Journal of Project Management 5 (2020) 189–200

Contents lists available at GrowingScience

Journal of Project Management

homepage: www.GrowingScience.com

Synergies in merger & acquisition: A case study of SMEs in Vietnam

Bui Hong Diepa and Tung Tran Anhb*

a
Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry, Vietnam
b
Hong Bang International University, Vietnam
CHRONICLE ABSTRACT

Article history: This paper aims to shed light on whether the Merger & Acquisition (M&A) among several cases
Received: April 8 2020 create values for Vietnam small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Using 48 months of actual
Received in revised format: May data to compare the pre- and post- merger performance, the study evaluates the impacts of the
4 2020
M&A on business performance collected from HOSE stock exchange website. The result shows
Accepted: June 8 2020
Available online: that out of 11 chosen key performance indicators (KPIs) and those selected firms only we have
June 8 2020 2 KPIs with better results while 6 KPIs do not change and 3 KPIs are even worse after the M&A.
Keywords: In addition, the finding indicated that very few actions were implemented and hence unsurpris-
M&A ingly, the M&A outcomes did not really match with firms’ original expectations. From the the-
Synergies ory and the actual results of the analysis, the study provides a number of practical areas that
SMEs companies should focus on to increase the chance of success for their M&A.
Vietnam
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada.

1. Introduction

According to Cartwright and Schoenberg (2006), many top executives see M&A as a key compo-
nent of corporate strategy by offering opportunities for higher profitability, cost reductions and
long-term growth. However, top executives seem to underestimate the risks involved in M&A since
according to Harvard Business Review, from 70% to 90% of M&A deals fails to create the intended
values. In Vietnam, the M&A market has grown rapidly in the last 14 years. According to StoxPlus
(2015), there are only less than 40 M&A deals in the Vietnam market with total transactions value
of less than USD 0.5 billion in 2005. However, by 2015, total transactions value increased by more
than 10 times to USD5.2 billion with 341 deals completed. Inbound M&A into Vietnam accounted
for 46% of M&A deal value and totaled US$2.42 billion whereas domestic M&A had a total value
of USD2.70 billion. As Vietnam focuses to attract more and more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI),
it has become a very attractive place for M&A. There are still many challenges with M&A activities
in Vietnam however. For example, Allen consulting firm mentioned several keys M&A legal issues
for foreign investors in Vietnam such as

 Lack of clear legal recognition, and track record of enforcement for issues in M&A,
 Lack of detailed guidelines for M&A of public companies,
 Equity investments in VND means currency exchange risk for foreign investor,
 Anti-trust issues can be a deal-breaker.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T. T. Anh)

© 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada

doi: 10.5267/j.jpm.2020.6.001
190

According to Mr. Christopher Kummer – President of Institute of M&A Association (IMAA),

Swiss, the integration between the two companies post M&A is a real challenge since the two
merged companies have different strategies, culture and organization structure. In Vietnam, we can
see many issues related to M&A even between big names like Masan and Vinacafe, SHB and Ha-
buBank, Decson and Binh Thien An, Bibica and Lotte, such as management boards of the two
companies could not agree on business strategy after merger or management boards of the two
companies could not agree on how the company should be run and who can make the decisions.
Company like Tribeco even wanted to stop the company’s operation after the merger (Jemison &
Sitkin, 1986; Sirower & Sahni, 2006).

Besides, there are very limited Vietnamese literatures in this area to guide companies to implement
successful M&A (Vuong et al., 2009; Entezarkheir & Moshiri, 2015; Vu Anh Dung, Dang Xuan
Minh, 2012, Nguyen Thanh Lan, 2015). Moreover, there were many arguments arose that M&A
was neither an actual remedy for Vietnam SMEs firms to achieve the internationalization target nor
increase business performance in domestic market. Using the synergy sources framework from Ross
et al. (2010) and the practical M&A guidelines from KPMG (1999), the authors would like to sci-
entifically validate these arguments. Through this example, the author also recommends an ap-
proach that other companies in Vietnam could use to improve their M&A results (Picot, 2002).
2. Literature review
2.1.Concept of Merger and Acquisition
Mergers and acquisitions are the situation when two companies are combined to achieve strategic
and business objectives (Chatterjee & Bourgeois, 2002). According to DePamphilis (2011), a mer-
ger is usually the mutual agreement by which two equal organizations merge to create a single entity
whereas an acquisition normally refers to the situation where a much bigger organization takes over
a smaller one. On the other hand, Coates (2014) from Harvard Law School and Ross et al. (2010)
both divide M&A into 3 types: merger or consolidation, asset purchases and stock purchases. In
Vietnam, M&A activities are governed by different laws including The Law on Enterprises in 2014,
The Law on Investment in 2014, and The Law on Competition 2014.

Types of Merger and Acquisitions

When two organizations are within the same industry, the merger is called a horizontal merger.
Related merger is when organizations that produce or sell products that share certain commonalities
merge with each other (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). Mergers between organizations operating in dif-
ferent stages in the same value chain are categorized as vertical mergers. The target company can
also be a private company or a public company. Acquisition of public companies is often more
publicized event in the media comparing to private companies (DePamphilis, 2011; Ismail et al.,
2011). There are also domestic acquisitions, in which both the acquirer and the target companies
are from the same country versus cross-borders acquisitions where the two companies come from
different countries. An acquisition can also be “friendly”, in other words, meeting the desires of the
seller and the buyer, versus hostile (non-friendly) when the acquiring company buying significant
portion of stocks of the acquired company against the wish of the acquired company. Besides ac-
cording to Martynova and Renneboog (2006), a full acquisition is when the acquirer buys 100% of
the ownership of the target company whereas in partial acquisitions, the acquirer only buys part of
the ownership of the acquired company (Wang & Moini, 2012).

Objectives of Merger and Acquisitions

According to Sudarsanam, (1995), there are two different perspectives for understanding the objec-
tives the companies have for starting an M&A: the maximization perspective of shareholders’
wealth and the managerial perspective. In the maximization perspective of shareholders’ wealth,
the company decision to acquire another company is fully because companies look for ways to
 B. H. Diep and T,T.Anh / Journal of Project Management 5 (2020) 191

maximize the wealth of the shareholders. The maximization of the value of the shareholder takes
place when the net present value of the investment is positive. The second perspective is the mana-
gerial perspective for conducting an M&A, which focuses more on the motives of top executives in
the company. These can be varied such as growth reasons, to use previous underemployed abilities
and skills, risk diversification (Ansoff, 1958) and to evade being the ones being taken over.

2.2.Synergy

According to Burney (2008), the “Synergy” word originates from Greek and it means to work to-
gether. Synergy has been explained as “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” or put it
simply 1+1=3 (Sherman, 1998). In M&A, synergy can be explained as - If ‘Company A’ merges
with ‘Company B’, the value of merged entity called ‘Company C’ should be greater than the sum
of the values of Company A and Company B (Johnson et al., 2015).

{V(1) + V(2)} < V(3) Where:

V(1) = Independent Value of Company A,

V(2) = Independent Value of Company B,

V(3) = Value of Merged Entity – Company B

 Synergy = ∆V = V(3)- (V(1)+ V(2))

Various empirical studies show the successes or failures of merged companies. Petitt and Ferris
(2013) in their study on M&A and synergy found that when two companies enters into an M&A
transaction and synergies are apparent between them then there is high potential that value will be
created and the M&A can be a success. Grinblatt and Titman (2004) also suggest companies should
only pursue an M&A if the value of the acquirer and the target company when they operate as a
single company is greater rather than sum of the values that individual ones can bring when operate
independently. Godbole (2013) argues that Merger and Acquisition values actually come from syn-
ergy and for an M&A to create its intended values, company management must find a way to create
synergies between the two companies in the post-merger, integration phase. Not only the academic
but also the major consulting companies talk about the same. For example, KPMG in its “Synergies:
A business guide report” in 2011 also emphasized that “without synergies, an M&A is unlikely to
result in any significant incremental shareholder value”. According to KPMG (2001), synergies are
very important in M&A as 1) It directly impacts the bidder price where normally, bidders would
need to pay a premium to the acquiring company and this premium is normally calculated based on
the additional values or synergies that the bidders think it can get from the deal. 2) Synergy is key
to form the message that the successful bidder will make to deliver an effective communication to
the stock market about the M&A and 3) Synergy is also key for successful bidder to form a message
to get buy-in from managers and employees of the acquiring and acquired companies.

Sources of synergy

According to Mallikarjunappa and Nayak (2007), synergies might come from more efficient man-
agement, improved production techniques, economies of scale and scope, redeployment of assets,
resources combination or the exploitation of market power or any number of values enhancing
mechanisms. According to Ross et al. (2010), value synergies is based on the incremental cash flow,
which is the change in cash flow of the combined firm and the sum of the cash flow for two firms
considered separately.

 Synergy = ∆CF = CF(3)- ( CF(1)+ CF(2) )

192

∆CF= ∆EBIT + ∆Depreciation - ∆Tax - ∆Capital requirement

= ∆Revenue- ∆Cost - ∆Tax - ∆Capital requirement

where: ∆Revenue, ∆Cost, ∆Tax respectively are the difference in the revenue, cost, tax of the com-
bined firm versus the sum of the cash flow for two separate firms. ∆Capital requirement is the
changes of fixed assets and net working capital. Consequently, Ross et al. (2010) suggested that
M&A synergy can be categorized into four main types as shown in below figure

Cost
Lower Taxes
Reduction

Revenue Reductions in
Enhancement Capital Needs
SYNERGY

Fig. 1. Sources of synergy

2.2.1. Revenue enhancement

Increased revenue can come from using shared distribution channel or media or sales forces to sell
for the products and brands of both the acquiring and acquired companies. With an increased market
share, mergers can increase the market power of the acquiring company as it has more controls on
prices or quantities within the market and thus increase the revenues. Vertical integration can also
result in higher market power by increasing entry barriers and lowering input costs for the firm.
(Sudarsanam, 2006-2007; Faulconbridge et al., 2008; Galpin & Herndon, 2000; Srivastava & Datta,
2002).

KPMG (1999) mentioned in their “Mergers and Acquisitions: Global Research Report” that “syn-
ergies are vital to the success of any merger or acquisition without them, an M&A is unlikely to
result in any significant additional growth in shareholder’s value”. They urge companies going into
M&A to have a clear understanding of what and where value can be obtained in revenue. Based on
KPMG survey (1999) on over 700 cross border deals between the 2 years from 1996 to 1998, com-
panies can actually focus on the following factors to increase revenue like in figure 4 : New market,
new customer, cross-selling, marketing, sales force, new product, improved customer services, new
distribution channels.
 B. H. Diep and T,T.Anh / Journal of Project Management 5 (2020) 193

New customers
New markets
Marketing
New product development
Customer services and back-up
Access to new distribution channels
Sales force efficiency
Cross selling

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Fig. 2. Areas for increasing revenue

2.2.2. Cost reduction

Cost reduction involves streamlining the combined operations in such a manner that by joining
functional activities, the acquirer and acquiring companies can reduce costs by avoiding duplication
in marketing, research and development as well as optimize costs related to sales, human resource,
Finance, Admin and other overhead costs. Operational cost synergies in terms of economies of scale
can also be achieved by spreading the fixed costs over increasing production volumes and hence
lowering the average unit cost. Besides, a merger can also help to reduce excess capacity and the
acquirer can therefore, adjust supply levels to match demands to optimize costs. Last but not least,
merger can also lead to a stronger buyer power to lower input prices (DePamphilis, 2011; Marks &
Mirvis, 2010). By reducing costs the combined firm can improve its margins and thereby boost
profits given that the price and sales volumes are unchanged. For example, in the airline industry,
when Kingfisher Airlines acquired Deccan Airways and Jet Airways acquired Sahara Airlines, both
were expecting to achieve substantial savings through operations synergies such as reduction in the
combined number of flights on the same routes, sharing of commercial and ground handling staff,
rationalization of routes, reduction in the combined number of airplanes in use and so on (Gupta,
2012; Dringoli, 2016; Grotenhuis, 2009; Sevenius, 2003). Similar to synergy in revenue, KPMG
(1999) also reports the key areas for potential cost synergies that companies can get from the fol-
lowing factors: Headcount reductions, buying and merchandising, supply chain, procurement, man-
ufacturing, warehousing and distribution, new product development, R&D in Fig. 3. These factors
are chosen and also grouped into 5 main factors as below:

Head count reductions

Buying and merchandising
Supply chain
Procurement
Manufacturing
Warehousing/distribution
New product development
R&D
Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Fig. 3. Areas for saving cost

194

2.2.3. Lower taxes

According to Gupta (2012), tax synergy might occur when merging a loss-making company with a
profitable one so that the merged company can write-off accumulated losses of the loss-making
company against the profits of the profit-making company. Tax synergy can also arise in cross-
border M&A, when the combined company might take the opportunity to optimize their tax pay by
allocating more works and costs to the new country should the tax rate is lower there. According to
Auerbach and Reishus (1987), there are clear tax benefits available at the corporate level in the form
of stepped-up asset bases and the increased utilization of tax losses and tax credits. Even at stake-
holder level, tax benefits might be available through an M&A deal for example, shareholders of
acquired companies might receive payments when selling their shares which are at a much lower
tax rate than the stakeholders normal income tax rate or even in some cases non-taxable (Auerbach
& Reishus, 1987)

2.2.4. Reductions in capital investment

M&A can help to reduce the combined investment needed by the two firms According to Gupta
(2012), reduction in capital investment synergy involves combining both the acquirer and target
companies’ Balance sheets to achieve a better gearing ratio or a reduction in the weighted average
cost of capital (WACC). Companies can create value through merger and acquisition by investing
the capital they raise from investors to generate future cash flows (Koller, 2009). This financial
synergy through mergers and acquisitions can help to lower the cost of capital and therefore,
increase company value. In unrelated acquisition, the acquirer can acquire another company with
un-related cash flows and thereby reduce risk by diversifying their financials (Schall & Higgins,
1975). Mewes (2015) also suggests smaller companies generally have to pay a premium when
borrowing money relative to larger companies however, when two mid-sized companies merge,
they can lower their combined cost of capital more than they could individually. An example is the
merger of Reliance Petrochemicals Limited (RPL) with the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) in
1991-92 by “lowering the cost of capital so as to allow them to invest in capital intensive projects
with various refineries” (Gupta, 2012; Haspeslagh & Jemison, 1991).

3. Methodology

There are two common research approaches, i.e. quantitative vs. qualitative and this research uses
both research approaches in order to insights into the M&A deal among SMEs in Vietnam. In quan-
titative method, First, the author collects financial performance data from audited financial state-
ments as well as from various internal management reports. Data during the 4 period from 2014 to
2018 were collected to compare the performance before and after M&A. The author runs a paired
sample T-test on these data to validate if there was any significant change in SMEs performance
before and after the M&A. Due to confidentiality; a number of data presented in this thesis has been
normalized reason show only the percentage comparison to a base year before M&A. Second, the
author also performs in depth interviews with key personnel in selected firms. In-depth interviews
are personal and unstructured and aim to identify the participant’s emotions, feelings, and opinions
about the M&A. The author also used content analysis, which is the type of research where gathered
data is categorized in themes and sub-themes so that they can be compared (Moore et al., 2006), to
analyze the interviewed data. An advantage of this data analysis approach is the data collected could
be simplified and reduced, while at the same time producing results that may then measure using
quantitative techniques. On the other hand, Qualitative Research is primarily exploratory. It is used
to understand underlying reasons and motivations. It helps to provide problem insights into the
problem or develop hypotheses for potential quantitative research. In contrast to quantitative anal-
ysis, qualitative outcomes are normally not quantifiable or measurable. Qualitative analysis is more
appropriate for small data samples situation. Its advantage is that “it offers a complete description
and analysis of a research subject, without limiting the scope of the research and the nature of
 B. H. Diep and T,T.Anh / Journal of Project Management 5 (2020) 195

participant’s responses” (Collis & Hussey, 2003). However, because the outcomes of qualitative
research can be based on from researcher’s personal judgments and interpretations therefore, a
drawback of this research approach is the quality is heavily based on the skills and abilities of re-
searchers. Also, according to Bell (2005), there are risks that the results of qualitative research might
not reflect all the opinions of a wider population as the approach is more appropriate for small data
sample. In this paper, qualitative method is used to clarify the concepts like M&A and synergy as
well as to analyze the M&A case.

4. Findings

The author runs a paired sample T-test on the data to validate whether there was any significant
change in performance after the M&A. The significance level is higher than 0.05, by conventional
criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant where as if the significance is
smaller than 0.05, this difference is considered to be statistically significant.

4.1. Result of Synergy indicators

Revenue enhancement

Those table below illustrated the pair-sample T-test of revenue enhancement after M&A

Table 1
Paired sample T-test SMEs revenue growth
Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the (2-tailed)
Deviation Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 3 Growth 1 - Growth 2 9.08% 0.27% 3.2% 2.24 16.38% 2.8969 23 0.0145

Table 2
Paired sample T-test SMEs revenue per employee
Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the (2-tailed)
Deviation Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 11 Rev 1 - Rev 2 0.0015 -0.0076 0.002 -0.001995 -0.000972 6.3854 23 .0001

Table 3
Paired sample T-test SMEs customer satisfaction
Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval of the (2-tailed)
Deviation Error Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 6 SAT 1 - SAT 2 4.2432 1.0713 .5249 3.8916 6.0398 3.578 23 .5620

Table 4
Paired sample T-test SMEs ROE
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the tailed)
Deviation Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 ROE 1 - ROE 2 - 0.45% 0.17% 1.10% -0.7561% -0.1389% -.6414 23 0.7097

Table 5
Paired sample T-test SMEs ROA
Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Devia- Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the (2-tailed)
tion Mean Difference
Lower Upper

Pair 2 ROA 1 - ROA 2 -0.03547% 0.42407% 0.08656% -0.21454% 0.14360% -.410 23 .686
196

Cost reduction

The below indicators were used to analyze whether firms achieved cost reduction synergies after
M&A

Table 6
Paired sample T-test SMEs Gross Profit
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the tailed)
Deviation Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 4 GPM 1 - GPM 2 -1.02043% 1.99942% 0.40813% -1.86471% -0.17615% -2.500 23 .020

Table 7
Paired sample T-test SMEs EBIT/Sales
Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the (2-tailed)
Deviation Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 7 E/S 1 - E/S 2 -0.08027% 1.77714% 0.36276% -0.83069% 0.67015% -.221 23 .827

Table 8
Paired sample T-test SMEs Operating Ratio
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-
Mean Std. Devi- Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the tailed)
ation Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 8 O/P 1 - O/P 2 -1.04907% 1.55299% 0.31700% -1.70484% -0.39329% -3.309 23 .003

Reduction in capital needs

Table 10
Paired sample T-test SMEs Debt-to-Equity
Paired Differences t df Sig.
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the (2-tailed)
Deviation Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 5 DEB 1 - DEB 2 0.9792 .2025 .0408 .8947 1.0636 2.981 23 .000

Table 11 summarizes the results of paired sample t-test results on the 10 KPIs for SMEs perfor-
mance before and after M&A

Table 11
The summary of synergy indicators before and after M&A - Pair sample t-test results
Number Area Indicators Results
1 Revenue growth rate Worst
2 Revenue per employee No change
3 Customer satisfaction score No change
Revenue enhancement
4 Customer survey on M&A deal No change
5 ROA No change
6 ROE No change
7 Cost reduction Gross profit Better
8 Operating Ratio: Opex cost / Sales No change
9 EBIT / Sales Worst
10 Reduction in capital needs Debt to equity ratio Better

It can be seen from the results of the quantitative analysis in the previous section that those selected
firms achieved no revenue increment synergies (out of 6 KPIs, 1 KPI worse and 5 KPIs unchanged)
and very little cost reduction in synergy (Out of 3 KPIs, 1 KPI better, 1 KPI unchanged and 1 KPI
worsen). Our hypothesis is that firms got this result because they haven’t done much in terms of
 B. H. Diep and T,T.Anh / Journal of Project Management 5 (2020) 197

creating synergy in this M&A and we will validate that based on the sources of synergy framework
and the KPMG practical guideline explained in literature review part.

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

As can be seen from the quantitative and qualitative analysis, we can see that those cases of M&A
are far away from meeting the original expectations that the two companies have. The key reasons
are because they haven’t done much in term of synergy creation both:

- Pre M&A: No planning on how to create synergies from the M&A

- After M&A: Limited actions to create synergies in almost all potential areas.

Companies can use the sources of synergy as a framework to review integration process in M&A
deal, a demonstration of how this could be done is shown with the SMEs case study.

Consulting firms like KPMG suggest that companies should set up a cross functional project team
to plan then execute the plan following M&A annoucement to realise synergies (KPMG 2009).
Integration project planning and execution should go hand in hand with synergy evaluation as a key
to merger success. Through project plan, companies should work out exactly how synergies will be
attained, and also how the combined business will be stabilized to preserve current value. KMPG
reports that companies prioritized pre-deal integration project planning are 13% more likely than
average to have a successful deal. Companies should remember they only have a ‘honeymoon’
period of some 100 days after deal completion to take hold of the business and begin realizing
benefits.

The author strongly recommends that SMEs to setup a project team to implement required actions
to create synergy. They should first review the different areas of synergies to see which ones are
more relevant for them. The author recommends the below 4 areas as the most relevant and
valueable for SMEs to focus on first due to their potential values as well as the easiness to
implement:

a. Redudant positions: Although this is a very people sensitive activity, with determination,
SMEs’s management can implement this quite quickly as compared to other areas of
synergy opportunities. SMEs management should note that they might never satisfy all
stakeholders wishes but they need to ensure all the views from different stakeholders are
taken into consideration i.e. Central Group owner, SMEs owner, management staffs,
employees etc. For impacted stakeholders, actions should be planned upfront to minimise
impacts on the overall project.
b. Sourcing consolidation: This is also another easy area for SMEs to look in to. They can form
a centralised Sourcing team to review and compare all category of spending in both SMEs
and Central Group Vietnam companies in order to consolidate and generate savings from
optimising these spendings. In term of product procurement, SMEs should combine with
Central Group when negotiating with product vendors such as Samsung, LG, Sony, etc …
for a lower price. This could be a competitive advantage for SMEs compared to other
competitors in Vietnam market, who don’t have such a big partner to increase its negotiation
power.
c. Rationalize distribution centers: In the current electronic home appliance market in
Vietnam, SMEs should continue to invest to open new stores in appropriate new locations
if they don’t want to be beaten by competitors like thegioididong. Additional capitals from
M&A should be utilized instead of keeping idle. They should also continue to collaborate
with other Central Group subsidiaries like BigC Vietnam to get the best location for its
stores.
198

d. Back-office consolidation: SMEs should look at re-engineering business process from end-
to-end to not only remove duplicated processes but also to take advantages of the best
practices from the two companies. This is a big, challenging project but if implemented
successful, would bring significant values for SMEs.

References

Allen consulting (2016). Ten key M&A legal issues for foreign investors in Vietnam. at
http://www.allens.com.au/pubs/pdf/asia/Vietnam-MA-170629.pdf
Ansoff, H. I. (1958). A model for diversification. Management Science, 4(4), 392.
Atradius (2016) at https://atradiusdutchstatebusiness.nl/en/publications/top-eight-most-promising-
markets-of-2016-.html
Sherman, A. J. (2005). Mergers and Acquisitions from A to Z (2nd ed). Saranac Lake:AMACOM.
Burney, A. (2008). Inductive and deductive research approach. Department of Computer Science,
University of Karachi, Pakistan, 22.
Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). 30 years of mergers and acquisitions research: Recent
advances and future opportunities. British Journal of Management, 17(S1), S1-S5.
Chatterjee, S., & Bourgeois, L. J. (2002). A Framework for Acquisition Success: Post-Acquisition
Resource Interactions. Batten Institute, Darden Graduate School of Business, University Of Vir-
ginia.
Corporate Finance Institute (2015). What are M&A Synergies?
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/valuation/mergers-acquisitions-ma-
synergies/
Deloitte (2016). Retail in Vietnam Emerging market, emerging growth. at
http://www.iberglobal.com/files/2016/vietnam_retail.pdf
Deloitte (2015). Integration Report 2015 Putting the pieces together. at
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/no/Documents/mergers-
acqisitions/integration-report-2015.pdf
DePamphilis, D. (2011). Mergers, acquisitions, and other restructuring activities: An integrated
approach to process, tools, cases, and solutions (5th Edition). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Dringoli, A. (2016). Merger and Acquisition Strategies: How to Create Value. Edward Elgar Pub-
lishing.
Entezarkheir, M., & Moshiri, S. (2015). Merger induced changes of innovation: Evidence from a
panel of US firms. Unpublished paper, Huron University College, Western University.
Faulconbridge, J., R., Hall, S., & Beaverstock, J., V., (2008). New Insights into the
Internationalization of Producer Services: Organizational Strategies and Spatial
Galpin, T. J., & Herndon, M. (2000). The complete guide to mergers and acquisitions. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Godbole, P. G. (2013). Mergers, acquisitions and corporate restructuring. Vikas Publishing House.
Grinblatt, M., & Titman, S. (2004). Financial markets and corporate strategy. Mc Graw Hill.
Grotenhuis, F. D. (2009). Mergers and acquisitions in Japan: Lessons from a Dutch‐Japanese case
study. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 28(3), 45-54.
Gupta, P. K. (2012). Mergers and acquisitions (M&A): The strategic concepts for the nuptials of
corporate sector. Innovative Journal of Business and Management, 1(4), 60-68.
Haleblian, J., Devers, C. E., McNamara, G., Carpenter, M. A., & Davison, R. B. (2009). Taking
stock of what we know about mergers and acquisitions: A review and research agenda. Journal
of Management, 35(3), 469-502.
Haspeslagh, P. C., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through cor-
porate renewal (Vol. 416). New York: Free Press.
Ismail, T. H., Abdou, A. A., & Annis, R. M. (2011). Review of literature linking corporate perfor-
mance to mergers and acquisitions. The Review of Financial and Accounting Studies, 1(1), 89-
104.
 B. H. Diep and T,T.Anh / Journal of Project Management 5 (2020) 199

Jemison, D. & Sitkin, S. (1986). Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. The Academy of
Management Review, 11(1), 145-163.
Johnson, Y., Ernest, K., & Samuel, A. (2015). The impact of mergers and acquisitions on service
quality of banks in Ghana: Case study of Eco Bank and Access Bank Ghana. International
Journal of Business and Management, 10(12), 167 -180.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance,
Harvard Business Review, January-February, 71-79.
Koller, T., Goedhart, M., Wessels, D., & Copeland, T. E. (2009). Valuation: Measuring and
managing the value of companies (5th ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kathryn Rudie Harrigan (2012). The Synergy Limitation Paradox
KPMG (1999). Mergers and Acquisitions: Global Research Report at
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/eqnotes/KPMGM&A.pdf
KPMG (2001), Synergies: A business guide
http://www1.american.edu/academic.depts/ksb/finance_realestate/rhauswald/fin673/673mat/K
PMG%20%282001%29,%20Synergies%20Guide.pdf
L.E.K consulting (2016). Mergers & Acquisitions: What Winners Do to Beat the Odds.
https://www.lek.com/sites/default/files/L.E.K._Mergers_Acquisitions-
What_Winners_Do_to_Beat_the_Odds.pdf
Martynova, M., & Renneboog, L. (2006). Mergers and acquisitions in Europe. Advances in corpo-
rate finance and asset pricing, 13-75.
Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (2010). Joining forces: Making one plus one equal three in mergers,
acquisitions, and alliances. John Wiley & Sons.
Mayer Brown consulting, 2012 at https://m.mayerbrown.com/Files/Publication/5bf9d1aa-ac49-
40db-adfd-d5cab9235df5/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/14e59549-5588-4aa1-95cb-
e45a2e52256a/12199.pdf
McKinsey (2010). A McKinsey perspective on value creation and synergies at
https://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/organization/latest_thiNguyen
Kiming/~/media/D74F0B9DCDAB4EAE918D2D578E7C7AF7.ashx
Mitch Duckler (2016). Driving Organic Growth - http://www.fullsurge.com/resources/driving-
organic-growth
Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I., & Notz, W. (2006). Statistics: Concepts and controversies. Macmillan.
NIVEN P.R. (2006). Balanced scorecard step-by-step: Maximizing performance and maintaining
results. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 318p.
Nguyen Thanh Lan (2015) - Hoạt động mua bán và sáp nhập trong lĩnh vực bất động sản Việt Nam
– Nhìn từ các thương vụ điển hình
Picot, G. (2002). Handbook of international mergers and acquisitions: Preparation, Implementation
and Integration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
Vuong, Q. H., Tran, T. D., Nguyen, T. C. H., & Ha, C. (2009). Mergers and acquisitions in Vi-
etnam’s emerging market economy, 1990-2009. Centre Emile Bernheim Research Institute in
Management Sciences.
Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R., Jaffe, J. F., & Jordan, B. D. (2009). Corporate finance: Core principles
& applications. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Saigon online, 2015 - “M&A - Thách thức và cơ hội” at
http://www.sggp.org.vn/xuctiencongnghiep/2015/3/378051/
Schall, L. D., & Higgins, R. C. (1975). Corporate bankruptcy and conglomerate merger. The
Journal of Finance - LA English, 30(1), 93.
Srivastava, R. P., & Datta, D. K. (2002). Evaluating mergers and acquisitions: A belief function
approach. In Belief Functions in Business Decisions (pp. 222-251). Physica, Heidelberg.
Sudarsanam, S. (1995). The essence of mergers and acquisitions. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall.
Sudarsanam, S. (2006-2007). Creating value from mergers and acquisitions: The challenges : An
integrated and international perspective (5th Edition). Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.
Sevenius, R. (2003). Företagsförvärv – en introduction. Lund, Studentlitteratur.
200

Sirower, M. L., & Sahni, S. (2006). Avoiding the “synergy trap”: practical guidance on M&A de-
cisions for CEOs and Boards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 18(3), 83-95.
StoxPlus (2015). VIETNAM M&A REPORT 2015
Thomson Reuters (2012). M&A Review. Available at www.thomsonreuters.com, last date of
search: 29 December 2013.
UNACTAD, U. N. (2012). 2012 World Investment Report. Available at
http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE, last date of search: 6 May 2013.
Wang, D., & Moini, H. (2012). Performance assessment of mergers and acquisitions: Evidence from
Denmark. E-Leader Berlin, (2008), 1-15.

© 2020 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attrib-
ution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).