Skip to main content

The effect of interlocking directorates on mergers and acquisitions in Brazil

Journal of Management and Governance volume 25, pages 811–839 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of interlocking directorates on national and international mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in Brazil. Based on a sample of 153 large Brazilian firms in a time series (2000–2015), and using network techniques and regression analysis, this study addresses the hypothesis: board interlocking reduces the asymmetry of information in M&A, leading companies with a greater number of ties (degree centrality) to be more likely to participate in M&A. The results show that firms that have a larger number of ties with other firms through board interlocks (higher degree centrality) are more likely to perform M&A. Other network measures (closeness, eigenvector, betweenness, and structural holes) have no significant impact on the likelihood to participate in M&A. This study examines the impact of board interlocking on firms’ propensity to undertake M&A while controlling for financial, corporate governance, and country-level governance variables in the explanatory model. This paper also contributes by identifying the determinants of M&A performed by companies headquartered in emerging countries such as Brazil, a major participant in M&A processes at the international level.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Evidence of the impact of these macro-environmental variables on M&A can be observed in the finance and economics media. According to The Economist (The Economist 2016), the M&A announced in the first 9 months of 2016 amounted to US$ 2.5 trillion, 24% less than during the same period in 2015—the first decline in 3 years. The main reasons discouraging potential buyers were the vote of Britain to leave the European Union, uncertainty regarding the US presidential elections, and a decrease in raising capital.

  2. 2.

    The global recovery of foreign direct investment (FDI) was strong in 2015, with global FDI flows increasing by 38%, their highest level since the 2008 crisis. This is the main factor behind the global economic recovery, as the total value of cross-border M&A increased from US$ 432 billion in 2014 to US$ 721 billion in 2015 (Burksaitiene and Garskaite-Milvydiene 2017).

References

  1. Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (2012). Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. In C. R. Thomas & W. Shughart (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Managerial Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahern, K. R., Daminelli, D., & Fracassi, C. (2015). Lost in translation? The effect of cultural values on mergers around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “Lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Almeida, H., Cunha, I., Ferreira, M. A., & Restrepo, F. (2017). The real effects of credit ratings: The sovereign ceiling channel. The Journal of Finance, 72(1), 249–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andrade, G., Mitchell, M., & Stafford, E. (2001). New evidence and perspectives on mergers. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.2.103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Andrade, G., & Stafford, E. (2004). Investigating the economic role of mergers. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(02)00023-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beckman, C. M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2002). Network learning: The effects of partners’ heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 92–124. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bena, J., & Li, K. (2014). Corporate innovations and mergers and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 69(5), 1923–1960. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ben-David, I., Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2013). Managerial miscalibration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(4), 1547–1584. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Black, B., & Kim, W. (2012). The effect of board structure on firm value: A multiple identification strategies approach using Korean data. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(1), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Borgatti, S. P. (1997). Structural holes: Unpacking Burt’s redundancy measures. Connections, 20(1), 35–38.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bowen, D. E., III, Frésard, L., & Taillard, J. P. (2016). What’s your identification strategy? Innovation in corporate finance research. Management Science, 63(8), 2529–2548. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Braun, M., Briones, I., & Islas, G. (2019). Interlocking directorates, access to credit, and business performance in Chile during early industrialization. Journal of Business Research, 105, 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brigham, E. F., & Daves, P. R. (2014). Intermediate Financial Management (12th ed.). Mason: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bruner, R. F. (2016). Applied mergers and acquisitions. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Burksaitiene, D., & Garskaite-Milvydiene, K. (2017). Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions Factors in Joining the European Union Countries. Presented at the Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Education, Vilnius, Lithuania. Retrieved from http://cbme.vgtu.lt/index.php/verslas/2017/paper/viewFile/76/92

  18. Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cai, Y., & Sevilir, M. (2012). Board connections and M&A transactions. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(2), 327–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Caiazza, R., & Simoni, M. (2019). Directorate ties: A bibliometric analysis. Management Decision, 57(10), 2837–2851. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2018-0085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cárdenas, J. (2015). Are Latin America’s corporate elites transnationally interconnected? A network analysis of interlocking directorates. Global Networks, 15(4), 424–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cárdenas, J. (2016). Why do corporate elites form cohesive networks in some countries, and do not in others? Cross-national analysis of corporate elite networks in Latin America. International Sociology, 31(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580916629965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen, L.-Y., & Lai, J.-H. (2015). The relationship between interlocking directorate and stock market reaction to international merger and acquisition announcements: The moderating effect of cultural distance. European Journal of International Management, 9(3), 342–367. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2015.069132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chodorow-Reich, G., & Falato, A. (2017). The loan covenant channel: How bank health transmits to the real economy. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  26. Darmadi, S., & Gunawan, R. (2013). Underpricing, board structure, and ownership: An empirical examination of Indonesian IPO firms. Managerial Finance, 39(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074351311294016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. David, T., & Westerhuis, G. (2014). The power of corporate networks: A comparative and historical perspective. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). exploratory social network analysis with pajek. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Di Guardo, M. C., Harrigan, K. R., & Marku, E. (2019). M&A and diversification strategies: What effect on quality of inventive activity? Journal of Management and Governance, 23(3), 669–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9437-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Di Maggio, M., Kermani, A., & Korgaonkar, S. (2019). Partial deregulation and competition: Effects on risky mortgage origination. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dunning, J. H. (1977). Trade, Location of Economic Activity and the MNE: A Search for an Eclectic Approach. In B. Ohlin, P.-O. Hesselborn, & P. M. Wijkman (Eds.), The International Allocation of Economic Activity: Proceedings of a Nobel Symposium held at Stockholm (pp. 395–418). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-03196-2_38

  32. Erel, I., Liao, R. C., & Weisbach, M. S. (2012). Determinants of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 67(3), 1045–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01741.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fornes, G., & Butt-Philip, A. (2011). Chinese MNEs and Latin America: A review. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 6(2), 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468801111119470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Forssbæck, J., & Oxelheim, L. (2008). Finance-specific factors as drivers of cross-border investment—An empirical investigation. International Business Review, 17(6), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Forssbæck, J., & Oxelheim, L. (2011). Corporate financial determinants of foreign direct investment. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 51(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2011.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fracassi, C., & Tate, G. (2012). External networking and internal firm governance. The Journal of Finance, 67(1), 153–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01706.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fraser, D. R., & Zhang, H. (2009). Mergers and long-term corporate performance: evidence from cross-border bank acquisitions. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 41(7), 1503–1513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4616.2009.00265.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Freeman, Linton C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: A conceptual clarification. Social Networks., 1, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gaughan, P. A. (2015). Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings (6th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Greeven, M., Hou, S., Yue, T., Wei, W., & Koene, B. (2016). Alibaba’s growth frenzy: Expanding by acquiring. Rotterdam School of Management: Erasmus University.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Grinstein, Y., & Hribar, P. (2004). CEO compensation and incentives: Evidence from M&A bonuses. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2003.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Harford, J. (2005). What drives merger waves? Journal of Financial Economics, 77(3), 529–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Holtbrügge, D., & Kreppel, H. (2012). Determinants of outward foreign direct investment from BRIC countries: An explorative study. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 7(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468801211197897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hymer, S. (1976). The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Investment. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. IMAA. (2020). M&A Statistics by Countries. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions & Alliances website: https://imaa-institute.org/m-and-a-statistics-countries/

  47. Jia, L., & Winseck, D. (2018). The political economy of Chinese internet companies: Financialization, concentration, and capitalization. International Communication Gazette, 80(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048517742783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312463938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kai, L., & Prabhala, N. R. (2007). Self-Selection Models in Corporate Finance. In B. E. Eckbo (Ed.), Handbook of Empirical Corporate Finance (pp. 37–86). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53265-7.50016-0

  50. Kalodimos, J., & Lundberg, C. (2017). Shareholder rights in mergers and acquisitions: Are appraisal rights being abused? Finance Research Letters, 22, 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2016.12.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim, Y. (2005). Board network characteristics and firm performance in Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(6), 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00471.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Knoke, D. (2018). Power Networks. In H. Best & J. Higley (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Political Elites (pp. 539–561). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Kogut, B. (Ed.). (2012). The Small Worlds of Corporate Governance. New York: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kopoboru, S., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., & Pérez-Calero, L. (2020). Boards that Make a Difference in Firm’s Acquisitions: The Role of Interlocks and Former Politicians in Spain. Sustainability, 12(3), 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Larcker, D. F., So, E. C., & Wang, C. C. Y. (2013). Boardroom centrality and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(2), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2013.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lee, K. H., Mauer, D. C., & Xu, E. Q. (2018). Human capital relatedness and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 129(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lins, K. V., Volpin, P., & Wagner, H. F. (2013). Does family control matter? International evidence from the 2008–2009 financial crisis. The Review of Financial Studies, 26(10), 2583–2619. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hht044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Loukianova, A., Nikulin, E., & Vedernikov, A. (2017). Valuing synergies in strategic mergers and acquisitions using the real options approach. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 14(1), 236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. MacNab, B. R., & Worthley, R. (2013). Stereotype awareness development and effective cross-cultural management: An experiential approach. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 13(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595812452635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–2700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00813.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., & Sergenti, E. (2004). Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.1086/421174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Mitchell, M. L., & Mulherin, J. H. (1996). The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity. Journal of Financial Economics, 41(2), 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00860-H.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Mizruchi, M. S. (2013). The fracturing of the american corporate elite. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  68. Moctar, N. B., & Xiaofang, C. (2014). The Impact of Mergers and Acquisition on the financial performance of West African Banks: A case study of some selected commercial banks. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Nawfal, W. (2011). Interlocking Directors: Impact on Canadian Merger and Acquisition Outcomes (Masters, Concordia University, John Molson School of Business). Retrieved from https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/7348/

  72. Nguyen, T., Nguyen (Lily), H. G., & Yin, X. (2015). Corporate governance and corporate financing and investment during the 2007–2008 financial crisis. Financial Management, 44(1), 115–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Peng, M. W., & Wang, J. C. (2019). Board Interlocks and M&As. In C. L. Cooper & S. Finkelstein (Eds.), Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions (pp. 15–26). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  74. Pires-Alves, C. C., Gonzalo, M., Lyra, M. P. de O., Pires-Alves, C. C., Gonzalo, M., & Lyra, M. P. de O. (2019). Startups and young innovative firms’ mergers & acquisitions: An antitrust debate? Lessons from the ICT tecno-economic paradigm. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.1590/198055272324

  75. Podolny, J. M. (1994). Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 458–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Pusterla, F., & Goldstein, A. (2010). Emerging economies’ multinationals: General features and specificities of the Brazilian and Chinese cases. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 5(3/4), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468801011058398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Qian, J., & Zhu, J. L. (2017). Return to invested capital and the performance of mergers and acquisitions. Management Science, 64(10), 4818–4834. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ragozzino, R., & Reuer, J. J. (2006). Geographic distance and M&A markets: Ipos as information diffusion mechanisms. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2006(1), F1–F6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2006.22898215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Renneboog, L., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Director networks and takeovers. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Singh, P. V., & Schonlau, R. J. (2009). Board Networks and Merger Performance (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1322223). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1322223

  82. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Stankevičienė, J., Sviderskė, T., & Miečinskienė, A. (2014). Dependence of sustainability on country risk indicators in EU Baltic Sea region countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(4), 646–663. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2014.965555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. The Economist. (2016). Global mergers and acquisitions. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/economic-and-financial-indicators/2016/10/01/global-mergers-and-acquisitions

  85. Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “Coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.179.536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Verma, N., & Sharma, R. (2014). Impact of mergers & acquisitions on firms’ long term performance: A pre & post analysis of the Indian telecom industry. International Journal of Research in Management & Technology, 4(1), 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 581–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Wu, Q. (2017). Information Conduit or Agency Cost: Top Management and Director Interlock between Acquirers and Targets (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1927529). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1927529

  89. Yang, M. (2015). Ownership participation of cross-border mergers and acquisitions by emerging market firms: Antecedents and performance. Management Decision, 53(1), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2014-0260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Zhang, Q. (2016). A comparative study of the effect of interlocking directorates on merger target selection under different merger and acquisition modes. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2016.63023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva acknowledges the financial support provided by The Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development- CNPq via Grant #309227/2019-4, and also thanks the comments of Arthur Ridolfo Neto and Roberto Borges Kerr.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Catete Street 166, Mariana, Minas Gerais, 35420-000, Brazil

    Thiago de Sousa Barros

  2. Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain

    Julián Cárdenas

  3. Sao Paulo School of Business Administration of Fundação Getulio Vargas, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva

Authors
  1. Thiago de Sousa Barros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julián Cárdenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julián Cárdenas.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Sousa Barros, T., Cárdenas, J. & Mendes-Da-Silva, W. The effect of interlocking directorates on mergers and acquisitions in Brazil. J Manag Gov 25, 811–839 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09529-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Interlocking directorates
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Country-level governance
  • Brazil
  • International level
  • Regression analysis