Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Lourdes Casanova

Anne Miroux
Cornell S.C. Johnson College of Business, Cornell University (USA)

Chinese companies conquering the world:

A descriptive analysis of the rapid rise of Chinese

acquisitions1

Abstract

In this article, we study the global acquisition trends of Chinese companies. We look at the countries

and sectors they are investing in and the factors driving those investments. We consider the inflexion

points and the changes before and after the Global Financial Crisis. The focus of the paper is the

evolution of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), but we also consider greenfield investments and overall

outward foreign direct investments. To that end, we use longitudinal data from three sources: the United

Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ, and

Financial Times fDi Markets. We note that M&A activity was key for the rapid growth and the fast

internationalization pace of Chinese companies. While M&A is the entry mode of choice for Chinese

firms to approach the developed world (Europe and the U.S.), greenfields are more common for

expansion in Asia and Africa. The paper also provides comparisons with data from other emerging

markets and the U.S.

Keywords: Chinese multinationals; Emerging markets; Mergers and Acquisitions; Internationalization;

Global expansion; Outward Foreign Direct Investment; Entry mode; Greenfield

Corresponding author: e-mail: Lourdes.casanova@cornell.edu

Received 20 January 2019 - Accepted 08 May 2019

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No
Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-comercial re-use and
distribution, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered or transformed in any way.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB
mailto:Lourdes.casanova@cornell.edu
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

1. Introduction

China is often depicted as an economic miracle. Less attention has been paid to the growth of

Chinese companies which has been parallel to the growth of its economy. One indicator of this

power is the presence in the rankings of the Fortune 500 Global (Casanova and Miroux 2018)

where the number of Chinese firms grew considerably after the Global Financial crisis. In 2008,

there were only 20 Chinese firms, while in 2018 there were 10 times more at 111. As Chinese

companies grew, they also became major cross-border investors. This article examines both

modes of entry in foreign markets: greenfield and M&A deals for Chinese firms, their evolution

over time based on available data from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ2.

2. China’s role in global investment flows

Since 2000, China has been the second destination for global foreign direct investment (FDI),

receiving $136 billion of FDI flows in 2017, as compared to $275 billion for the U.S. China is

an outlier compared to other emerging markets, in particular with what we call the E20

(Casanova and Miroux 2016), the 20 largest emerging markets by nominal gross domestic

product (GDP)3.

China’s outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) has been unduly overlooked: according to

MOFCOM (2017) China is among the 10 biggest world investors since the 2008 Global

Financial Crisis (GFC) and amongst the top three countries in yearly flows since 2012. In

addition, China ranked second in OFDI stock (accumulated investments over the years) in 2016

and 2017. In 2017, China invested $158 billion and was the third biggest investor in the world

after the U.S. ($342 billion) and very close to the second economy, that of Japan ($160 billion).

By 2017, China’s OFDI represented 11.1% of the world total flows and 5.9% of the world’s

OFDI stock.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

According to MOFCOM 2017, the main destination of China’s investments is its ”natural

market”, Asia (63% of its OFDI stocks lie there). The other destinations are in decreasing order:

Latin America (21%), Europe (6.1%), North America (almost 5%) and Africa and Oceania

(2.5%). China focuses primarily in “South-South” investments, which account for almost 86%

of the total Chinese OFDI as compared to 12.7% to the developed world. Regarding the

developed world, and from the above figures, it is evident that China invests more in the

European Union than in the U.S. China’s OFDI stock (as the flow) is also higher in the European

Union than in the U.S. (Hanemann and Rosen 2012; Nicolas 2014). M&A data show a similar

pattern.

The same source shows that China’s investments are diversified into six main industries that

represent 86% of the total OFDI stock: Leasing and Business Services (34% of OFDI stock),

Wholesale and Retail Trade (12.5%), IT and technical services (13%), Financial Services

(11%), Mining (8.7%), and Manufacturing (7%).

If we compare both FDI and OFDI, China was a net exporter of capital in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

In 2017, the country invested $50 billion more abroad than what it received in FDI. This

investment spree is due mainly to the actions of 39,000 Chinese companies in 189 countries,

with total assets of $6 trillion and an accumulated OFDI (stock) of $1.8 trillion according to

MOFCOM 2017.

Regarding ownership of companies, it is often claimed by experts that state-owned companies

(Morck et al. 2008; Luo et al. 2010; Ramasamy et al. 2012) represent the bulk of overseas

investments but their participation in OFDI continue to decrease. In 2017, they represented

about 50% of total investments abroad, a 5% decrease with respect to 2016.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Greenfield investments and M&A transactions have been the main catalysts for growth for

Chinese firms. M&A are a significant tool for acquiring knowledge, technical expertise, natural

resources, customer base and talent—all of which can be difficult and time-consuming to

develop internally (Buckley et al. 2007; Chen 2008; Deng 2009; Luo and Tung 2007; Wang et

al. 2012).

Hence, M&A is key for Chinese firms to catch-up with western global multinationals. With the

help of government initiatives, and regulatory revisions more Chinese companies have been

investing in new industries in a growing number of countries. Policies such as the Belt and

Road Initiative (BRI, also known as the One Belt One Road, OBOR) launched in 2013, and

fewer restrictions for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to invest overseas have significantly aided

growth (Luo et al. 2010). Let’s look at Greenfield data first to compare it with M&A in the next

sections.

3. Chinese greenfield investment

In greenfield FDI, a company initiates an investment from scratch; this may include building a

manufacturing plant, a new distribution hub, offices or living quarters. In this definition of the

term, we include brownfield projects, i.e., those that modify or upgrade existing investments.

Since 2008, China has increased announced greenfield FDI projects all over the world.4 In the

subsequent decade, the value of such projects has doubled in Asia (to $245 billion), more than

tripled in Africa (to $60 billion) and Europe (to $70 billion), and experienced an eight and

tenfold increase respectively in the U.S. (to $44 billion) and Latin America (to $80 billion).

While China’s overall investments are primarily in their natural markets—in this case, in Asian

neighboring markets with geographical or cultural proximity—its greenfield projects

increasingly target countries in developed markets and Latin America. North America’s share

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

of Chinese OFDI greenfield projects quadrupled in the post-2008 crisis period; that of Latin

America’s investment increased by 66% (Figure 1). Comparing China’s outward greenfield

projects pre- and post-2008, Figure 1 shows that Metals and Coal and Oil & Natural Gas

industries have become less important in China’s portfolio compared to other/new industries.

Both sectors saw their shares halved from their pre-crisis period levels. The sectors that have

most benefited from China’s greenfield OFDI are less traditional sectors. The sectors include

Real Estate as confirmed by OFDI data above, and notably, Business Services and Renewable

Energy. The latter two registered a nine and twofold increase respectively in their portfolio

shares.

Figure 1. China’s outward greenfield FDI pre- and post-2008 GFC. Periods compared are

2003-2008 and 2009-2016.

Source: Authors based on data from fDi Markets accessed by September 2017.

Note: Data include greenfield FDI projects from China and Hong Kong.

61%

9%
11%

4…

47%

15%
12%

Asia-Pacific

Western Europe

Emerging Europe

Latin America &
Caribbean

Africa

North America

Middle East

Pre-crisis
(Jan.03 --> Dec.08)

Post-crisis
(Jan.09 --> Dec.16)

13%

24%

18%
1%

1%
5%

21%
12%

3%
3%

11%

Real Estate
Coal, Oil and
Natural Gas

Metals

Business Services

Alternative/Renewa
ble energy

Automotive OEM

Communications

Warehousing &
Storage

Hotels & Tourism

Financial Services

Electronic
Components

Transportation

Food & Tobacco

Industrial
Machinery,…

Chemicals

Other

Pre-crisis
(Jan.03 --> Dec.08)

Post-crisis
(Jan.09 --> Dec.16)

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

4. Chinese M&A activity

In the term “M&As”, we include mergers, one company acquiring another, assets purchases or

management acquisitions. The goal of a M&A is to grow fast to gain one or more of the

following benefits: economies of scale, market access, a new brand, technology and know-how.

While in 2000, China barely registered any M&A activity (Figure 2), in 2015, the value of its

announced outbound M&As ($138 billion) placed it in the fifth position overall, between

Singapore ($121 billion) and the Netherlands ($171 billion)- but still far behind the #1 ranked

U.S., $488 billion. According to MOFCOM 2017, firms from China participated in 431 M&A

transactions in 56 countries.

Not only has China become a major global acquirer, it has also been increasingly involved in

very large transactions. Appendix 1 lists the top 100 outbound M&A transactions globally

between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. This list excludes announced transactions made by a

consortium of investors from multiple countries. Seventeen of the top 100 global transactions

originated from China, the largest number of deals by a single country. The $43 billion

announced acquisition of Syngenta by China National Chemical Corporation (“ChemChina”)

in February 2016 was the fourth biggest overseas deal by any company in the world between

July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. After China, the countries most active in the largest transactions

during this period were the U.S. (with 15 of top 100 announced deals), Canada (12 announced

deals), Germany (seven announced deals), followed by the U.K. and France (six announced

deals each). In the next sections, we will present data regarding the growth of M&A volumes,

geographical destination of M&As and industry sectors acquired.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

4.1 Rapid rise in M&A volumes pre- and post- global financial crisis

M&A is a significant mode of entry to quickly expand internationally. In 2016, China emerged

as the second biggest global acquirer after the U.S., (Figure 3), at which time Chinese M&A

deals represented 18% of the M&As of the top 10 investor countries. This is a remarkable

development if one considers that China was hardly visible as a global acquirer in the early

2000s (Xu et al. 2012). The sudden and remarkable increase that took place in Chinese M&As

in 2016 in particular - when the value of announced M&A deals reached an estimated $224

billion - contributed to Chinese authorities’ reaction to curtail capital outflows (more on this in

Section 5.1), targeting M&As in particular. Despite the decline in M&A activity that ensued,

China was still a leading global acquirer by mid-2017, accounting for 9% of M&A deals and

ranking third (following the U.S. and the U.K.) in terms of M&A activity for the first semester

of 2017.

Figure 2. Chinese M&A activity: Announced outbound M&A deals (2003-Q2 2017)

Source: Authors’ analysis based on data on announced M&A transactions from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ

accessed by January 2018.

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

$50000,0

$100000,0

$150000,0

$200000,0

$250000,0
A

v
e

ra
g

e
M

&
A

D
e

a
l

V
a

lu
e

(
U

S
$

M
)

T
o

ta
l

M
&

A
D

e
a

ls
V

a
lu

e
(

U
S

$
M

il
li

o
n

Total Transaction Value in $USDmm Average Deal Value

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

The GFC was the trigger for China’s M&A activity which increased 380% post-GFC relative

to pre-crisis levels (Table 1 and Figure 4), much more than for other emerging countries. China

has a similar impressive growth in Greenfield activity (181%) post 2009. Among emerging

markets, Korea saw similar increases as China in M&A activity, India also grew in both

variables while Brazil decreased by 3% in M&A. This compares to a more modest increase for

the leader, U.S. (47%), which retains by far its number one position in the world.

Table 1. Changes in China compared to most active emerging markets Brazil, India, Korea and

the U.S. of announced outbound M&A deals and greenfield investments: comparing

pre-GFC (2003-2008) and post-GFC (2009-2016)

Investor

Outbound M&A

(total amount in millions)

Growth: + 380%

Rank pre- crisis:

Rank post-crisis: No 4 (No 2 in 2016)

KOREA

Pre-crisis period: $26,324

Post-crisis period: $111,165

Growth: +322%

INDIA Pre-crisis period: $63,250

Post-crisis period: $79,165

Growth: +25%

BRAZIL Pre-crisis period: $60,767

Post-crisis period: $28,866

Growth: -3%

CHINA Pre-crisis: $166,325

Post-crisis: $798,013

Growth: +380%

U.S. Pre-crisis period: $1,518,855

Post-crisis period: $2,186,658

Growth: +44%

Source: Authors’ analysis based on data on M&A transactions originating from China and Hong Kong ($ value in

millions) from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ. 2017 data deals announced through June 30, 2017.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Figure 3. Top 15 economies, other selected E20 by announced outbound M&A deals (in

millions) in 2016

Source: Authors’ analysis based on data on announced M&A transactions from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ

accessed in January 2017. Excludes financial centers in the Caribbean.

As shown in Casanova and Miroux 2018, together U.S., Canada, the U.K., the Netherlands,

China, Singapore, Ireland, France, Japan and Switzerland accounted for $1.6 trillion of cross-

border M&As in 2015. The total value of deals that originated in China as a percentage of the

total value of deals that originated from the top 10 global acquirer increased from less than 1%

in 2000 to 10% in 2017. The U.S. accounted for 30% of the total value of outbound M&A by

these top 10 countries, followed by the U.K. at 14%, Canada at 12%, Netherlands at 11% and

then China at 9%.

311.433,14

224.469,18

189.372,98

139.857,67

124.524,99

75.255,63

64.287,74

56.103,59

56.017,48

32.617,62

24.320,98

21.121,47

16.073,51

15.320,89

10.151,66

7.076,69

5.452,40

3.527,71

3.118,78

1.243,65

1.149,44

$- $50.000 $100.000 $150.000 $200.000 $250.000 $300.000 $350.000

United States

China

Canada

Germany

Japan

Ireland

France

Singapore

Switzerland

Sweden

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Mexico

Korea

India

UAE

Russia

Malaysia

Brazil

Turkey

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

4.2 Europe leads the U.S. in geographical destination for Chinese M&As

Following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, Chinese M&As have increasingly targeted

developed countries, unlike the destination of its overall OFDI which targets emerging markets.

In 2012, a peak year for such transactions, developed countries accounted for an estimated 80%

value of acquisitions and for more than 60% during the 2015-2017 period. Among developed

countries, Europe was the most important destination, accounting for about 37% of the value

of all transactions from 2015-2017 (Figures 5, 6a and 6b). In some ways, China’s outbound

M&As mirrored the geographical breakdown of the U.S. outbound acquisitions: indeed, Europe

accounted for about 78% of all U.S. outbound M&As over the same period (Figures 7).

Surprisingly, Asia - the main recipient of OFDI (63% of the OFDI stock lies there) - does not

occupy a prominent place in the M&A activity of Chinese firms.

China’s M&A activity in Europe and Latin America has increased steadily over the years

(Buckley et al. 2007; Nicolas 2014). Although from a much lower level, we see a similar pattern

in other emerging countries (Figure 5) where the acquisitions target the U.S. pre GFC and move

more to Europe after that. If we consider China, Europe accounted for about 33% of the total

value of M&A deals between 2009 and mid-2016, compared to about 19% between 2000 and

2008, i.e. in the pre-crisis period (Figure 6b). The share of Latin America in the total value of

outbound M&A deals from China increased from about 8% (in the pre-crisis period) to 15%

(post-crisis) – see Figure 6a. This shift towards Europe, U.S. and Latin America has primarily

been driven by cheap currencies (relatively low euro rates and currency devaluations in Latin

America), opportunities due to the financial hardships of many companies after the global

financial crisis (both in Europe and the U.S.), the desire of Chinese firms to seek advanced

technologies (mainly in Europe) and new markets for their products/services (Buckley et al.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

2007); Nicolas 2014). Africa and the Middle East remain much less important target regions

for Chinese M&As. It is important to note that there have also been M&As in Europe by

financial investors from China, which are not accounted for in figure 4. For example, in one of

the biggest acquisitions in 2016, a consortium of Chinese financial investors consisting of

Beijing Jianguang Asset Management Co., Ltd (“JAC Capital”) and Wise Road Capital LTD

(“Wise Road Capital”) announced the purchase of Standard Products business from

Netherlands-based semiconductor company, NXP Semiconductors N.V. for $2.75 billion.

Prominent recent M&As in Europe besides the above-mentioned Syngenta deal were the

purchase of Swiss air-travel logistics company Gate Group Holding AG for $1.5 billion by

China based HNA Group Co., Ltd. in April 2016 and the sale by South African/British Anglo

American plc (“Anglo American”) of its Niobium and Phosphates businesses in Brazil to China

Molybdenum Co. Ltd (“CMOC”) for a reported total cash of $1.5 billion in April 2016.

Figure 4. Total value of announced M&A deals by E20 firms 2003-2016, pre-GFC (2003-

2008) and post-GFCs (2009-2016) (U.S. millions)

Source: Authors’ analysis based on data on announced M&A transactions from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ

accessed on January 2017

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000

China Others E20 Korea India Russia Mexico Brazil Malaysia

2003-2008 2009-2016

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Figure 5. Geographical distribution of announced M&A deals from China versus other E20

countries pre- (2003-2009) and post-GFC (2009-2016). Top figure pre-GFC (2003-

2008) and bottom figure post-crisis (2009-2016)

Source: Authors’ analysis based on data on announced M&A transactions from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ

accessed on January 2017.

Figure 6a. Destination of Chinese announced outbound M&A value by region 2003-Q2 2017

($ millions)

Source: Authors’ analysis based on data on announced M&A transactions originating from China and Hong Kong

($ value in millions) from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ. 2017 data deals announced through June 30, 2017.

Accessed on September 2017.

20%

40%

60%

80%

Brazil China India Korea Malaysia Mexico Russia US

Europe United States and Canada Asia / Pacific Latin America and Caribbean Africa / Middle East

20%

40%

60%

80%

Brazil China India Korea Malaysia Mexico Russia US

Europe United States and Canada Asia / Pacific Latin America and Caribbean Africa / Middle East

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Q2'
2017

Africa / Middle East

Latin America and
Caribbean

Asia / Pacific

United States and
Canada

Europe

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Figure 6b. Destination of Chinese announced outbound M&A value by region pre- (2003-

2009) and post-GFC (2009-2016 in $ millions)

Source: Authors’ analysis based on data from Standard &Poors’ Capital IQ accessed by September 2017

Figure 7. U.S. announced cross-border M&A value by region 2014-2017 ($ millions)

Source: Authors’ analysis, based on data from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ accessed July 2018. Note: data as in

all the M&A graphs refers to announced deals. Accessed on January 2018.

$100.000

$200.000

$300.000

$400.000

$500.000

$600.000

2014 2015 2016 2017

Unespecified

Africa / Middle East

Latin American and
Caribbean

Asia / Pacific

United Stated and
Canada

Europe

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

4.3 China’s increased focus on services

The industry distribution5 of Chinese outbound M&A has also changed in recent years. Prior to

the global financial crisis, the majority of Chinese investments abroad were focused on the

Energy and Materials6 sectors: together they accounted for 52% of total transaction value of

all announced Chinese M&A between 2000 and 2008. In comparison, Industrials7 (6%),

Financials (10%) and Consumers (15%) sectors transactions were smaller in value. After 2009

the M&A deals made through the second quarter of 2016 have had a more uniform distribution

across industries. Energy (17%) and Materials (18%) accounted for 35% of the total value of

deals between 2009 and 2016, while other sectors such as Industrials (14%), Financials (17%)

and Consumer (19%) have all increased as a percentage of total deals (Figure 8). Furthermore,

according to Capital IQ data in 2015, over 80% of the Chinese outbound deals were in

Consumer, Industrials, Financials and Information Technology sectors.

Energy, Industrials, Materials and IT accounted for about half of the acquisition value from

2014-2017 (Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ data for M&A). This sectoral focus not only closely

tracks U.S. outbound acquisitions (for which IT and Materials are important sectors – see Figure

9), but also foreshadowed the sectors that the Made in China 2025 strategy would focus on.

Due to such widespread acquisitions by China in these sectors, some countries feared that their

native technology sectors would fall under foreign control, leading to distrust from several

developed nations towards Chinese M&As (further details provided in section 5.2). At the same

time, Real Estate was the largest target sector for China in 2017, and would soon face new

restrictions from the Chinese government (more on this subject in section 5.1), which was wary

that transactions in this sector were driven by speculative motivations.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Figure 8. Sector distribution of Chinese announced M&A deals (2014-2017)

Source: Authors’ analysis, based on data from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ accessed July 2018.

Figure 9. Sectoral distribution of U.S. announced M&As deals (2014-2017)

Source: Authors’ analysis, based on data from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ accessed July 2018.

4.4 Increasing size of M&A deals from China

In the post GFC phase, along with the increase in the overall value of M&A deals as we saw in

3.1, the average deal size also increased from $211 million in 2000-2008 to $275 million in

2009-2016 (Figure 10). In addition, as the value of deals has increased, they have also become

more expensive, and Chinese companies have been willing to pay a higher price for the targeted

assets. Some valuation metrics commonly used in M&A transactions are TEV/Revenues8 and

Real Estate
20%

Consumer
Related

19%

Energy & Utilities
13%

Industrials
12%

Information Technology
12%

Materials
11%

Financials
4%

Healthcare
3%

Telecommunication Services
1%

Unespecified
5%

Otros
13%

Healthcare
35%

Consumer Related
18%

Information Technology
11%

Materials
11%

Industrials
7%

Real Estate
6%

Financials
6%

Energy & Utilities
4%

Telecommunication
Services

Unespecified
1%

Otros
18%

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Price/Earnings ratios (average premium). TEV and Price (in case of public companies) are

measures of the total value of the firm. Put simply, the higher these ratios, the higher an acquirer

is willing to pay for the target. We analyzed the TEV/Revenue ratios for Chinese overseas

transactions for the periods mentioned above. The Average TEV/Revenue ratio increased from

5.7 in 2000-2008 to 9.9 in 2009- June 2016 (Figure 10). As well, for the publicly traded M&A

targets, average acquisition premium (based on prior week price of the publicly traded target

company) increased from 27.6 percent to 36.4 percent.

Figure 10. Price and valuation of Chinese outbound M&A deals (2000 – Q2’16) (in millions)

Source: Authors’ analysis based on Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ data on M&A Transactions accessed on

January 2017.

We also compared the Chinese outbound M&A deals with the U.S. ones (Figure 11). While the

M&A deals China has done in the past years have been bigger than in the past, they are still

small on average compared to the U.S. outbound deals. For instance, the average deal size for

the U.S. in 2015 was $592m compared to $269m for outbound Chinese deals. Average

acquisition premiums paid by both Chinese and U.S. companies were more comparable, with a

premium between 25 to 30 percent in 2015 (29.8% for Chinese and 26.2% for American firms).

The higher average TEV to Revenue ratio for Chinese deals could reflect the mix of deals.

Indeed, smaller deals tend to have higher revenue ratios and China had a higher percentage

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

(70%) of smaller deals (less than $100 million) than the United States (63%). Furthermore,

higher Chinese premiums could be due to the fact that Chinese companies are likely to be less

known compared to U.S. companies and therefore may be facing some resistance from sellers

demanding higher premiums as it happens sometimes with other Emerging Markets

Multinationals. Besides, given the increased scrutiny and regulatory hurdles to which Chinese

acquisitions are submitted at home and in host developed countries (more on this subject in

sections 5.1 and 5.2), completing a transaction with a Chinese buyer tends to be perceived as

increasingly more complex, subjected to more regulatory scrutiny, and riskier – leading to

demands of higher prices on the part of sellers.

Figure 11. Price and valuation of China and U.S. outbound M&A deals (2015)

Source: Authors’ analysis based on Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ data on M&A transactions accessed on

January 2017.

5. Adjusting to a new paradigm

Since 2016, when China’s M&A activity rose to the forefront, surpassing some Western

companies and countries for the first time, U.S. foreign policy under President Trump

administration shifted to a more rigorous scrutiny of FDI into the country and more specifically

Chinese investments in the U.S. Chinese acquisitions started facing restrictions not only in the

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

U.S. but also increasingly in the western world. This was accompanied by pressures at home to

reduce acquisitions and FDI forays in foreign markets. These issues are described in more detail

in the following sections.

5.1 Policy changes at home

Since the 1990s, Chinese government policies have been instrumental in the country’s

emergence as a powerhouse global investor. The policies progressively evolved from

restriction, to liberalization and then to outright support and encouragement, as we analyzed in

Casanova and Miroux 2016, 2017 and 2018. The “Go Global” strategy, launched in 2000,

marked the beginning of a phase of significant proactive support aimed at encouraging Chinese

firms’ expansion abroad. In subsequent years, the strategy gained strength as part of China’s

Five-Year Plans. Today, the Ministry of Commerce, the National Development and Reform

Commission, the Export-Import Bank of China, the China Development Bank and China

Export and Credit Insurance Corporation all provided a network of administrative, financial

and commercial support. The country has also engaged in active investment diplomacy, marked

by the Chinese President Xi Jinping visiting both Latin America and Africa three times since

he took office (Latin America in 2013, 2014 and 2016 and Africa in 2014, 2016 and 2018).

Finally, other government-led initiatives, such as the Belt and Road Initiative – BRI, also known

as One Belt and One Road” (OBOR)”9 – launch in 2013 has and will likely fuel further China’s

OFDI expansion. According to MOFCOM 2017, Chinese Investments in the BRI countries has

increased from 12.63 billion in 2013 to 20.17 in 2017, an overall increase of 59.6% and

represents right now 12.7% of China’s OFDI flows.

A dramatic surge of outbound M&As in 2015-2016 prompted the Chinese government, eager

to maintain financial stability, to quickly shift course in order to tame the massive capital

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

outflows that took place during those years. Authorities also feared that speculative rather than

economic reasons motivated a number of those transactions and worried about the stability of

the renminbi. Of special concern were cases of acquisitions outside the buyer’s core area of

business—in real estate and entertainment, for instance, two industries that had seen a flurry of

large deals. Hence, in the fall of 2016 the government announced stricter approval requirements

for M&A deals10 and restricted real estate purchases abroad by State-Owned Enterprises

(SOEs). Later on, in August 2017, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)

issued “guidelines on overseas investment” that classify overseas investments into three main

categories: 1) encouraged investments; 2) restricted investments; and 3) prohibited

investments. The guidelines for instance restrict investment in real estate, hotels, entertainment,

and sport clubs and prohibits them in inter alia, gambling and ’lewd industries’ as well as those

that provide access to sensitive sectors such as core military. On the other hand, encouraged

investments include those that promote the Belt and Road Initiative (in particular in

infrastructure and connectivity projects, see increase noted earlier in Chinese OFDI in those

countries), or that strengthen cooperation with overseas high-tech and advanced manufacturing

companies.

Subsequently, in December 2017, the National Development and Reform Commission, along

with four other agencies, released a code of conduct for private companies investing abroad.

Several highly leveraged and risky outbound acquisitions appeared to motivate this code,

particularly targeting Chinese firms with a history of mega deals, such as the conglomerate

Wanda owner of a private developer and various cinema chains, the conglomerate and

investment company Fosun, which bought among others France’s Club Med, and British

Thomas Cook and Canada’s Cirque du Soleil besides the U.S. insurer Meadowbrook in 2014

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

and in 2016 the English football club Wolverhampton Wanderers. Another targeted company

was the tourism conglomerate (HNA) which owned among other assets almost 10% of

Deutsche Bank and 30% of NH Hotel Group and the insurance Anbang which boght the

emblematic hotel Waldorf Astoria in New York city among other hotels. The Code calls upon

Chinese firms to avoid high leverage financing and stay within their core area of activities, as

well as respect local laws, including social and environmental standards. The new guidelines

also require firms to report investment plans to the government and to seek approval for

investments in “sensitive” countries or industries.11 While some observers note that the code of

conduct does not consist of hard and fast rules,12 the warning to Chinese foreign investors has

been clear. As of December 2018, a code of conduct for SOEs was said to also be in the works.

These policy shifts have not only tempered the acquisition fervor of Chinese investors, but also

affected the confidence of their financiers. Thereafter, financing became harder to obtain,

revealing in some cases that firms had overextended themselves. One such example is HNA,

which was forced to rid itself of high-prized recent acquisitions. The Chinese airline

conglomerate was one of the most prominent Chinese acquirers from 2015-2016, and was

obligated to sell off assets in 2017-2018, including major real estate properties in the U.S., Hong

Kong, and Australia, and some of its equity stakes in Deutsche Bank and other firms.

This OFDI policy shift is partly responsible for the above-mentioned drop in Chinese outbound

M&As in 2017 and early 2018.13 In the medium term, however, the net effect of the new

measures is uncertain. While speculative deals will likely face higher hurdles, the underlying

economic motivations for increased outbound Chinese M&As remain the same. For companies,

these motivations include easier access to resources, and in acquisitions in developed countries,

access to markets, international brands, technology and expertise, as well as better return on

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

assets. On the government’s side, the overall objective is still that of an economy with high

value-added sectors and a strong focus on innovation, as illustrated by the Made in China 2025

Plan. For instance, transactions that are “economically” sound or fall in line with the

government policy of “strengthening cooperation” in high tech and manufacturing will likely

benefit from the above mentioned guidelines on overseas investment.

5.2 Increased scrutiny in host countries

Serious obstacles also lie on the receiving end of Chinese outward investment as a number of

developed countries, wary of Chinese investment, have introduced restrictions of their own on

acquisitions by foreign investors.

Many countries have instituted mechanisms for screening foreign investments. While such

mechanisms have often been motivated by national security concerns, they increasingly reflect

other considerations such as the protection of strategic industries, critical infrastructure and key

technologies.14 In recent months in particular, developed countries have strengthened their

screening mechanisms, partly as a reaction to the wave of Chinese investments in high tech and

advanced manufacturing industries and in strategic sectors. For instance:

 In Germany, the Chinese firm Midea’s 2016 acquisition of the robotics firm Kuka sparked

strong objections from politicians and EU representatives. In response to concerns,

Germany introduced changes in its Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance in 2017, and as

a result, the German government can now block certain acquisitions more easily based on

security reasons.15 As of September 2018, the government was reportedly considering

lowering the threshold of participation by a non-E.U. buyer for deals that can be subject to

government veto, which would subject more transactions to security reviews.16

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

 In France, the government introduced legislation in June 2018 to tighten screening

mechanisms, specifically by extending the scope of sectors under consideration to better

cover strategic industries. This legislation was still under review as of early September

2018.17

 Following a 2017 Green Paper on National Security and Infrastructure Investment Review,

the government of the United Kingdom introduced legislation to Parliament in 2018 that

would strengthen the state’s ability to scrutinize foreign investment in innovative

technology sectors on national security grounds.18

 After France, Germany and Italy called for a debate on control and scrutiny of foreign

takeovers in sensitive industries, the European Commission put forward a proposal in

September 2017 for a regulation establishing a framework for screening FDI inflows into

the EU on the grounds of security or public order. This proposal was still under discussion

as of late 2018.

 In August 2018, the United States enacted the Foreign Investment Risk Review

Modernization Act (FIRRMA), a legislation that expands the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to address growing national security

concerns over investment traditionally falling outside of CFIUS jurisdiction. Considered

the most significant overhaul of the Committee since 1988, FIRRMA enlarges the scope of

transactions reviewable by CFIUS, lengthens its review period, and mandates a separate

process to review the export of sensitive U.S. technologies.19 CFIUS has the mandate to

scrutinize companies and determine those which should not be sold as they are strategic

assets for the country due to positive technological spillovers and creation of jobs.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Since January 2017, illustrating the changes currently under way, a number of foreign

acquisitions by Chinese firms have been blocked or abandoned. In 2017, 11 M&A deals worth

$100 million or more were withdrawn for regulatory or political reasons, three of which were

for explicitly stated national security concerns. Two of those related to the acquisition by

Chinese buyers of U.S. companies in semi-conductors and digital mapping and software

services (Lattice Semiconductor Corporation and Here International B.V., an IT-related

company). During the first half of 2018, the trend accelerated with four mega acquisitions

failing in the U.S. for clearly-stated national security reasons.20 Three of these acquisitions

directly involved Chinese buyers: the takeover of MoneyGram International (financial

services), Cogint Inc. (data services), and Xcerra Corporation (semi-conductor testing

equipment). In addition, three deals were prohibited between December 2016 and March 2018

by U.S. presidential order—a practice little used in the past21—following recommendations by

CFIUS (the deals were takeovers of Aixtron,22 Lattice and Qualcomm). Outside the U.S., the

Australian government rejected high-profile transactions in 2016, such as the sale of a majority

stake in Ausgrid, an electricity provider, to State Grid Corporation of China on national security

grounds, too.23

6. Conclusion

The dollar value of total Chinese outbound M&A transactions has increased significantly over

the last decade, and especially since the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-08. This increase

has been driven by vibrant M&A activity of large Chinese companies. This surge in M&A

activity has been fueled by technology and knowledge-driven acquisitions in developed

markets, as well as natural resource driven acquisitions in Latin America at first and now more

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

and more in electricity sector and other parts of the world. Other factors driving Chinese

investments abroad have been a desire for market diversification and adding international

valued brand names (as it was the case of Lenovo’s acquisition of IBM’s personal computer’s

division in 2005) to their portfolio. Outbound M&A also helps Chinese firms establish new

marketing and distribution channels. Lastly, cheap currency valuations in many developed

markets, especially in Europe after the crisis in 2011, also made the valuations of foreign targets

cheaper, boosting the Chinese outbound M&A activity from less than $40 billion in 2007 to

over $140 billion in 2016 (year to date). The surge was such that, in fact, by June 2016, the

value of announced M&As already exceeded the value achieved for the full 2015 year ($138

billion). The above analyses point to the following:

 The global financial crisis, has been an inflexion point for Chinese M&As which gained

importance as a mode of entry for Chinese multinationals.

 Overall, both Chinese greenfield OFDI and outbound M&As have gained prominence. The

U.S. and other major developed countries are not keeping up with the dynamic pace of

growth in outbound M&A deals that we observe in Asia and in Africa.

 China’s greenfield investments remains predominantly of a South-South nature. Though the

share of developed countries has especially increased post-crisis, about 70% of China’s

OFDI are still directed towards developing and emerging economies in Asia, Africa and

Latin America. This is in contrast to Chinese M&As, which from the beginning were largely

directed towards Europe and North America (about 60% of the value of the M&A deals)

and have remained so over the years. The volume of M&A deals by Chinese firms targeting

these regions has increased remarkably in value terms since the global financial crisis. In

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

the process, Europe has taken the lead as the primary target of M&As by emerging market

multinationals, followed by North America.

 In both greenfield FDI projects and M&As, available data suggest the growing

attractiveness of service based and consumer related industries for Chinese companies,

while heavy or more traditional industries such as Energy (Oil, Coal and Gas) or Materials

(such as Metals) either stagnated or declined in importance. This suggests a broader trend

in the overseas expansion that will increasingly prioritize consumer markets around the

world. It illustrates a shift in Chinese multinationals’ investment strategies. The emergence

of Alternative and Renewable Industry as a significant part of the China’s OFDI project

portfolio is also worth noting. All combined, these trends point to the new ambitions of

Chinese multinationals, both in terms of markets and industries, and to the capabilities these

firms have been building—and will most likely continue to build—over the years.

As we close this analysis of China’s outbound M&A activity, we can see that Chinese

companies have come a long way since the early 2000s, becoming major global acquirers. To

reach this status, they have been willing to pay a relatively higher price in recent years

(especially in the post global financial crisis period) for overseas acquisitions. Following their

2015-2016 buying spree, however, a significant slowdown in Chinese M&As has taken place

in 2017. This reflects the double blow which they have been facing: at home, the Chinese

government has shifted towards increased scrutiny while abroad, especially in developed

countries host governments have been making efforts to strengthen the control and supervision

of foreign acquisitions, often citing national security concerns.

Yet, the long-term overall trend in Chinese M&As – and broadly speaking outward direct

investment- remains to be seen. All of the factors that led to the fast expansion of Chinese

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

overseas activities still remain in play. On the one hand, Chinese firms continue to look for new

and innovative ways to expand into global markets. On the other, and despite increasing

scrutiny, the Chinese government still encourages outbound investment in line with its overall

strategy for the transformation of the Chinese economy. Combined, these factors are powerful

drivers for continued Chinese M&A, at a possibly lower but more sustainable level.

Notes

1 This article draws upon Casanova, L.; Miroux, A. 2016, 2017 and 2018. Emerging Market Multinationals Report.

Emerging Markets Institute. Cornell S.C. Johnson College of Business. Cornell University.

http://bit.ly/eMNCreport. The contribution of Kunal Garg, Abdel Bouhamidi, MBA students and Research

Assistants is gratefully acknowledged as well as the copyeditors: Eudes Lopes and Jennifer Wholey.
2 Data relate to investment projects or mergers that have been announced and not necessarily projects actually

completed or undertaken.
3 We consider E20 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia,

Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea*, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and

Turkey. GDP varies and the list may vary accordingly (Casanova and Miroux 2018).
4 In this article all data about China’s greenfield investments and M&As include Hong Kong as well.
5 Industry distribution analysis based on Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ’s primary industry sectors classification,

including Industrials, Consumer, Financials, Information Technology, Healthcare, Utilities, Materials and Energy

sectors
6 Materials includes primarily natural resources, but also chemicals and container & packaging companies.
7 Industrials includes primarily manufacturing goods and services, but also commercial/professional services.
8 Total Enterprise Value, defined as total market capitalization, preferred stock value and total debt less cash and

cash equivalents.

For more details, see Casanova, L. and A. Miroux, Emerging Market Multinationals Report 2016, Chapter 5; and,

Casanova and Miroux 2017, Chapter 2.
9 The Chinese government launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), formerly known as One Belt, One Road,

in 2013. The BRI aims to foster integration and cooperation by building infrastructure, developing cultural

exchange, and increasing trade among countries in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa along two axes: the

Silk Road Economic Belt (essentially the original Silk Road) and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.

For more information on the initiative, see D. Dollar, 2015, “China's rise as a regional and global power: The

AIIB and the “One Belt, One Road” http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/07/china-regional-global-

power-dollar, and S. Kennedy and D. Parker, “Building China’s 'One Belt, One Road’”, Center for Strategic and

International Studies (CSIS), April 2015, https://www.csis.org/analysis/building-china’s-“one-belt-one-road”.
10 In fall 2016, Chinese authorities announced stricter approval requirements for M&A deals worth more than

$10 billion (or $1 billion if the acquisition fell outside the investor’s core business area). See Casanova and Miroux

2017, Chapter 2, p. 41.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB
http://bit.ly/eMNCreport
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/07/china-regional-global-power-dollar
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/07/china-regional-global-power-dollar

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

11 China Tightens Overseas Investment To Reduce Risks, Forbes, December 22, 2017,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2017/12/22/china-tightens-overseas-investment-to-reduce-

risks/#c790bc772cfd.
12 China issues code of conduct for private firms investing overseas. Japan Times, December 10, 2017

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/12/19/business/china-issues-code-conduct-private-firms-investing-

overseas/#.
13 Using M&A microdata, such as those of the American Enterprise Institute, some observers estimate that 2018

Chinese outbound M&As may have been larger that indicated by official outflow data, and perhaps higher than in

2017. The increasingly important role that overseas subsidiaries of Chinese corporations have played in acquiring

assets abroad could explain the divergence between China’s official outward FDI and such microdata. Official

data would not capture such activities. Source: Alicia Garcia Herrero and Jianwei Xu, “China’s overseas mergers

and acquisitions may not have slowed down in 2017 and will probably boom in 2018”, Natixis Research, July 19,

2018.
14 See UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2016.
15 Source: https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2017/10/germany-tightens-rules.
16 As of now, the government can block deals involving the purchase of at least 25 per cent of the equity of a

German company by a non-EU entity if it endangers public order or national security. Under the new legislation,

the threshold would be reduced to 15 per cent. Source : https://www.ft.com/content/6ff764e8-9a1c-11e8-ab77-

f854c65a4465?ftcamp=crm/email/_2018___08___20180807__/emailalerts/Keyword_alert/product and

Foreign Investment Control in EU becomes more stringent”, by Y. Makarova,O. Rochman and F. Helmstadter,

August 9, 2018 at https://www.mofo.com/resources/publications/180808-foreign-investment-control-

eu.html?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
17 http://lcp.fr/actualites/loi-pacte-vers-un-controle-accru-des-investissements-etrangers-en-france
18 A white paper by the U.K. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was presented to Parliament

to further protect national security “from hostile actors using ownership of, or influence over, businesses and assets

to harm the country. (“National Security and Investment: A consultation on proposed legislative reforms Presented

to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy by Command of her Majesty”,

July 2018, Ref: Cm. 9637P. 9).
19 Source: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/Documents/Summary-of-FIRRMA.pdf
20 Based on data from UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2018, tables III.2 and III.3.
21 The 2016 presidential order was the third order in about 25 years since 1990.
22 The presidential order blocked the sale of the U.S. portion of Aixtron SE, a German chipmaker.
23 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/business/dealbook/australia-china-ausgrid-nsw-sydney.html.

References

Buckley, Peter J., Jeremy Clegg, Adam R. Cross, R., Xin Liu, Hinrich Voss, and Ping Zheng. 2007.

“The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment.” Journal of International

Business Studies 38 (4): 499–518.

Casanova, Lourdes, Anne Miroux. 2018. Emerging Markets Report 2018. Emerging Markets Reshaping

Globalization. 9 November 2018. ISBN-13: 978-1-7328042-2-7.

https://www.johnson.cornell.edu/Emerging-Markets-Institute.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB
https://www.ft.com/content/6ff764e8-9a1c-11e8-ab77-f854c65a4465?ftcamp=crm/email/_2018___08___20180807__/emailalerts/Keyword_alert/product
https://www.ft.com/content/6ff764e8-9a1c-11e8-ab77-f854c65a4465?ftcamp=crm/email/_2018___08___20180807__/emailalerts/Keyword_alert/product
http://lcp.fr/actualites/loi-pacte-vers-un-controle-accru-des-investissements-etrangers-en-france
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/business/dealbook/australia-china-ausgrid-nsw-sydney.html
https://www.johnson.cornell.edu/Emerging-Markets-Institute

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Casanova, Lourdes, Anne Miroux. 2017. Emerging Market Multinationals Report: Emerging

Multinationals in a Changing World. Emerging Markets Institute in collaboration with the OECD

development Center. S.C. Johnson School of Management. Cornell University.

http://bit.ly/eMNCreport. ISBN: 978-1-7328042-1-0.

Casanova, Lourdes, Anne Miroux. 2016. Emerging Market Multinationals Report: The China Surge.

Emerging Markets Institute in collaboration with the OECD development Center. S.C. Johnson

School of Management. Cornell University. http://bit.ly/eMNCreport. ISBN-13: 978-1-7328042-

0-3.

Chen, Shih. 2008. “The motives for international acquisitions: Capability procurements, strategic

considerations, and the role of ownership structures.” Journal of International Business Studies

39:454-471.

Deng, Ping. 2009. “Why do Chinese firms tend to acquire strategic assets in international expansion?”

Journal of World Business 44:74–84.

Garcia Herrero, Alicia, and Jianwei Xu. 2018. China’s overseas mergers and acquisitions may not

have slowed down in 2017 and will probably boom in 2018. Natixis Research, July 19, 2018.

Hanemann, Thilo, and Daniel Rosen. 2012. China Invests in Europe. Rhodium Group.

Luo, Yadong, Qiuzhi Xue, and Binjie Han. 2010. “How emerging market governments promote outward

FDI: Experience from China.” Journal of World Business 45 (1): 68–79.

Luo, Yadong, and Rosalie L. Tung. 2007. “International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A

springboard perspective.” Journal of International Business Studies 38 (4): 481–498.

Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOFCOM). , National Bureau of Statistics.

State Administration of Foreign Exchange (2017). 2017 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward

Foreign Direct Investment. China Statistics Press.

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/World%20Investment%20Report/Annex-Tables.aspx

Morck, Randall, Bernard Yeung, and Minyuan Zhao. 2008. “Perspectives on China’s outward foreign

direct investment.” Journal of International Business Studies 39 (3): 337–350.

Nicolas, Françoise. 2014. “China’s direct investment in the European Union: challenges and policy

responses.” China Economic Journal 7:103-125.

Ramasamy, Bala, Yeung, Matthew, and Sylvie Laforet. 2012. “China’s outward foreign direct

investment: location choice and firm ownership.” Journal of World Business 47:17–25.

Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ Database. https://www.capitaliq.com/

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development -UNCTAD. United Nations. New York and

Geneva. UNCTAD data for FDI and OFDI.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB
http://bit.ly/eMNCreport
http://bit.ly/eMNCreport
http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/World%20Investment%20Report/Annex-Tables.aspx
https://www.capitaliq.com/

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Wang, Chengqi L., Junjie Hong, Mario Kafouros, and Mike Wright. 2012. “Exploring the role of

government involvement in outward direct investment from emerging economies.” Journal of

International Business Studies 43 (7): 655–676.

Xu, Ting, Thieb Petersen, and Tianlong Wang. 2012. Cash in Hand: Chinese Foreign Direct Investment

in the U.S. and Germany. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

World Investment Report. 2018. Investment and new Industrial Policies. United Nations Conference on

Trade and Development. United Nations. New York and Geneva. ISBN 978-92-1-112926-7.

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Appendix 1. Biggest M&A announced M&A deals from July 1st, 2015 till June 30th, 2016 by

decreasing value

Transaction

Announcement Date
Target

Total Transaction

Value ($USDmm)
Buyers HQ - Country [Target] HQ - Country [Buyers]

11/23/2015 Allergan plc (NYSE:AGN) 190,971 Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) Ireland United States

09/17/2015 SABMiller plc (LSE:SAB) 113,215 Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV

(ENXTBR:ABI)

United Kingdom Belgium

05/18/2016 Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON) 66,321 Bayer AG (DB:BAYN) United States Germany

02/03/2016 Syngenta AG (SWX:SYNN) 43,000 China National Chemical Corporation Switzerland China

07/27/2015 Allergan plc, Global Generic

Pharmaceuticals Business

40,279 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

(NYSE:TEVA)

United States Israel

11/17/2015 Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE:NSC) 37,039 Canadian Pacific Railway Limited

(TSX:CP)

United States Canada

01/11/2016 Baxalta Incorporated 36,220 Shire plc (LSE:SHP) United States Ireland

07/01/2015 The Chubb Corporation 31,551 Chubb Limited (NYSE:CB) United States Switzerland

08/04/2015 Baxalta Incorporated 30,908 Shire plc (LSE:SHP) United States Ireland

01/25/2016 Tyco International plc 16,758 Johnson Controls International plc

(NYSE:JCI)

Ireland United States

02/23/2016 London Stock Exchange Group plc (LSE:LSE) 15,783 Deutsche Boerse AG (XTRA:DB1) United Kingdom Germany

12/07/2015 Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. 14,253 Acorn Holdings B.V. United States Netherlands

09/08/2015 Power Assets Holdings Limited (SEHK:6) 13,596 Assets Global International Limited Hong Kong British Virgin Islands

11/17/2015 Airgas, Inc. 13,459 Air Liquide SA (ENXTPA:AI) United States France

09/08/2015 Oil Search Limited (ASX:OSH) 12,529 Woodside Petroleum Ltd. (ASX:WPL) Papua New Guinea Australia

12/15/2015 Sanofi, Animal Health Business 12,457 Boehringer Ingelheim International

Gmbh

France Germany

02/09/2016 ITC Holdings Corp. (NYSE:ITC) 11,478 Fortis Inc. (TSX:FTS) United States Canada

08/25/2015 RSA Insurance Group plc (LSE:RSA) 10,934 Zurich Insurance Group AG (SWX:ZURN) United Kingdom Switzerland

09/04/2015 TECO Energy, Inc. 10,422 Emera Incorporated (TSX:EMA) United States Canada

07/02/2015 K+S Aktiengesellschaft (DB:SDF) 10,401 Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan

Inc. (TSX:POT)

Germany Canada

03/21/2016 IHS Inc. 10,339 IHS Markit Ltd. (NasdaqGS:INFO) United States United Kingdom

02/10/2016 Meda AB 10,071 Mylan N.V. (NasdaqGS:MYL) Sweden United Kingdom

04/28/2016 Medivation, Inc. (NasdaqGS:MDVN) 9,543 Sanofi (ENXTPA:SAN) United States France

03/30/2016 SGS Tool Company 9,046 Kyocera Corp. (TSE:6971) United States Japan

12/18/2015 Nanyang Commercial Bank Limited 8,771 China Cinda Asset Management Co.,

Ltd. (SEHK:1359)

Hong Kong China

06/21/2016 Supercell Oy 8,600 Tencent Holdings Limited (SEHK:700) Finland China

03/16/2016 Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. 8,275 Anbang Insurance Group Co., Ltd. United States China

08/06/2015 OCI N.V., European, North American And

Global Distribution Businesses

8,000 CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:CF) Netherlands United States

09/02/2015 Polyus Gold International Limited 7,693 Wandle Holdings Limited United Kingdom Cyprus

09/03/2015 Avolon Holdings Limited 7,656 HNA Group Co., Ltd. Ireland China

02/17/2016 Ingram Micro Inc. (NYSE:IM) 7,254 Tianjin Tianhai Investment Co., Ltd.

(SHSE:900938)

United States China

07/28/2015 Elster Group SE 6,524 Honeywell International Inc.

(NYSE:HON)

Germany United States

07/28/2015 Italcementi SpA (BIT:IT) 6,473 HeidelbergCement AG (DB:HEI) Italy Germany

07/29/2015 Cytec Industries Inc. 6,350 Solvay SA (ENXTBR:SOLB) United States Belgium

05/19/2016 FMC Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:FTI) 6,301 Technip SA (ENXTPA:TEC) United States France

11/02/2015 Dyax Corp. 5,886 Shire Pharmaceuticals International United States Ireland

11/03/2015 King Digital Entertainment plc 5,831 Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NasdaqGS:ATVI) Ireland United States

09/08/2015 MS Amlin plc 5,643 Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., Ltd. United Kingdom Japan

12/07/2015 Neptune Orient Lines Limited 5,560 CMA CGM S.A. Singapore France

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Transaction

Announcement Date
Target

Total Transaction

Value ($USDmm)
Buyers HQ - Country [Target] HQ - Country [Buyers]

01/15/2016 GE Appliances Inc. 5,400 Qingdao Haier Co., Ltd. (SHSE:600690) United States China

11/27/2015 China TieTong Telecommunications

Corporation

5,357 China Mobile Limited (SEHK:941) China Hong Kong

01/26/2016 Terex Corporation (NYSE:TEX) 5,230 Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science and

Technology Co., Ltd. (SZSE:000157)

United States China

03/14/2016 Tuxiana Corp. And CITIC Real Estate Co.,

Ltd.

5,146 China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd.

(SEHK:688)

China Hong Kong

09/29/2015 Reynolds America Subsidiaries And

Trademarks For Natural American Spirit

Outside U.S.

5,007 JT International Company Netherlands

B.V.

Japan Netherlands

12/03/2015 Komi Oil Ltd 5,000 Gaetano LLC Russia United States

08/11/2015 Terex Corporation (NYSE:TEX) 4,633 Konecranes Plc (HLSE:KCR1V) United States Finland

09/20/2015 Atmel Corporation 4,446 Dialog Semiconductor Plc (XTRA:DLG) United States United Kingdom

08/11/2015 Symetra Financial Corporation 4,414 Sumitomo Life Insurance Company United States Japan

05/18/2016 KUKA Aktiengesellschaft (DB:KU2) 4,386 Mecca International (BVI) Limited Germany British Virgin Islands

07/29/2015 Industrial Income Trust Inc. 4,279 Global Logistic Properties Limited,

Investment Arm

United States Singapore

06/29/2016 PrivateBancorp, Inc. (NasdaqGS:PVTB) 4,131 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

(TSX:CM)

United States Canada

11/23/2015 Edra Global Energy Bhd 4,011 China General Nuclear Power

Corporation

Malaysia China

12/17/2015 Acerta Pharma B.V. 4,000 AstraZeneca PLC (LSE:AZN) Netherlands United Kingdom

12/22/2015 99.81% stake in Finansbank, 0.2% stake in

Yatirim and Portföy and 29.87% stake in

Finans Finansal

3,935 Qatar National Bank S.A.Q. (DSM:QNBK) Turkey Qatar

05/06/2016 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,

Performance Materials Division

3,800 Evonik Industries AG (DB:EVK) United States Germany

09/08/2015 Amdipharm Mercury Company Limited 3,531 Concordia International Corp. (TSX:CXR) United Kingdom Canada

08/26/2015 Betfair Group PLC 3,502 Paddy Power Betfair plc (ISE:PPB) United Kingdom Ireland

01/11/2016 Legend Pictures, LLC 3,500 Dalian Wanda Group Co Ltd United States China

04/25/2016 Ball Corporation, Select Metal Beverage Can

Assets, Support and Functions in Europe,

Brazil and US

3,420 Ardagh Group S.A. United States Luxembourg

06/21/2016 Dematic Group S.à r.l. 3,250 KION GROUP AG (XTRA:KGX) Luxembourg Germany

03/11/2016 Portfolio of 19 Hotels Assets in China 3,234 Amare Investment Management China Singapore

10/22/2015 MEGlobal B.V. 3,200 EQUATE Petrochemical Company

(K.S.C.C.)

United Arab Emirates Kuwait

08/03/2015 HERE Holding Corporation 3,124 Daimler AG (XTRA:DAI); Bayerische

Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

(DB:BMW); AUDI AG (DB:NSU)

United States AUDI AG (DB:NSU) (Germany);

Bayerische Motoren Werke

Aktiengesellschaft (DB:BMW)

(Germany); Daimler AG (XTRA:DAI)

(Germany)

02/22/2016 Brake Bros Limited 3,100 Sysco Corporation (NYSE:SYY) United Kingdom United States

06/16/2016 Hermes Microvision, Inc. (GTSM:3658) 3,091 ASML Holding NV (ENXTAM:ASML) Taiwan Netherlands

03/28/2016 100% of Dell Systems Corporation And Dell

Technology & Solutions Limited And Dell

Services Pte. Ltd.

3,055 NTT DATA, Inc. Singapore United States

04/19/2016 SABMiller plc, European Business 2,901 Asahi Group Holdings, Ltd. (TSE:2502) United Kingdom Japan

12/09/2015 FRHI Holdings Limited 2,897 Accor S.A. (ENXTPA:AC) Canada France

11/13/2015 Skyway Concession Company, LLC 2,836 OMERS Administration Corp.; Canada

Pension Plan Investment Board; Ontario

Teachers' Pension Plan

United States Canada Pension Plan Investment

Board (Canada); OMERS

Administration Corp. (Canada);

Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan

(Canada)

07/30/2015 Swissport International Ltd. 2,818 HNA Group Co., Ltd. Switzerland China

06/30/2016 InterOil Corporation (NYSE:IOC) 2,817 Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) Singapore United States

11/02/2015 MedAssets, Inc. 2,775 Pamplona Capital Management LLP,

Private Equity

United States United Kingdom

05/09/2016 TF Holdings Ltd. 2,770 CMOC Limited Africa Hong Kong

06/14/2016 NXP Semiconductors NV, Standard Products

Business

2,750 Beijing JianGuang Asset Management

Co., Ltd.; Wise Road Capital Ltd.

Netherlands Beijing JianGuang Asset

Management Co., Ltd. (China); Wise

Road Capital Ltd. (China)

12/08/2015 Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc.

(NasdaqGS:FCS)

2,694 China Resources Microelectronics

Limited; Hua Capital Management Ltd.

United States China Resources Microelectronics

Limited (China); Hua Capital

Management Ltd. (China)

07/16/2015 GETRAG Getriebe- und Zahnradfabrik

Hermann Hagenmeyer GmbH & Cie KG

2,670 Magna International Inc. (TSX:MG) Germany Canada

01/19/2016 Rouse Properties, Inc. 2,576 Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

(TSX:BAM.A)

United States Canada

04/06/2016 Glencore Plc, Agricultural Products Business 2,500 Canada Pension Plan Investment Board United Kingdom Canada

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB

Volume 4, Number 2, 13-44, July-December 2019 doi.org/10.1344/JESB2019.2.j059

Online ISSN: 2385-7137 COPE Committee on Publication Ethics

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB Creative Commons License 4.0

Source: Based on Standard &Poors’ Capital IQ data accessed by September based of announced outbound M&A

transactions July 1, 2015- June 30, 2016.

Authors have excluded manually domestic transactions and those global ones where a consortium of

investors/companies from multiple countries were involved.

Transaction

Announcement Date
Target

Total Transaction

Value ($USDmm)
Buyers HQ - Country [Target] HQ - Country [Buyers]

06/05/2016 Asia Square Tower 1 2,499 Qatar Investment Authority Singapore Qatar

05/20/2016 InterOil Corporation (NYSE:IOC) 2,488 Oil Search Limited (ASX:OSH) Singapore Papua New Guinea

06/02/2016 ALS Limited (ASX:ALQ) 2,478 Advent International Corporation; Bain

Capital, LP

Australia Advent International Corporation

(United States); Bain Capital, LP

(United States)

07/13/2015 Alent plc 2,351 Platform Specialty Products Corporation

(NYSE:PAH)

United Kingdom United States

12/03/2015 9.01% Stake In Grupo Financiero Inbursa,

S.A.B. de C.V. And 17.3% Stake In The Bank

of East Asia

2,322 Criteria Caixa, S.A., Single-Shareholder

Corporation

Mexico Spain

11/25/2015 PetroChina Kunlun Gas Co., Ltd. 2,321 Kunlun Energy Company Limited

(SEHK:135)

China Hong Kong

10/01/2015 Representaciones e Investigaciones

Medicas, S.A. de C.V.

2,300 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

(NYSE:TEVA)

Mexico Israel

07/15/2015 Shred-it International Inc. 2,300 Stericycle, Inc. (NasdaqGS:SRCL) Canada United States

07/27/2015 Sirius International Insurance Group Ltd. 2,235 CM International Holding Pte. Ltd. Bermuda Singapore

12/31/2015 Priory Group Limited 2,224 Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.

(NasdaqGS:ACHC)

United Kingdom United States

04/15/2016 Polycom, Inc. (NasdaqGS:PLCM) 2,160 Mitel Networks Corporation

(NasdaqGS:MITL)

United States Canada

12/16/2015 Pacific Hydro Pty Ltd. 2,160 State Power Investment Corporation Australia China

09/23/2015 Landmark Aviation, L.L.C. 2,065 BBA Aviation plc (LSE:BBA) United States United Kingdom

10/21/2015 Viom Networks Limited 2,064 ATC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. India Singapore

10/17/2015 Wincor Nixdorf Aktiengesellschaft

(XTRA:WIN)

2,053 Diebold, Incorporated (NYSE:DBD) Germany United States

05/10/2016 RHP Western Portfolio Group And American

Home Portfolio Group And AMC Portfolio

And MHC Portfolio IV

2,035 Brookfield Property Group LLC United States Canada

04/11/2016 gategroup Holding AG (SWX:GATE) 2,016 HNA Group Co., Ltd. Switzerland China

05/23/2016 WMF Group GmbH 1,916 SEB SA (ENXTPA:SK) Germany France

02/19/2016 Home Retail Group plc 1,916 Steinhoff International Holdings N.V.

(JSE:SNH)

United Kingdom South Africa

11/09/2015 Fidelity & Guaranty Life (NYSE:FGL) 1,897 Anbang Insurance Group Co., Ltd. United States China

09/18/2015 Veda Group Limited 1,873 Equifax Inc. (NYSE:EFX) Australia United States

03/31/2016 SMCP S.A.S. 1,861 Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co.

Ltd.

France China

http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/JESB
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/