No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to discuss whether or not an acquisition changes the network identity of an acquired firm and, if so, how. This study aims to bring new insights to the corporate marketing field, as it examines corporate identity in the context of how a company is perceived because of its relationships with other firms. The focus of this research is acquired innovative firms.Design/methodology/approachThis paper adopts a multiple case study approach. Data on four acquisitions of innovative firms were collected using 41 interviews, which were supplemented with secondary data.FindingsBased on the case studies, it can be concluded that the network identity of the acquired firms does change following an acquisition. The acquired firms inherited the acquirers' identity, regardless of whether or not the companies were integrated. Previous, present and potential business partners regarded the innovative firms as being more solvent, but distanced themselves. In addition, some of them regarded the innovative firms as competitors.Practical implicationsChanges in the way a firm is perceived by its business partners, following an acquisition, will influence the future business operations of the firm. Expected changes to business relationships should ideally be considered part of due diligence. Acquirers need to consider how they can minimise the risks associated with business partners' changed perceptions of acquired firms.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the research on identity, through discussion of the consequences of an acquisition for the identity and relationships of a firm. It also contributes to the existing corporate marketing literature, through consideration of perceptions at a network level. Furthermore, this paper contributes to merger and acquisition literature, by highlighting the influence of ownership on relationships with external parties.

Industry standards affect the diffusion and adoption of new technology and the competitiveness of individual players but their development is not under the direct control of individual actors. Examines the role and importance of personal networks in the development of industry standards on the basis of a case study of Ericsson's involvement in the development of standards for 3G mobile telephony. Notes how relations among parties and many types of forums stemming from previous development and marketing involvement affect the complex set of interactions shape the bottom-up self-organizing way in which standards emerge. The case study has implications for our understanding of the way standards develop and for managers attempting to influence the outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into how the successors of family-owned manufacturing SMEs view and manage innovativeness. Research into company takeovers mainly focuses on large companies and little is known about innovativeness in research on family-owned businesses, often SMEs. This paper presents findings from ten company successions, five of which describe family successions and five external ones. The paper points to that there is little difference in how various types of successor view and manage innovativeness. A successor is chosen with care and this also influences the view and management of innovativeness; other criteria seem to apply in the succession and radical changes can only be introduced if a number of contextual factors are managed properly. The paper also indicates that while financial constraints may limit innovations, a strong financial situation is not an antecedent for innovativeness

In a study of 409 Swedish SMEs, the difference between the highest growing, which can be characterized as gazelles, and the lowest growing companies were examined regarding performance change over a four year period and what contributed to the growth from an innovation perspective. It was concluded that, besides growing, the highest growing companies also showed high profitability,increased number of employees, and significantly higher markets shares locally, nationally and internationally than the lowest growing companies. Several traits were found to contribute to this. The highest growing companies had a significantly higher portion of new products as part of the turnover during the four years studied and they perceived themselves as differentiating from their competitors concerning: (1) offering better products, (2) understanding customer needs better, (3) having a higher pace or being more agile, and (4) keeping costs down. They also found it more important to take risks, reinvest any profit, and to focus on growth than the lowest growing companies, and this regardless of industry.