Impact Of Mergers And Acquisitions on workers or employees:

Aftermath of mergers and acquisitions impact the employees or the workers the most. It is a well known fact that whenever there is a merger or an acquisition, there are bound to be lay offs. In the event when a new resulting company is efficient business wise, it would require less number of people to perform the same task. Under such circumstances, the company would attempt to downsize the labor force. If the employees who have been laid off possess sufficient skills, they may in fact benefit from the lay off and move on for greener pastures. But it is usually seen that the employees those who are laid off would not have played a significant role under the new organizational set up. This accounts for their removal from the new organization set up. These workers in turn would look for re employment and may have to be satisfied with a much lesser pay package than the previous one. Even though this may not lead to drastic unemployment levels, nevertheless, the workers will have to compromise for the same. If not drastically, the mild undulations created in the local economy cannot be ignored fully.

http://finance.mapsofworld.com/merger-acquisition/impact.html
-------------


the impact of mergers and acquisitions on corporate stakeholder practices

Particularly for hostile takeovers, stakeholder interests (and, arguably, the corporate practices associated with them) may be damaged during M&A, social harms may follow takeovers, and value within companies can be transferred from other stakeholders to shareholders, which could create loss of innovative stakeholder practices or new problems. Other factors that can create pre- and post-merger differences include issues of cultural `fit' between the merging companies and resource constraints, which can hinder integration of innovative or progressive stakeholder practices (Weber 1996). One recent study found that hostile bidders may be particularly prone to `take necessary steps' to ensure company performance post-acquisition, creating significant restructuring (and possible reduction of expenditures on stakeholder-related practices) within the company post-merger (Rajand and Forsyth 2002). The attendant implications of restructuring (e.g. down- or `right'-sizing lay-offs and related community impacts) could readily result in reduced support for employees, communities and even customers through changes in product quality or service, creating more stakeholder-related problems or concerns as well as reducing innovation. A study of Australian banks, for example, found that post-merger firms may be less efficient than they were pre-merger (Avkiran 1999). These findings indicate that customers post-merger are being less well treated, there may be more pressure for performance placed on (possibly fewer) employees, and voluntary programmes may be cut back. Extending these ideas, perhaps post-merger performance with respect to stakeholder and environmental practices may also be weaker than pre-merger performance because companies have assumed more debt, are experiencing integration problems, or are more focused on market consolidation and cost efficiencies. Taking the lessons from the research discussed above, we generally expect to see fewer strengths (less innovative practices) and more concerns (more problems) in stakeholder and environmental practices post-merger (see Table 1) than existed pre-merger. Thus: H2/3: Merged firms will exhibit fewer stakeholder-related strengths and more concerns than pre-merger (acquirer and target) firms in stakeholder arenas.

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/22097296/The-Impact-of-Mergers-and-Acquisitions-on-Corporate-Stakeholder-Practices
---------

Other Articles:

http://www.halfcostproducts.com/mergers%20&%20acquisitions.htm