The Anheuser-Busch InBev - SABMiller Merger: An Analysis of Motives and the Internal and External Impacts of the Merger Bradley Middleton Melanie Hudson Smith Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, UK Abstract The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of merger drivers as well as the merger’s effects on the internal and external stakeholders in application to the Anheuser-Busch InBev SABMiller merger. This is achieved by utilising semi-structured qualitative interviews and quantitative data analysis of share prices and comparing the results against post-merger culture management, synergy, stockholder value and merger theories. This project has identified issues with applicability of theory in application to a specific case study because most theory is developed using large quantities of data without in depth analysis to a specific case study. The drivers behind the Anheuser-Busch InBev SABMiller merger have been identifies as have the impact on internal and external stakeholders and stock price with evaluation from theory. The project has given a detailed understanding of the case study merger’s causes and effects. Using the Anheuser-Busch InBev SABMiller merger as a basis for the application of theory the driving forces for the acquirer and acquired company have been highlighted and substantiated along with the impact of the merger on internal and external stakeholders. The merger has been observed to be driven by market concentration and growth objectives and accepted because of shareholders desires. The internal stakeholders have yet to experience massive cultural changes but some synergies are already being implemented. External stakeholders are influenced in many ways though it is observed that the impact differs from traditional merger theory. The project presents the ability for future researchers to analyse other mergers, evaluating established literature. Keywords Merger Drivers, Organisational Culture, Synergy, Shareholder Value, Porter’s Five Forces Introduction This research paper is an evaluation of the internal and external impacts of merger activity specifically applied to the Anheuser-Busch InBev-SABMiller merger to effectively evaluate the effects that mergers have on internal and external stakeholders as well as an industry as a whole to provide a holistic analysis of merger’s implications. The project focuses on the drivers of the merger, the internal impact (synergies, culture and business practices) and the external impact (customers, competitors, suppliers). To achieve this, a qualitative and quantitative approach will be used to analyse the views of employees and stock price of the companies and their main competitors against merger theory. Research Rationale The aim of this project is to assess the effects that the merger between global brewing market leader, Anheuser- Busch InBev and second largest brewer in the world, SABMiller, internally (related to culture, synergies and business practices) and externally (involving competitors, customers and suppliers). SABMiller agreed to be acquired in October 2015 for £71 billion (BBC, 2015). It is the largest acquisition in British history and the fourth largest acquisition globally (Marlow, 2015). The merger will bring together the world’s two largest brewers, forming one company with control of 30.5% of the global beer market (BBC, 2015) with 224,000 employees, producing 783 million hectolitres of beer annually (Farrell, 2015). The size of this merger will have a profound effect on employees, customers, suppliers and competitors as well as industry shareholders which demonstrates a need to identify and understand the immediate and long-term effects of the merger both internally and externally. Furthermore, mergers are an increasingly important aspect of international business
20
Embed
The Anheuser-Busch InBev – SABMiller Merger: An … the Anheuser-Busch InBev-SABMiller merger to effectively ... or by intangible factors without ... will freely assume the corporate
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Anheuser-Busch InBev - SABMiller Merger: An Analysis of Motives
and the Internal and External Impacts of the Merger
Bradley Middleton
Melanie Hudson Smith
Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, UK
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of merger drivers as well as the merger’s effects on
the internal and external stakeholders in application to the Anheuser-Busch InBev SABMiller merger. This is
achieved by utilising semi-structured qualitative interviews and quantitative data analysis of share prices and
comparing the results against post-merger culture management, synergy, stockholder value and merger
theories. This project has identified issues with applicability of theory in application to a specific case study
because most theory is developed using large quantities of data without in depth analysis to a specific case
study. The drivers behind the Anheuser-Busch InBev SABMiller merger have been identifies as have the impact
on internal and external stakeholders and stock price with evaluation from theory. The project has given a
detailed understanding of the case study merger’s causes and effects. Using the Anheuser-Busch InBev
SABMiller merger as a basis for the application of theory the driving forces for the acquirer and acquired
company have been highlighted and substantiated along with the impact of the merger on internal and external
stakeholders. The merger has been observed to be driven by market concentration and growth objectives and
accepted because of shareholders desires. The internal stakeholders have yet to experience massive cultural
changes but some synergies are already being implemented. External stakeholders are influenced in many ways
though it is observed that the impact differs from traditional merger theory. The project presents the ability for
future researchers to analyse other mergers, evaluating established literature.
Keywords
Merger Drivers, Organisational Culture, Synergy, Shareholder Value, Porter’s Five Forces
Introduction
This research paper is an evaluation of the internal and external impacts of merger activity specifically applied
to the Anheuser-Busch InBev-SABMiller merger to effectively evaluate the effects that mergers have on
internal and external stakeholders as well as an industry as a whole to provide a holistic analysis of merger’s
implications. The project focuses on the drivers of the merger, the internal impact (synergies, culture and
business practices) and the external impact (customers, competitors, suppliers). To achieve this, a qualitative
and quantitative approach will be used to analyse the views of employees and stock price of the companies and
their main competitors against merger theory.
Research Rationale The aim of this project is to assess the effects that the merger between global brewing market leader, Anheuser-
Busch InBev and second largest brewer in the world, SABMiller, internally (related to culture, synergies and
business practices) and externally (involving competitors, customers and suppliers). SABMiller agreed to be
acquired in October 2015 for £71 billion (BBC, 2015). It is the largest acquisition in British history and the
fourth largest acquisition globally (Marlow, 2015). The merger will bring together the world’s two largest
brewers, forming one company with control of 30.5% of the global beer market (BBC, 2015) with 224,000
employees, producing 783 million hectolitres of beer annually (Farrell, 2015). The size of this merger will have
a profound effect on employees, customers, suppliers and competitors as well as industry shareholders which
demonstrates a need to identify and understand the immediate and long-term effects of the merger both
internally and externally. Furthermore, mergers are an increasingly important aspect of international business
with many significant effects on a variety of integral areas within a business and in an industry. This provides a
wide scope of research and the possibility for a range of analysis.
Literature Review
Merger Drivers Mergers are when two businesses join as one company taking over the other. There are three types of mergers
between firms; horizontal, vertical and diversifying (Bishop, 2004). Horizontal mergers consist of mergers
between competing firms within the same industry (Yao, Zhou, 2015) making the Anheuser-Busch InBev-
SABMiller horizontal. One of the main drivers for mergers of this type is industry consolidation. By
consolidating an industry the acquiring firm will increase in market power as well as allow for cost reductions
and synergy. Furthermore, horizontal mergers can also be undertaken as a means of spreading geographically or
into other markets (Hitt, Harrison, Ireland, 2001). Within the pharmaceutical industry there are many large scale
horizontal mergers. These mergers have been driven by technology and patent acquisition, economies of scale
and most importantly to defend against the high power of buyers within the market (Economist, 2007). This
supports the notion that horizontal mergers can be driven by a firms desire to increase its power within a market.
Morán and Panasian (2005) stated that the strategic motivator behind mergers is to generate synergy to establish
a competitive advantage position and ultimately improve the performance of the combined firms generated
through economies of scale and other efficiency and cost improvements.
Merger waves can be triggered by either economic shock or by intangible factors without bearing on underlying
economic conditions (Yao, Zhou, 2015). The first cause for merger waves, economic shock, is tangible,
generally relating to the cost, demand or regulatory environment within an industry. While the second cause is
intangible, generally involving rumours or changes in expectations by key stakeholders. However, Andrade et al
(2001) states that there are many reasons for mergers including efficiency seeking aims often involving
economies of scale or other “synergies”, attempting to increase market power, aiming to monopolise a market
and diversify product portfolios. Though some of these factors do coincide with Yao and Zhou’s (2015) beliefs
regarding the driver behind mergers Andrade et al’s (2001) notion suggests that the reason can be both tangible
and intangible but mostly revolving around a firms desire to expand.
The choice for merging horizontally or vertically is dependent on the economic activities of unrelated third
parties to merge. Yao and Zhou (2015) found that market structure stability is determined by the relative
intensity between vertical and horizontal externalities, and the comparative competition concentration of actors
Do you believe that there are other motives behind the merger? 1 In my opinion the reason is profit
2 I would say yes but I have no idea what those would be.
3 N/A
4 There was probably a desire and opportunity to remove a major competitor
5 I feel that it is an attempt to increase market share and revenue
6 It is likely to do with profits and market entry
To ascertain the extent of the impact the merger has had on synergies, culture and business practices
within the companies and compare these findings with literature These guide questions attempt to identify the internal impact of the merger relating to the cultural and human
resources elements identified within the literature review.
Regarding general feelings about the merger, responses were mixed and dependent on the company to which
they were employed but gave evidence to support theories relating to stress, uncertainty and redundancy (Marks,
How do you feel about the merger between SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch InBev? 1 Worried, about the impact it might have on my job, but also curious about how things will change
2 I have mixed feelings. It could provide new opportunities, it could improve certain aspects which are not
really good in SABMiller but it can also prove to be a company with a hidden agenda or with a not so
pleasant company culture. We’ll see…
3 No particular feelings; it is an opportunity to redesign the way we did the things until now.
4 It will be beneficial as it will allow us to enter markets previously closed to us
5 I think it’s a good thing because it will make for a far stronger brand but I have concerns about how
successful the merger will actually be seeing as many mergers end in failure such as the Daimler and
Chrysler merger
6 I think it will be fine locally and in markets where there is market dominance, it is within regional head
offices that the most change will take place
Discussing job security and redundancies it seems that they are expected on upper levels of management and in
regional head offices due to synergies (O’Shaughnessy, Flanagan, 1998; Morán, Panasian, 2005).
Are there any indications of possible redundancies because of the merger? 1 At this moment, nothing official
2 Absolutely, at least in regional/global structures it’s almost certain there will be redundancies. On local
(country) level not so much but I guess there will be several cases of redundancies.
3 Definitely we will have redundancies as in some countries or in Hub we may have duplicates.
4 There will be some where there is duplicated functions and where some areas are joined and some may be
unwilling to move to a new location
5 Yes some offices are due to be closed to centralise some office functions
6 There will be some in head offices, we won’t need 2 HR departments, 2 purchasing departments or 2
finance department etcetera
Work related issues have been minimal. This is most likely due to the merger only happening recently and
formal integration has not yet occurred. There are expected issues as is typical with mergers but most issues
experienced at this stage are from the lack of focus place by managers on culture, with more preparation for
Are there any work related issues because of the merger? 1 There were some projects that were stopped, and people were re-assigned to new projects
2 I would say yes. On the IT/systems side I feel there are currently some bottlenecks which I think are
caused by the merger (something along the lines of: is it worth it to invest in fixing this not so critical
issue since in several months to a year we might switch to another system entirely?)
3 We keep the usual routines; just some additional reports.
4 Nothing as of yet, there has been discussion of potentially moving some people to different projects
5 There haven’t been any issues yet but there will be when the two business’ truly become one
6 There haven’t been any yet but when significant change begins there inevitably will be
The extent of planned change is largely unknown with expectations of significant changes (Marks, Mirvis, 2011;
Berry, 1984).
Are there any planned or actual changes to the company culture due to the merger? 1 No, we keep doing things our way, culture is not something that can be changed over night
2 I know nothing on this subject from official sources but probably the AB InBev culture will be taken over
on all ex-SABMiller entities. I know nothing of AB InBev’s company culture though.
A main point of the communication is that until the deal goes through we are still competitors so I don’t
expect any actual changes of this sort until the merger is completed.
3 For the moment everything work as usual; any change in terms of culture, target, behaviour will be
subject after the change of control
4 There have been no changes as of yet but there will probably be elements of culture and business practice
adopted from both sides
5 There haven’t been any changes announced but with any merger there are bound to be some changes,
hopefully they are not too drastic
6 Nothing officially planned as of yet but there has to be someone planning it somewhere
There have been no changes in culture but there is speculation regarding the extent of planning that has
occurred. Some answers relate to acculturation theory (Berry, 1984) while some support SIT (Tajfel, 2010).
If yes, how has culture changed? 1 No change yet
2 For the moment there is no actual or planned changed of company culture, at least nothing has been
communicated.
3 N/A
4 There have been no changes yet
5 There haven’t been any changes but there will be
6 It hasn’t changed yet but I expect there will be, it may not impact local levels. It will start at the top and
work down overtime
The two companies are still operating as separate entities so there been no changes in business practices but
there is conjecture as to the extent of future changes. This suggests Separation acculturation (Nahavandi,
Malekzadeh, 1988) however it is likely to change to Integration.
Have there been any new business practices from the other company introduced into yours? 1 Not yet
2 Not yet. Until the deal goes through we are still competitors.
3 N/A
4 Not yet but there may some in the future
5 No but there will be some such as shared distribution channels and probably the tender and accounting
processes. That will be an interesting few weeks for those who are changing.
6 Not yet. People are probably evaluating the merits of each companies business practices to determine a
course of action
To define the ways that the merger has effected external stakeholders such as customers, competitors
and suppliers in relation to literature Guide questions 9 to 11 aim to determine the mergers external impact of the merger as suggested by Porter
(2008) relating to suppliers, consumers and competitors.
It is largely expected that suppliers will be negatively impacted by the merger due to the company’s increased
buying power (Porter, 2008; Wilkinson, 2013).
How do you think major suppliers will be affected by the merger? 1 They will have to harmonise the commercial terms to the lowest denominator, for some it might mean
some losses.
2 Some suppliers contracted by SABMiller will probably lose some business in favour of competitors
preferred by AB InBev.
Some suppliers contracted by AB InBev will probably face some challenges with the new geographical
coverage; they might not be able to cover all the new countries.
There might also be a big impact in the ways of working with the suppliers if AB InBev has more strict
procedures than SABMiller.
3 We may see an increase of competition on some areas of spend.
4 The new merged company will have considerably more power over suppliers so there will be some
cheaper prices for large purchases such as ingredients and materials
5 Some suppliers may be dropped and some may have larger orders placed depending on their outputs
6 It will allow the company to demand lower prices from suppliers we will be the largest beer producer by a
significant margin so it is to be expected
The expected impact on consumers is varied but it seems unlikely customers will be effected negatively (Fee,
Thomas, 2004; Shahrur, 2005; O’Shaughnessy, Flanagan, 1998), however, business-to-business customers may
suffer (Porter, 2008).
How do you think customers will be affected by the merger? 1 Badly, as less competitors on any market usually impacts product quality and price
2 I don’t have too much visibility on the sales side of the business but probably the ways of working will
change, we’ll have access to a larger beer portfolio so the production and distribution chains will become
a bit more complicated.
3 The customers should not be affected as the primary focus of the business will continue to be selling beer.
4 I doubt the prices will change to drastically. Some brands may be introduced into markets where there
was previously no presence. The business to business sales will likely be more favourable to us because
we would control a third of the worlds beer making it difficult if not impossible for them to make
demands of us
5 There will be more introductions of some brands where it was previously not economical to compete due
to high markets shares such as in South Africa for SABMiller
6 It is unlikely to affect customers particularly negatively because there will be competition on price and its
extremely doubtful there will be changes in product quality. Business customers such as consumers are
likely to lose some power over the new company in terms of exclusivity and product placement in store.
There will be a significant impact on competitors but there are multiple interpretations of type and the severity
of the impact as there are potentially beneficial influences (Schumann, 1993; Eckbo, Betton, Thorburn, 2008)
alongside the negative effects (Porter, 2008; O’Shaughnessy, Flanagan, 1998).
How do you think competitors such as Heineken and Carlsberg will be affected the merger? 1 They will have a very strong competitor, that might dictate market rules in some cases
2 They might be at a disadvantage because of the large beer portfolio the new AB InBev + SABMiller
company can provide to their customers.
3 The new company resulted from merger will play a more significant key role in the market which will
require more efforts and possible new strategies form competitors.
4 The new company will be far stronger than any competitor on a global level but there will be some
competition in local markets. They will most likely experience some difficulties as a result.
5 They will have to find more ways to compete because of the likely economies of scale that the merger
will generate
6 They are likely to experience negative and positive effects. As we demand lower prices for materials they
will be able to as well while they will also have to spend more to compete through marketing as our
marketing budget will effectively double
Stock Price Analysis There are many suggestions as to the impact of a merger on shareholder value, therefore, it is important to
analyse to stock prices of SABMiller and Anheuser -Busch InBev as well as their main competitors to test the
shareholder value theories discussed within the literature review. The SABMiller and Anheuser -Busch InBev
merger was announced in October 2015 which means that it is important to include the share information for
that month and the following month. Also in accordance with Langetieg (1978) study it is important to include
the data from the interval of 6 and 18 months before announcement.
Share prices for SABMiller (GBP)
Figure 1: Share prices for SABMiller (GBP) (Yahoo [i], 2016)
This shows the target firms share price increasing after the merger announcement with increasing value (Jensen,
This shows a minor increase of €12.69EUR in share price for the acquiring firm during the announcement
period (Jensen, Ruback, 1983; Jarrell, Brickley, Netter, 1988).
Share prices for primary competitors - Heineken (USD)
Figure 3: Share prices for Heineken (USD) (Yahoo [iii], 2016)
Share prices for primary competitors - Carlsberg (USD)
Figure 4: Share prices for Carlsberg (USD) (Yahoo [iv], 2016)
This shows that the competitors experienced minor fluctuations in share value over the merger announcement
period with Heineken experiencing a decrease in value (Sugiarto, 2000) and Carlsberg experiencing a minor
value increase (Gabszewicz, Thoron, 1991).
SABMiller Stock Price Increase (%) based on Langetieg (1978)
Figure 5: SABMiller Stock Price Increase based on Langetieg (1978)
SABMiller experienced an increase of average share price of 11.74% at 6 months which is similar to what
Langetieg’s (1978) study suggests.
Discussion
To determine whether the drivers behind the Anheuser-Busch InBev-SABMiller merger are as
suggested by theory The literature suggests that the main drivers for mergers are to create competitive advantage through synergy
(Morán, Panasian, 2005), to increase market power (Andrade et al, 2001), tangible such as industry environment
and intangible factors such as stakeholder desires (Yao, Zhou, 2015), industry competition (Nilssen, Sørgard,
1998) and to facilitate growth (Hitt, Harrison, Ireland, 2001).
Interviews suggest that the official reason for the merger was based on the intangible factor of the shareholders
desires (Yao, Zhou, 2015). This is corroborated by Chaudhuri, Raice and Mickle (2015) who found that the
main driving force for SABMiller’s decision to accept Anheuser-Busch InBev’s deal came from its two largest
shareholders Altria Group and Santo Domingo family who combined own 41% of the company’s shares.
Though there is no single officially stated driver behind the merger it is generally accepted that it was a
shareholder decision due to the offer to purchase shares for £44, significantly more than the September valuation
of approximately £29 (Chaudhuri, Raice, Mickle, 2015) making merging highly attractive to SABMiller
shareholders. This explains SABMiller’s desire to merge but not for Anheuser-Busch InBev’s.
Coontz (2004) theorised that the company’s directors are also significant drivers for mergers because many have
stock options and it is in their interest to gain the most value from these. The easiest approach to increase stock
value is through selling them as part of a merger or acquisition. That was definitely the case for SABMiller with
some 1,700 of their senior executive managers benefiting from the sale of shares and stock options worth up to
$2.1bn (Marlow, 2015). This supports the theory that intangible factors such as shareholder desires are major
drivers behind mergers (Yao, Zhou, 2015).
However, employee interviews and analysis of the merger by researchers suggest other drivers. Interviewee
testimony posits that there were financial, competitive and growth reasons for the merger. Interviewees stated
that it was an opportunity for Anheuser-Busch InBev “to remove a major competitor” and allowed for “market
entry” as well as to increase “profit” and “revenue” which are all drivers that literature suggests to be valid
causes for merger activity. These assertions are supported by Jarvis and Buckley (2015) who state that the
reasons for Anheuser-Busch InBev’s interest in merging with SABMiller include projected growth slowdown
over the next five years, to grow in South American beer market and enter the African beer markets where
SABMiller is heavily invested and to become the undisputed global leader within the beer industry.
Literature suggests that mergers are also undertaken because of the need for geographic growth (Hitt, Harrison,
Ireland, 2001). By engaging in merger activity there is potential for market growth and entry into saturated
markets. Anheuser-Busch InBev will be now have access to markets which were previously too costly to enter
or expand, the merger will expand their share in Latin America and North America by 13% and by 15% in
Eastern Europe as well as give them 40% of the African market where they previously had no operations
(Euromonitor, 2015). This illustrates how a driver of mergers is for growth and increasing market power
(Andrade et al, 2001). This market power allows for greater control over customer, suppliers and competitors.
The suggestion that the aim of the merger was to remove a major competitor is understandable because the
merger will bring Anheuser-Busch InBev who owns 20.8% of the global beer market and SABMiller with 9.7%
market share creating a company with 30.5% of the world’s beer market (BBC, 2015) thus removing Anheuser-
Busch InBev’s primary competitor and dwarfing their closest competition who Heineken and Carlsberg who
own 9.1% and 6.1% respectively.
Financial implications are another major reason for mergers to take place. The merger will form one company
with 224,000 employees, producing 783 million hectolitres of beer annually and an annual global revenue of
over $70 billion (Farrell, 2015). This supports the notion that the reason for the merger is based in the
company’s desire to increase revenues because Anheuser-Busch InBev’s (2015) reported annual revenue was
$43,604 million making the merger highly attractive.
The reasons given by interview participants for the merger are supported by multiple theories which aim to
identify the drivers for merger activity discussed in the literature review (Andrade et al, 2001; Nilssen, Sørgard,
1998; Hitt, Harrison, Ireland, 2001). However, some reasons suggested by the literature are not supported in the
case of the Anheuser-Busch InBev SABMiller merger. The idea that synergies are a motivator for mergers
(Morán,Panasian, 2005) is not particularly applicable to this case because global breweries reached their
maximum efficient size in terms of production and distribution 30 years ago (Stockman, 2015) which suggests
that large economies of scale through synergies will not occur for Anheuser-Busch InBev SABMiller.
Therefore, the application of this theory is limited in the scope of the report. Furthermore, suggestion that
mergers are driven by economic shocks put forward by (Yao, Zhou, 2015) is shown to be irrelevant to the
merger decisions of these companies because there is a distinct absence of economic issues within the beer
industry leading up to the merger (Stockman, 2015).
To ascertain the impact the merger has had on synergies, culture and business practices within the
companies and compare these findings with literature The internal impact of mergers is generally related to the human element of business but also includes business
practices and synergies.
Mergers are frequently associated with reduced moral, job satisfaction, productive behaviour in addition to
increased employee turnover and absenteeism, rather than with increased financial performance (Morán,
Panasian, 2005). This is usually caused by high levels of uncertainty within a workplace (Michie, 2002).
Mergers by their nature cause a great deal of uncertainty inside a company because of layoffs (O’Shaughnessy,
Flanagan, 1998) and cost saving measures (Panchal, Cartwright, 2001) as well as during cultural integration
(Berry, 1984; Tajfel, 2010).
Interview respondents from the acquired firm expressed that they were “worried” by the merger and unsure
about the possible impact on company change. While interviewees from Anheuser-Busch InBev felt positive
about the merger stating it will make the company stronger but to expect there to be change they seemed
dismissive about the potential impact on their jobs. The negative outlook of some employees toward the merger
supports elements of Morán and Panasian’s (2005) and Panchal and Cartwright’s (2001) theories. Employees
are likely to experience stress due to perceived changes in cultural identity (Brown, Humphreys, 2003) which
may explain the emotions of worry expressed by interviewees when discussing their feelings about the merger.
In the case of the subject merger, it is likely that employee worries are compounded due the fear of the unknown
impact on culture preventing them from preparing for the change and establishing a new narrative to understand
their position within the company (Ribando, Evans, 2015). Some interview participants approached the question
from a business standpoint rather than a personal one. These were mostly from the acquiring firm who see the
merger as beneficial to them because they feel it will allow for greater opportunities to enter new markets as
supported by Euromonitor (2015). However, there were still concerns raised regarding the viability of the
merger with some pointing to failed mergers in the past. This is a valid concern as Agrawal, Jaffe and
Mandelker (1987) observed that over 50% of US mergers failed to reach the make positive returns, ultimately
ending in failure.
Participants interviewed from both companies expressed an expectation of redundancies believing they will be
caused by synergies created from the removal of duplicate functions generally on the top level. This supports
Morán and Panasian (2005), O’Shaughnessy and Flanagan (1998), Sheen (2013), Fee and Thomas (2004) and
Shahrur (2005) notion that a major internal impact that mergers have is the creation of synergies which leads to
redundancies. Respondents from both the acquiring and acquired companies spoke of the removal of duplicated
functions inevitably leading to layoffs. These are likely to occur on the “regional and global” levels of the
business as some functions become “centralised”. Redundancies have already taken place as a result of the
merger there are £1.4 billion in synergies to be created within 5 years including the closure of SABMiller’s
London headquarters as corporate and regional offices consolidate aiming to create synergies of £500 million by
removing these duplicated functions (Marlow, 2015). The fear of possible redundancies is enlarged by the
reputation of Anheuser-Busch InBev as a cost cutter (Motsoeneng, 2015) which in itself could put the success of
the merger at risk because as mentioned in the literature review post-merger culture management is usually
prioritised lowly as companies concentrate on operational and financial elements (Marks, Mirvis, 2011) even
though Davy et al’s 1988 study found that human resources were responsible for between one-third and half of
all failed mergers. This suggests future difficulties for the company in the future due to a lack of focus on post-