1. Introduction介绍

 

如何收购和资产剥离对公司有利存在着不同的分析关于在这个问题上。主要的和最合乎逻辑的重点是公司的市场价值反应。实际收购前，分析师们先看看股东对收购公告的反应，因为这会影响收购公司的市场价值。这种影响可能会影响管理者决定在一个特定的国家收购某家公司。经过实际的收购，市场价值又会发生变化，而过多的时间，这通常是如何成功的收购被评为。通常不考虑的是组织结构和治理对经济价值创造的重要性。事实上，收购被逆转后，并不意味着收购是愚蠢的或失败的，如比阿特丽丝的情况下显示（贝克1992）。在文化上遥远的国家的企业的收购可能是因为两家公司的不同组织结构更加难以管理。

There exist different analysis on the subject how acquisitions and divestitures benefit the company. The main and most logical focus is on the reaction of the market value of the company. Before the actual acquisition, analysts look at shareholders’ reaction to the announcement of the acquisition, as this will influence the market value of the acquiring firm. This effect may influence managers’ decision to acquire a certain firm in a certain country. After the actual acquisition, the market value again will change, and over time this is usually how the success of the acquisition is rated. What usually is not taken into account directly is the importance of organizational structure and governance on the creation of economic value. The fact that an acquisition is reversed later on, does not mean that the acquisition was foolish or failed, as the case of Beatrice shows (Baker 1992). Acquisitions of firms in culturally distant countries may be more difficult to manage because of the different organizational structure of the two firms. 

因此，我们想看看澳大利亚公司收购的盈利能力的文化距离的影响，如比阿特丽丝是一个典型的澳大利亚公司的例子，我们用他们的案例来代表澳大利亚公司。对于文化上更接近收购我们将着眼于并购在国内。当我们能够找到很多关于中国并购绩效的研究，这些收购将代表文化遥远的国家收购。

我们推测，它是澳大利亚公司收购文化上更接近的别国更能有利可图的，比它是一个国家，是文化隔阂。随后的文献综述探讨收购在澳大利亚和中国的证据和共识，着眼于差异的原因在收购表现文化差异的影响方面。Therefore we would like to look at the influence of cultural distance on the profitability of acquisitions by Australia firms.As the company Beatrice is an example of a typical Australia firm, we use their case to represent Australia firms. For culturally close acquisitions we will look at acquisitions in the home country. As we were able to find a lot of research on acquisition performance in China, those acquisitions will represent acquisitions in culturally distant countries. 

We hypothesize that it is more profitable for Australia firms to acquire in culturally close countries, than it is in a country which is culturally distant. The ensuing literature review examines the evidence and consensus on acquisitions in Australia and China, and looks at the cause of the difference in terms of the influence of cultural differences on the performance of acquisitions.

 

2. Literature review文献综述

2.1 Domestic acquisitions and cross-border acquisitions

From Baker (1992) we know that it is profitable for Australia firms to initial an acquisition in the US. The Beatrice Company has presented a typical historical development model of the Australiabusiness in duration of one hundred years, which began as a small single business partnership, experienced critical growth by acquisition and extended from one single industry to a wide diversity of industries. Finally, it became one of the largest and most diversified firms in Australia owing to acquisition (Baker 1992). The company has participated in more than 400 acquisitions, it was the most active acquirer in Australia dating from 1955 to the year 1979 (Blair/Lane/Schary, 1991), the company itself has illustrated a very evident fact that the company’s acquisition and divestiture events can be regarded as a large part of their value creation process, and the process of acquisition can create sustainable value for the shareholders. Furthermore, the successful business model of Beatrice’s acquisitions and divestitures not only suggests that the acquisition process creates value but also demonstrated that the subsequent divestiture of the same assets decades later also creates value. . 

As for the cross-border acquisitions, managers become more interested in understanding how they can be successful in their acquisition deals in the emerging Chinese market (Huan/Pervez 2008). However, international acquisitions are determined by the extent on how foreign firms can acquire local knowledge effectively and quickly. In order to obtain legitimacy and contribute to a sustainable competitive advantage in China, the emphasis on double-layer partnership, both with political agencies and business partners, is considered to be important. Apart from that, the transactions between foreign firms and local departments are greatly restricted due to the regulatory loopholes and the lack of transparency in policies in China (Yang/Ghauri/Sonmez 2005).  All of these factors will bring difficulties for Australia firms to do acquisitions in the Chinese market. A study by Huan and Pervez (2008) showed that several senior managers of Firm B left the organization because of the restructuring and integration after the acquisition. It had a tremendous negative impact on the company.  Furthermore, the study found that foreign firms did not have sufficient knowledge about the local market. Therefore, they were unable to acquire sufficient knowledge-based resources, which includes local market knowledge, networking skills and specific R&D capabilities, and transfer them to their global operations. Another example is that the well-known Coca-Cola Company planed $2.3 billion to realize the acquisition with Huiyuan, one Chinese company. However, the project is abandoned because of the cultural and institutional aspects as we mentioned (Rein, 2003).

To sum up, the BeatriceCompany has grown and prospered through means of acquisition. Apparently, geographic expansion through acquisition has significantly extended the company’s market share and territory in the 1930s.  In contrast, the situation of acquisitions in China for Australia firms is not very optimistic, due to the lack of knowledge about the local market.

2.2 Cultural influences on the performance of acquisitions

As we are looking into the effect of cultural distance on the performance of cross-border acquisitions, the existing literature gives us two conflicting streams. One group of studies suggests a negative relationship between cultural distance and performance of cross-border acquisitions because of higher integration costs (Stahl/Voigt, 2005), which is also supported by Ahammad/Glaister(2011), who found that there is a negative relationship between organizational cultural difference and acquisition performance. In this study, the respondents were asked to determine how much both firms in the acquisition differed along five organizational dimensions, namely (1) general management style,(2)  values, beliefs, and philosophy, (3) reward and evaluation systems, (4) approach to risk taking, and (5) culture of home countries. After evaluating the responses and comparing them to the eventual profitability of the acquisition, it was found there is a negative relationship between organizational cultural difference and acquisition performance.

Another group of literature suggests however, that there is a positive relationship because the diverse set of new routines and repertoires provided by the culture distance enhance firm performance (Chakrabarti et al. 2009; Morosini et al. 1998). DesislavaDikova, Padma Rao Sahib (2013) found a consolidation between the two literature streams. They found a factor that both streams of literature overlooked: The effect of learning through previous acquisitions. The results of their study show that ‘the benefits stemming from cultural differences in cross-border acquisition performance are conditional on the acquirer’s level of acquisition experience.’ One of those benefits that stem from those acquisitions is knowledge transfer. Riikka M Sarala and EeroVaara(2010) suggest that successful cultural integration management is needed to reap the benefits of knowledge transfer. Another study that implies the importance of managerial skill and previous experience in acquisitions is the research of(Henk von Eije, Helene Wiegerinck 2010). Their study finds a more positive reaction of shareholders to the announcement of an acquisition if the bidder firm is more experienced in cross-border acquisitions. 

DesislavaDikova, Padma Rao Sahib (2013) also found, however, that managers’ previous experiences with domestic acquisitions may not yield lessons that can be directly transferred to cross-border acquisitions. Their study concludes that the effect of cultural distance on cross-border acquisition performance is stronger for experienced cross-border acquirers. Acquirers that are less experienced may still benefit, but to a much lesser degree. 

These findings tell us that there is more to the success and failure of acquisitions in cultural distant countries. This can differ from firm to firm, and the key factor appears to be managerial skill. 

 

3. Conclusion 总结

 

From Baker (1992) we find that for the typical Australia company it is more profitable to acquire firms in culturally close countries. Research on acquisitions of US firms in China learns that the cultural differences between countries and firms prove to cause problems, and in some cases even lead to failure (Yang/Ghauri/Sonmez 2005, Huan/Pervez 2008, Rein 2003). More research tells us that this is not only the case in China, but is true for acquisitions in culturally distant countries in general (Stahl and Voigt 2005), Ahammad and Glaister 2011). Opinions on this case are not one sided, however. Other research finds a positive relationship between organizational cultural difference and acquisition performance (Chakrabarti et al., 2009; Morosini et al., 1998).DesislavaDikova, Padma Rao Sahib (2013) builds forward on these findings by finding a key factor to the success or failure of acquisitions in culturally distant countries, namely managerial experience and skill. They find that managers with experience in cross-border acquisitions are more capable of reaping the benefits associated with acquisitions of firms which are organizationally culturally distant. 

So if we take away managerial experience, it appears to be more profitable for US firms to acquire in culturally close countries. It appears however, that acquisitions in culturally distant countries can really benefit the acquiring firm, given the right management. However, there has not been enough research in this area. The influence of managerial experience has just recently been researched, and only covers acquisitions from 2009-2010. Hence, the results on acquisition performance are very short term. It is still not certain whether managerial experience can really overcome the difficulties posed by cultural differences in the long run. So this is the field that needs to be researched further. Can managerial experience overcome the struggles in cross-border acquisition performance in culturally distant countries in the long run?