Table 1
Importance of ESG for different stakeholders in M&A (H1).
| Mean value | Median | Mode | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Sum | Coefficient of variation (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providers of equity capital | 4.00 | 4 | 4 | 0.87 | 1 | 5 | 845 | 21.75 |
| Firm image in media | 3.97 | 4 | 4 | 0.80 | 1 | 5 | 838 | 20.10 |
| Employees | 3.92 | 4 | 4 | 0.83 | 1 | 5 | 827 | 21.10 |
| Providers of debt capital | 3.91 | 4 | 4 | 0.81 | 1 | 5 | 826 | 20.77 |
| Suppliers | 3.89 | 4 | 4 | 0.95 | 1 | 5 | 820 | 24.52 |
| Clients | 3.78 | 4 | 4 | 1.00 | 1 | 5 | 798 | 26.46 |
Notes: Statistical summary of responses to the question: “ESG standards are of great importance in mergers and acquisitions conducted by our organization due to their impact on…” N = 211.
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 2
Impact of ESG standards on benefits in M&A transactions (H2).
| Mean value | Median | Mode | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Sum | Coefficient of variation (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attracting (or retaining) talent in the merged/acquired companies | 4.02 | 4 | 4 | 0.83 | 1 | 5 | 848 | 20.60 | |
| Reducing costs of environmental compliance | 3.96 | 4 | 4 | 0.77 | 2 | 5 | 836 | 19.55 | |
| High efficiency and quality of corporate governance during the integration phase of merged companies | 3.95 | 4 | 4 | 0.80 | 2 | 5 | 834 | 20.18 | |
| Increasing innovation in merged companies | 3.91 | 4 | 4 | 0.87 | 1 | 5 | 826 | 22.35 | |
| Identifying sources of value in merger and acquisition processes | 3.86 | 4 | 4 | 0.77 | 1 | 5 | 814 | 20.05 | |
| The ability to achieve synergies in merger and acquisition processes | 3.85 | 4 | 4 | 0.76 | 2 | 5 | 813 | 19.66 | |
| Improving operational efficiency in merged companies | 3.82 | 4 | 4 | 0.69 | 2 | 5 | 807 | 18.12 | |
Notes: Statistical summary of responses to the question: “ESG standards are of great importance for…” N = 211.
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 3
Importance of ESG factors across different M&A stages (H3).
| Stage/aspect of the M&A process | Mean value | Median | Mode | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Sum | Coefficient of variation (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target selection | 3.87 | 4 | 4 | 0.92 | 1 | 5 | 816 | 23.67 | |
| Negotiations | 3.73 | 4 | 4 | 0.97 | 1 | 5 | 788 | 26.11 | |
| Due diligence | 3.89 | 4 | 4 | 0.95 | 1 | 5 | 820 | 24.40 | |
| Valuation | 3.77 | 4 | 4 | 0.90 | 1 | 5 | 796 | 23.79 | |
| Synergy estimation | 3.82 | 4 | 4 | 0.84 | 1 | 5 | 805 | 21.96 | |
| Deal structuring | 3.79 | 4 | 4 | 0.92 | 1 | 5 | 800 | 24.35 | |
| Financing | 3.47 | 4 | 4 | 0.87 | 1 | 5 | 732 | 25.04 | |
| Integration planning | 3.85 | 4 | 4 | 0.99 | 1 | 5 | 812 | 25.66 | |
| Finalizing the transaction | 3.73 | 4 | 4 | 0.92 | 1 | 5 | 788 | 24.77 | |
| Integration | 3.83 | 4 | 4 | 0.95 | 2 | 5 | 809 | 24.78 | |
Notes: Statistical summary of responses to the question: “What is the importance of ESG factors in a specific stage/aspect of the M&A process?” N = 211.
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 4
Significance of ESG standards in M&A processes by target size and location (H4, H5).
| Mean value | Median | Mode | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Sum | Coefficient of variation (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target size | ||||||||
| Medium enterprises | 3.77 | 4 | 4 | 0.76 | 1 | 5 | 796 | 20.13 |
| Big enterprises | 3.75 | 4 | 3 | 0.85 | 1 | 5 | 792 | 22.61 |
| Small enterprises | 3.29 | 3 | 4 | 0.96 | 1 | 5 | 694 | 29.03 |
| Target location | ||||||||
| Emerging markets | 4.15 | 4 | 4 | 0.64 | 1 | 5 | 875 | 15.47 |
| EU | 4.14 | 4 | 4 | 0.71 | 1 | 5 | 874 | 17.15 |
| CEE | 4.09 | 4 | 4 | 0.80 | 1 | 5 | 862 | 19.56 |
| Developed markets | 4.08 | 4 | 4 | 0.65 | 1 | 5 | 861 | 16.00 |
| Poland | 3.87 | 4 | 4 | 0.75 | 1 | 5 | 817 | 19.33 |
Notes: Statistical summary of responses to the question: “ESG standards are of great importance in mergers and acquisitions conducted by our organization when the acquisition/merger involves…” N = 211.
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 5
Influence of firm size on ESG importance across M&A stages (H5, tested in relation to H3).
| Stage/aspect of the M&A process | p-values of tests | Is there a difference? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene’s test | ANOVA | Robust tests of equality of means (Welch) | Kruskal-Wallis | Levene’s test | ||
| Target selection | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Negotiations | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.008 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Due diligence | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Valuation | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Synergy estimation | <0.001 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.057 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Deal structuring | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Financing | <0.001 | 0.028 | 0.037 | 0.118 | <0.001 | No |
| Integration planning | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.003 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Finalizing the transaction | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.013 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Integration | <0.001 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.005 | <0.001 | Yes |
Notes: Statistical summary of p-values from tests examining the influence of firm size on the importance of ESG factors across various stages of the M&A process. This analysis was conducted in relation to responses to the question: “What is the importance of ESG factors in a specific stage/aspect of the M&A process?” N = 211. Firm sizes: small enterprise (10–49 employees), medium enterprise (50–249 employees), large enterprise (250–999 employees), and very large enterprise (1,000 or more employees).
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 6
Mean importance of ESG factors across M&A stages by firm size (H5, tested in relation to H3).
| Small | Medium | Big | Very big | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | 85 | 69 | 30 | |
| Target selection | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.2 |
| Target selection | 3.3 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Negotiations | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 4.2 |
| Due diligence | 3.2 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| Valuation | 3.4 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Synergy estimation | 3.3 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| Deal structuring | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.6 |
| Financing | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| Integration planning | 3.3 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Finalizing the transaction | 3.3 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 3.9 |
Notes: Mean values of responses to the question: “What is the importance of ESG factors in a specific stage/aspect of the M&A process?” N = 211. Firm sizes: small enterprise (10–49 employees), medium enterprise (50–249 employees), large enterprise (250–999 employees), and very large enterprise (1,000 or more employees).
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 7
Influence of firm size on the importance of ESG benefits in M&A processes (H5, tested in relation to H2).
| p-values of tests | Is there a difference? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene’s test | ANOVA | Robust tests of equality of means (Welch) | Kruskal-Wallis | Levene’s test | ||
| The ability to achieve synergies in merger and acquisition processes | <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Identifying sources of value in merger and acquisition processes | <0.001 | 0.022 | 0.016 | 0.010 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Reducing costs of environmental compliance | 0.018 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.018 | Yes |
| High efficiency and quality of corporate governance during the integration phase of merged companies | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.007 | 0.011 | Yes |
| Improving operational efficiency in merged companies | <0.001 | 0.018 | 0.017 | 0.007 | <0.001 | Yes |
| Increasing innovation in merged companies | 0.005 | 0.180 | 0.138 | 0.112 | 0.005 | No |
| Attracting (or retaining) talent in the merged/acquired companies | 0.060 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.008 | 0.060 | Yes |
Notes: Statistical summary of p-values from tests examining the relationship between firm size and the importance of ESG standards for achieving various benefits in M&A transactions. Responses are based on the question: “ESG standards are of great importance for…” N = 211. Firm sizes: small, middle, big, and very big.
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 8
Mean importance of ESG standards for achieving benefits in M&A by firm size (H5, tested in relation to H2).
| Small | Medium | Big | Very big | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 27 | 85 | 69 | 30 |
| The ability to achieve synergies in merger and acquisition processes | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Identifying sources of value in merger and acquisition processes | 3.5 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| Reducing costs of environmental compliance | 3.5 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| High efficiency and quality of corporate governance during the integration phase of merged companies | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 3.9 |
| Improving operational efficiency in merged companies | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| Increasing innovation in merged companies | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| Attracting (or retaining) talent in the merged/acquired companies | 3.3 | 3.7 | 4.1 | 4.2 |
| The ability to achieve synergies in merger and acquisition processes | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
Notes: Mean values of responses to the question: “ESG standards are of great importance for…” N = 211. Firm sizes: small enterprise (10–49 employees), medium enterprise (50–249 employees), large enterprise (250–999 employees), and very large enterprise (1,000 or more employees).
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 9
Influence of acquirer ownership on ESG importance across M&A stages (H5, tested in relation to H3).
| Stage/aspect of the M&A process | p-values of tests | Is there a difference? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene’s test | ANOVA | Robust tests of equality of means (Welch) | Kruskal-Wallis | Levene’s test | ||
| Target selection | 0.191 | 0.419 | 0.086 | 0.437 | 0.191 | No |
| Negotiations | 0.047 | 0.231 | 0.013 | 0.226 | 0.047 | No |
| Due diligence | 0.114 | 0.470 | 0.111 | 0.500 | 0.114 | No |
| Valuation | 0.020 | 0.520 | 0.046 | 0.493 | 0.020 | No |
| Synergy estimation | 0.761 | 0.335 | 0.353 | 0.149 | 0.761 | No |
| Deal structuring | 0.094 | 0.574 | 0.631 | 0.518 | 0.094 | No |
| Financing | 0.878 | 0.273 | 0.317 | 0.261 | 0.878 | No |
| Integration planning | 0.115 | 0.389 | 0.090 | 0.378 | 0.115 | No |
| Finalizing the transaction | 0.121 | 0.996 | 0.976 | 0.993 | 0.121 | No |
| Integration | 0.302 | 0.448 | 0.458 | 0.439 | 0.302 | No |
Notes: Statistical summary of p-values from tests examining the relationship between acquirer ownership (domestic or with some portion of foreign capital) and the importance of ESG factors across various stages of the M&A process. Responses are based on the question: “What is the importance of ESG factors in a specific stage/aspect of the M&A process?” N = 211. Firm ownership: domestic or with some portion of foreign capital.
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 10
Influence of acquirer ownership on the importance of ESG benefits in M&A processes (H5, tested in relation to H2).
| p-values of tests | Is there a difference? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene’s test | ANOVA | Robust tests of equality of means (Welch) | Kruskal-Wallis | Levene’s test | ||
| The ability to achieve synergies in merger and acquisition processes | 0.489 | 0.358 | 0.425 | 0.148 | 0.489 | No |
| Identifying sources of value in merger and acquisition processes | 0.090 | 0.783 | 0.840 | 0.528 | 0.090 | No |
| Reducing costs of environmental compliance | 0.135 | 0.682 | 0.714 | 0.476 | 0.135 | No |
| High efficiency and quality of corporate governance during the integration phase of merged companies | 0.131 | 0.632 | 0.649 | 0.518 | 0.131 | No |
| Improving operational efficiency in merged companies | 0.213 | 0.926 | 0.916 | 0.896 | 0.213 | No |
| Increasing innovation in merged companies | 0.195 | 0.661 | 0.724 | 0.305 | 0.195 | No |
| Attracting (or retaining) talent in the merged/acquired companies | 0.018 | 0.773 | 0.833 | 0.390 | 0.018 | No |
Notes: Statistical summary of p-values from tests examining the relationship between acquirer ownership (domestic or with some portion of foreign capital) and the importance of ESG standards for achieving various benefits in M&A transactions. Responses are based on the question: “ESG standards are of great importance for…” N = 211. Firm sizes: small, middle, big, and very big.
Source: Own elaboration.