管理评论

管理评论 ›› 2024, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (2): 167-180.

• 组织与战略管理 • 上一篇    下一篇

中国企业逆向并购后整合模式的选择——基于战略三角框架的QCA研究

陈小梅1, 吴小节1, 汪秀琼2   

  1. 1. 广东工业大学管理学院, 广州 510520;
    2. 华南理工大学旅游管理系, 广州 510006
  • 收稿日期:2022-01-04 出版日期:2024-02-28 发布日期:2024-03-30
  • 通讯作者: 吴小节（通讯作者），广东工业大学管理学院教授，博士生导师，博士
  • 作者简介:陈小梅，广东工业大学管理学院讲师，博士；汪秀琼，华南理工大学旅游管理系教授，博士生导师，博士。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目（71872053；72272038）；国家社会科学基金一般项目（20BGL032）；广东省自然科学基金面上项目（2023A1515010699）。

Chinese Companies’ Choice of Post-reverse-M&A Integration Models—A Research Based on the Configuration Analysis of Strategy Tripod Framework

Chen Xiaomei1, Wu Xiaojie1, Wang Xiuqiong2   

  1. 1. School of Management, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510520;
    2. Department of Tourism Management, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006
  • Received:2022-01-04 Online:2024-02-28 Published:2024-03-30

PDF (PC)

187

摘要： 本文基于2001—2017年76家中国企业并购整合发达国家企业的案例，使用清晰集定性比较分析法，基于战略三角框架整合并购行业相关性、并购经验、并购控股权、并购动机、正式制度距离、文化距离、企业所有权性质7个条件变量，探究这些因素组合驱动中国企业逆向并购后整合模式选择的多重因果路径。研究发现：（1）“轻触”型整合模式选择的等效路径有4条，即制度约束情境下，以探索式并购为主的非相关并购或经验主导下的高控制权并购，以及制度短板情境下，以利用式并购为主的低控制权并购或经验主导下的探索式并购更倾向于选择“轻触”整合模式；（2）“无为而治”型整合模式选择的等效路径有2条，即制度短板情境下以利用式动机为主的低控制权并购，或资源劣势下的非相关并购更倾向于选择“无为而治”型整合模式；（3）“支持性合作伙伴”型整合模式选择的等效路径有3条，即制度套利情境下的相关并购，或文化多样性情境下，并购经验驱动的高控制权并购或高控制权下的相关并购更倾向于选择“支持合作伙伴”型整合模式；（4）“重触”型整合模式选择的等效路径有2条，即制度套利情境下，经验主导下的具备高控制权的探索式并购，或具备资源优势的高控制权主导的相关并购更倾向于选择“重触”型整合模式。研究结论丰富了并购后整合模式选择的研究成果，为企业选择合适的整合模式提供实践启示。

关键词: 逆向跨国并购, 并购后整合模式, 驱动机制, 组态路径, 定性比较分析

Abstract: Based on the cases of 76 Chinese multinational firms’ acquisition of and integration with firms in developed countries from 2001 to 2017, this paper makes a clear-set qualitative comparative analysis to explore the linkage effects of various factors such as M&A experience, corporate control, corporate ownership attributes, M&A motivation, industry relevance, formal institutional distance, cultural distance, and other factors on Chinese firms’ choice of post-reverse-M&A integration models, and further dynamically compares the possible paths for the evolution of different integration models. The study finds that: (1) there are four equivalent paths for “light-touch” integration model choice, i.e., unrelated M&A with exploratory M&A or experience-led high control M&A in the institutional constraint context, and low control M&A with exploitative M&A or experience-led exploratory M&A in the institutional shortage context; (2) there are two equivalent paths for the “do-nothing” integration model, i.e., exploitative M&A with a low control motive or unrelated M&A with a resource disadvantage in the context of institutional shortcomings prefer the “do-nothing” integration model; (3) there are three equivalent paths for the “supportive partner” integration model, i.e., related M&A in an institutional arbitrage context, or M&A experience-driven high-control M&A in a cultural diversity context, or high-control M&A in a cultural diversity context; and (4) there are two equivalent paths for the “re-touch” integration model, i.e., experience-driven exploratory M&A with high control in the institutional arbitrage context or high-control M&A with high control in the cultural diversity context. In the case of institutional arbitrage, the “re-touch” integration model is preferred for experience-led exploratory M&A with high control or resource-advantaged M&A with high control. The findings of this study enrich the research results on post-merger integration model selection and provide practical insights for firms to choose the appropriate integration model.

Key words: reverse cross-border M&As, post-M&A integration model, driving mechanism, configuration path, qualitative comparative analysis