innovation is a strategic priority for their firm, while just 8% of respondents rated their companies as having a “high” level of firm-wide innovation. The environmental choice architecture components most frequently used by firms to encourage innovation behaviors across the workforce are identified. A strong positive relationship was found between “high innovation” firms and the number of environmental choice architecture components they use to encourage innovation. Firms having a low level of innovation underperformed market peers, while firms rated as having a high level of firm-wide innovation outperformed the market benchmark.

Repeat the current study to include more respondents and industries; rather than relying on self-ratings, determine a firm’s innovation rating through an external assessment, such as industry expert ratings of firms’ innovativeness; beyond frequency of utilization, assess the strength of innovation “nudge” each cultural lever provides; determine if a relationship exists between the market and financial performance of firms and the number of “cultural levers” they use to nudge innovation across the workforce; and compare the level of innovation between each industry by expanding the respondent pool to include more representatives from each industry.

Company culture is identified as one of the top obstacles for a firm’s innovation performance in a global survey of 1,500 executives. Moreover, the authors of the McKinsey Global Innovation Survey state, “The best companies [in the study] find ways to embed innovation into the fibers of their culture, from the core to the periphery”, but tellingly the authors do not identify how to go about creating that embeddedness. The Cultural Alignment Model presented provides management a pragmatic approach to embed innovation across their firm’s culture using elements of the organization’s choice architecture.

Behavioral theory has seen a recent resurgence of popularity in shaping culture. The Oxford Innovation Insights Project tests the Cultural Alignment Model, by answering the question – How and to what extent are firms using “environmental choice architecture” to “nudge” innovation across the organization?

As the Covid-19 crisis recedes, struggling firms will be bought by bargain hunters and suffering industries will consolidate, giving rise to another wave of M&A transactions. But buyers beware! There is ample evidence that M&A creates significant post-deal performance issues for acquiring “buy-side” firms.

New research shows that effectively managing three processes of acquisitions can have an outsized beneficial impact on M&A success.

Recent research has identified three mission-critical tasks that stand out as being vital to creating M&A success: Process 1: Accurately valuing targets. Process 2: Proficiently managing post-merger integration. Process 3: Skillfully addressing the “big-three human factors” of M&A.

Robust talent retention and re-recruitment plans initially entail identifying key talent, defined as individuals and groups who are essential to retain and re-recruit during a transitionary period and those required for long-term value creation.

The articles describes best practices for post-deal M&A activities companies could perform better including operations and technology integration, communication, cultural analysis and integration, talent management and retention, senior leadership involvement and measurement and reporting.

The gap between management theory and practice has been much criticized. To help bridge the divide, a synthesis of empirical, theoretical and practice literature is offered, along with an application of the widely used VRIO framework, to contend that developing a focused corporate parenting approach as a core competence serves as a source of competitive advantage for diversified companies.

A synthesis of empirical, theoretical and practice literature is presented, beginning with a discussion of why and how firms diversify; the relative performance of firms that pursue related and unrelated diversification; an application of the resource-based view, core competencies and the VRIO framework; a description of focused corporate parenting as a core competency; a prescription for how diversified firms can implement a focused corporate parenting approach; and implications for research.

Developing a focused corporate parenting approach as a core competence serves as a source of competitive advantage for diversified companies.

The synthesis of empirical, theoretical and practice literature presented provides a foundation for future research into the impact of focused corporate parenting on diversified firm performance.

The paper includes a prescription for how diversified firms can implement a focused corporate parenting approach.

The application of the resource-based view and core competency theories to corporate parenting provides managers with the rationale for and methodology to focus their corporate parenting activities.

This paper offers an approach to deal with the value destruction caused when culturally incompatible organizations merge.

A field-tested Cultural Comparison and Integration Model is demonstrated. 10;

The model illustrates how managers can compare and integrate cultures of combining firms using “cultural levers”.

A case example of the model in practice is included.

The model has been tested in a large and medium size organizations in a variety of industries and nationalities.