Mergers and acquisitions : their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries

By Myriam Cloodt, John Hagedoorn, H. van Kranenburg. 2006

571 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9929dc62576af7111f4bfc8757924a76a0a5af60

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions (2009, background): “effects of similarity and complementarity of the acquirer’s and the target’s technological knowledge are important predictors of post-merger innovation performance (Ahuja and Katila, 2001; Cloodt et al., 2006; Cassiman et al., 2005; Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2002).”
Product-service innovation and performance: the role of collaborative partnerships and R&D intensity (2019, unknown): “Cloodt et al. (2006) find that innovative performance declines when firms are too similar or too unrelated, characteristics that reduce potential synergetic and complementary effects.”
M&A and innovation: The role of integration and cultural differences—A central European targets perspective (2016, background): “Various studies related to innovation output or knowledge transfer use patents or new products as means of measurement (Ahuja & Katila, 2001; Prabhu et al., 2005; Cloodt et al., 2006).”
The Challenge of Integration: A Review of the M&A Integration Literature (2017, background): “The relationship between such an overlap and post-integration R&D productivity seems to follow an inverted U-shape (Cloodt et al. 2006; Valentini and Dawson 2010).”
Do High Technology Acquirers Become More Innovative (2010, background): “The present work has shown that acquirer attributes help to explain the observed variance in acquisition outcomes, over and above the explanatory power of dealspecific characteristics (e.g. Ahuja and Katila, 2001; Cassiman et al., 2005; Cloodt et al., 2006).”
How Swiss small and medium-sized firms assess the performance impact of mergers and acquisitions (2013, unknown): “Given the increasing importance of innovation activities as a driver of growth not only for larger firms but also for SMEs, it becomes clear that more insights with respect to the innovation effects of M&A are needed (see, e.g., Cassiman et al. 2005; Cloodt et al.2006).”
The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms (2010, result): “Innovative industries are identified in line with other studies (e.g., Cloodt et al., 2006 ).”
Cross-Border M&As and Innovative Activity of Acquiring and Target Firms (2016, background): “Ahuja and Katila (2001), as well as Cloodt et al. (2006), analyze differences in a sample of merging firms according to cultural distance between acquirer and target firm, but they do not address the causal effects of international acquisitions per se. innovation is measured as a count variable,…”