Blog Post

Europe should not fear foreign takeovers

Foreign takeovers are often a source of concern for national governments. Concerns might be of a strategic nature (for example over deals in the defence sector) or of a more economic nature. In the latter cases, the public perception is often that, because they are less physically or psychologically attached to the host country, foreign investors could more easily take decisions that harm the host economy, such as downgrading the acquired company’s brand or cutting jobs or research expenditure.

By: Date: December 17, 2014 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

Foreign takeovers are often a source of concern for national governments. Concerns might be of a strategic nature (for example over deals in the defence sector) or of a more economic nature. In the latter cases, the public perception is often that, because they are less physically or psychologically attached to the host country, foreign investors could more easily take decisions that harm the host economy, such as downgrading the acquired company’s brand or cutting jobs or research expenditure.

There might be some substance to such concerns. In 2010 when United States food group Kraft purchased British chocolate maker Cadbury, the takeover was in part facilitated by an undertaking from Kraft that it would reverse a Cadbury decision to relocate some production from the United Kingdom to Poland. After the merger, however, Kraft went ahead with the plan to move production to Warsaw. Such events can make politicians wary of foreign takeovers. In the UK, similar concerns arose in spring 2014 when US company Pfizer attempted to buy Britain’s AstraZeneca. The UK government’s concern was to avoid loss of R&D jobs following the deal. In this case, however, Pfizer ultimately dropped its offer and the merger did not take place. The government proposed to strengthen the ability of public authorities to impose conditions on buyers when mergers are attempted.

There are frequent calls for intervention by governments to protect the public interest when the takeover is attempted. But national governments are not supposed to play a role in the process.

Such debates occur everywhere in Europe. There are frequent calls for intervention by governments to protect the public interest when the takeover of a relevant national brand by a foreign investor is attempted. However, mergers of significant size that involve companies of different origins, be they European Union or non-EU companies, are normally subject to the European Commission’s scrutiny in its capacity of antitrust authority. National governments are not supposed to play a role in the process. This may create some inter-institutional tension since the guiding principle followed by the Commission during its merger assessments is to uphold the interests of the consumer only, while national governments might pursue other interests. No other criteria can affect the Commission’s decision. If, for example, a merger helps to rationalise production plants, reduces marginal costs of production and leads to lower market prices, this may be a sufficient condition for merger clearance. If the rationalisation of production plants also entails redundancies is not relevant to the Commission’s assessment. However, this does not mean that the Commission believes that these are negligible issues that should be ignored, but that other institutional instruments (such as redistribution and employment policies) are more appropriate to handle them rather than antitrust control.

In certain cases, namely when the merger affects public security, plurality of the media or prudential rules, national governments are allowed to intervene to protect these “legitimate interests” and impose conditions on mergers that fall in the jurisdiction of the European Commission (Art. 21 of the European Union Merger Regulation, EUMR). Other public interest concerns must be deemed ‘legitimate’ by the European Commission before governments can take action.

National governments’ concerns are often of a presumed economic nature. In a recent paper published by Bruegel, we look at 22 major acquisitions in which a foreign investor attempted to buy a domestic company in an EU country in the last 15 years, and the national government intervened in the process. In most cases (14 out of 22), concerns about the effects of an acquired company’s productivity, potential losses of jobs or reduction in R&D expenditure were key elements of the debate [see Figure 1 below]. In the majority of the cases in which economic concerns were expressed, the merger ultimately did not take place.

Number of major EU cross-border mergers in which buyer’s nationality triggered government intervention (1999-2014)

Note: cases in the sample were identified through a review of the literature on foreign takeovers and merger control in Europe. Because sometimes those cases are not explicitly publicly reported, the list is not exhaustive. The sample includes the following cases: BSCH/A.Champalimaud, Secil/Holderbank/Cimpor, Thomson-CSF/Racal, Novartis/Aventis, ABN Amro/Banca Antonveneta, BBVA/BNL, Unicredito/HVB, Danone/PepsiCo, Enel/Suez, E.ON/Endesa, Abertis/Autostrade, Mittal/Arcelor, Gazprom/Centrica, MAN/Scania, Enel/Acciona/Endesa, AT&T/Telecom Italia, Air France-KLM/Alitalia, Kraft Foods/Cadbury, Lactalis/Parmalat, Edison/EdF, GE/Alstom, Pfizer/AstraZeneca. Economic concerns are identified if concerns about the effect of the merger on productivity, jobs or R&D by key players such as members of the government, the national parliament or trade unions were reported in the contemporary media

While a direct causal link between economic concerns and a deal’s outcome does not always exist (buyers might simply drop an offer because they do not reach an agreement on the price, for example), the public debate around the nationality of the buyer would normally significantly affect the process. This could take the form of additional delays, costs or specific commitments to be fulfilled by the parties, reducing the business appeal of a potentially valuable transaction. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is currently no clarity about the boundaries of government intervention. It is unclear what types of concerns could be considered ’legitimate public interests‘ by the Commission, and often governments succeed in influencing the process, even if the compatibility of their intervention with EUMR is questionable. For example, governments can successfully frustrate a deal by just threatening to interfere with the merger: companies might not be willing, to wait for the Commission to assess whether the action of the government is ’legitimate’ or to see if the Commission will challenge the member state’s (informal) interference before the European courts.

In the Bruegel paper we find that concerns of economic nature should not be considered legitimate reasons for government intervention. We examine the literature and find little backing for concerns related to the nationality of the acquiring company. It follows that EU member states should not be allowed any leeway to impose conditions to address economic concerns to the merging parties when a foreign takeover takes place, such as imposing an obligation to maintain a certain level of R&D expenditure in the host country. There is in fact a significant potential cost if that route is taken: any interference by a member state could affect normal market dynamics, distort competition and reduce the scope of the value that a transaction can bring. If the Commission correctly assesses a takeover, a foreign acquisition is likely to bring value to the European economy through increased competition, but that value might not be created if member states interfere to alter the outcome of the merger assessment process.

the Commission could publish detailed guidelines on how the public interest is defined and how national laws will be assessed. 

To address these issues, reduce costs for foreign investors and minimise the risk of distortions in the process and of conflicts with national governments, the European Commission should clarify the institutional framework that defines the boundaries for government intervention, so that governments and companies can more easily anticipate the compatibility of any national intervention with EUMR. For example the Commission could publish detailed guidelines on how the public interest is defined and how national laws will be assessed. 

Read More:

Policy Brief: Foreign takeovers need clarity from Europe


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

The Sound of Margrethe Vestager

Will AI exacerbate the gap between big companies and small ones? Do ordinary Europeans gain anything from having European tech giants? This week, Nicholas Barrett and Guntram Wolff went to the Berlaymont to interview Margrethe Vestager, the Executive Vice President of the European Commission for a Europe Fit for the Digital Age.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 19, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

Can EU competition law address market distortions caused by state-controlled enterprises?

The distortive effects that foreign state-owned or state-supported companies can have on European markets and on the European Union’s economic autonomy are starting to worry policymakers

By: Mathew Heim Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 18, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The Great Reversal-Causes and implications of the rising corporate concentration in the US

During this event, Thomas Philippon presented his thesis on market concentration and explained the reasons behind the rising corporate market power in the US.

Speakers: Thomas Philippon, Georgios Petropoulos and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 11, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Competition policy in the era of AI – the case of Japan and Europe

How can artificial intelligence have a positive impact on the economy? How does AI impact competition policy? How can the EU and Japan become leaders in AI?

Speakers: Eric Badiqué, Grazia Cecere, Taiji Hagiwara, Yuko Kawai, J. Scott Marcus, Noritsugu Nakanishi, Tatsuji Narita, Agata Wierzbowska and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: October 24, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Questions to the Competition Commissioner-designate

Commissioner Vestager has been given two portfolios; Executive Vice-President for a Europe fit for the Digital Age and Competition Commissioner. While having more than one portfolio may not be new, combining an important policy coordination function and an enforcement function is a novel approach. This raises a number of important questions related to how the objectives of either portfolio can be delivered cleanly.

By: Mathew Heim Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 27, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Banking, FinTech, Big Tech: Emerging challenges for financial policymakers

FinTech and Big Tech firms are both increasingly stepping on banks’ traditional turf. This column introduces the 22nd Geneva Report on the World Economy, which looks at the challenges generated by new technology-enabled entrants to the global banking industry and the public authorities that oversee it. It argues that to respond adequately to the FinTech/Big Tech challenge, authorities will need to raise their game and enter uncharted territories.

By: Kathryn Petralia, Thomas Philippon, Tara Rice and Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: September 26, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Addressing the EU’s Global Challenges Locally: the EU’s Competition and Antitrust Tightrope

This blog is part of a series following the 2019 Bruegel annual meetings, which brought together nearly 1,000 participants for two days of policy debate and discussion.

By: Rebecca Christie and Mathew Heim Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 23, 2019
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

China-EU investment relations: Exploring competition and industrial policies

This is a closed-door workshop jointly organised by MERICS and Bruegel looking at China-EU investment relations.

Speakers: Miguel Ceballos Barón, Alicia García-Herrero, Mikko Huotari, Yi Huang and Xu Sitao Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 9, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage at BAM19: Designing a competition policy fit for Europe's needs.

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Rebecca Christie talks with Mathew Heim on competition policy.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 5, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

European champion-ships: industrial champions and competition policy

This blog post investigates the debate on whether European competition rules should foster European industrial champions, or allow national champions to grow to a European scale. It explores the criteria that one would intuitively ascribe to industrial champions, illustrating the difficulties in defining either ‘European’ or ‘Champion’. It then conducts a brief look into whether EU Merger decisions have impeded the formation of ‘European Champions’.

By: Mathew Heim and Catarina Midoes Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 26, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Modernising European Competition Policy: A Brief Review of Member States’ Proposals

French, German and Polish governments have jointly proposed options for modernising EU competition policy. The debate to recalibrate European competition rules was already well underway. So, it is not surprising that proposals are consistent with other statements made by France and Germany. Yet, proposals do not address current issues weighing on the international competition community, such as conglomerate effects theory or algorithmic collusion.

By: Mathew Heim Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

How should the relationship between competition policy and industrial policy evolve in the European Union?

Competition policy aims to ensure that market practices and strategies do not reduce consumer welfare. Industrial policy, meanwhile, aims at securing framework conditions that are favourable to industrial competitiveness, and deals with (sector-specific) production rules as well as the direction of public funds and tax measures. But, how should competition policy and industrial policy interact? Is industrial policy contradicting the aims of competition policy by promoting specific industrial interests?

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 15, 2019
Load more posts