When companies face hostile takeover threats, they turn to ESG, and the whole community benefits

When a company faces the prospect of a hostile takeover, its board may reach for traditional anti-takeover defenses. “Poison pills,” for instance, allow existing shareholders to buy additional shares at a discount, diluting a would-be acquirer’s stake and making the target more expensive to absorb.

Hostile takeovers occur when one company attempts to acquire another against the wishes of the target’s board of directors, typically by purchasing a majority of its shares on the open market. They are, by design, adversarial, and the defenses against them have historically been financial and legal.

But a growing body of research points to a more preventive kind of protection: a company’s performance on environmental, social and governance (ESG) measures. Businesses are legally required to invest in ESG initiatives to offset any harm they cause and to contribute to a net positive for our world at large.

While companies rarely frame ESG investment in these terms, a recent study by me and my colleagues suggests that’s part of what’s happening and that the effects extend well beyond the firms under direct threat.

What the research found

To examine the relationship between ESG investment and hostile takeover risk, we analyzed a large sample of publicly traded American firms using methods designed to isolate the effect of takeover pressure from other factors.

We tracked what happened to ESG investment when companies faced acquisition threats, looking for changes in behavior that could be tied specifically to that pressure.

When companies face meaningful hostile takeover threats, our research found they invest significantly more in ESG than comparable firms facing lower levels of risk. When at least one company in a given industry receives a hostile bid, others in that industry increase their ESG investment by between 3.6% and 6.1%.

That reaction is strongest among firms with fewer existing anti-takeover protections. It is also more pronounced in American states with constituency statutes, which give companies broader legal grounds to weigh the interests of employees, customers and communities—not just shareholders—when responding to a takeover threat. More than 30 U.S. states have adopted such statutes since the 1980s.

We also found that firms in states with newly adopted poison pill provisions subsequently reduced their ESG investment as they became less vulnerable to hostile takeovers. That pattern is consistent with ESG investment serving, at least in part, as a substitute protection mechanism.

Why ESG deters acquirers

ESG investment works as a takeover defense for three main reasons. First, target firms—the ones being threatened with a takeover—with strong ESG records tend to command higher valuation premiums, which raises the cost of any acquisition attempt.

Second, a would-be acquirer with a weaker ESG record than its target firm can face legal, regulatory and reputational hurdles in the takeover process because of the imbalance in priorities.

Third, even if the takeover succeeds, the acquirer has to maintain or improve the target’s ESG record, which consumes significant resources. If an acquiring firm wants to take over a target with a stronger ESG record, it will need to invest more in its own ESG efforts first.

Each of these deterrents makes high-ESG targets more costly, more complicated and slower to absorb.

A ripple effect across industries

Perhaps the most significant finding is what happens beyond the firm directly being targeted. When one company is targeted, its peers in the same industry boost their ESG performance in response to a perceived threat because takeovers come in waves. Whether intentional or not, this benefits many others outside that one vulnerable firm.

This means the hostile takeover threat—one of the more adversarial forces in corporate finance—can end up inadvertently setting new benchmarks for how corporations should function in relation to the rest of the world.

ESG investment that begins as corporate self-protection can produce real-world benefits: stronger sustainability initiatives, better relationships with communities and employees, and more robust oversight. The motivations behind those investments may be strategic, but the outcomes are not confined to the balance sheet.

By integrating ESG investment and commitment into corporate strategies, companies can more easily navigate challenges to their corporate control and better manage risk, while also enhancing sustainability and stakeholder value.

Responsible business practices benefit everyone, from the people who create the goods we consume to the environmental effects we all experience from the means of their production.

Who’s behind this story?

Lisa Lock

BA art history, MA material culture. Former museum editor, paramedic, and transplant coordinator. Editing for Science X since 2021.

Full profile →

Andrew Zinin

Master’s in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X’s editorial success.

Full profile →

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.