A long-standing question in finance is why companies donate to charity, often attributing it to either managerial agency problems or strategic behavior. Based on a global sample of donation announcements by firms providing relief to disaster-affected communities, we test the relative importance of these two motives and the conditions under which each dominates. We exploit disaster-specific factors in an event study setting around corporate donation announcement dates to show that, on average, relief donations decrease returns. However, the strategic benefits of donating around salient events can mitigate these negative effects. To account for firms’ donation decisions, we rely on exogenous variation in the availability of corporate charitable funds due to the timing of disasters relative to firms’ financial years. We show that donations provide new information to the market and that negative returns are primarily driven by cash donations made via corporate foundations.

I show how firms optimize the allocation of charitable funds around investments that require external stakeholder support, such as mergers and acquisitions. Acquirers increase donations to target‐related charities before making a takeover offer, but scale funds back after withdrawing from a deal. Firms redistribute funds from nontakeover‐related areas to target insider–affiliated charities, employee communities, and counties with a regulatory presence. Targeted donations that encourage blockholder reciprocity and employee commitment are associated with better deal performance through decreased merger premiums and lower integration costs. Overall, the results highlight firms’ use of philanthropy to manage stakeholder relations in takeover decisions.

This paper provides an overview of the academic literature on the market for corporate control, and focuses specifically on firms' performance around and after a takeover. Despite the aggregate M&A market amounting to several trillions USD on an annual basis, acquiring firms often underperform relative to non-acquiring firms, especially in public takeovers. Although hundreds of academic studies have investigated the deal- and firm-level factors associated with M&A announcement returns, short-run returns are often not sustained in the long run. Moreover, the wide variety of performance measures and heterogeneity in sample sizes complicates the drawing of accurate and unambiguous conclusions. In this light, our survey compiles the recent literature and aims to identify the areas of research for which short-run returns predict (or fail to predict) long-run performance. We find that post-takeover deal performance is affected by key determinants including serial acquisitions, CEO overconfidence, acquirer-target relatedness and complementarity, and shareholder intervention in the form of voting or activism.

Using novel firm-level data on employment quality in an international sample of M&A deals, this paper investigates the cost-benefit trade-off faced by acquirers when providing generous employment policies. We find that shareholders react more positively to deal announcements by acquirers providing generous employee incentives when the deal is domestic, but negatively when the deal is cross-border. These effects are primarily driven by the provision of monetary incentives and are strongest for firms in skilled industries. We argue that generous employment policies increase synergy gains and reduce labor adjustment costs in a domestic takeover. In cross-border deals, however, costs associated with managing employee policies across borders and lack of opportunities for eliminating work duplication negatively affect acquirer returns. Nevertheless, we find that country-specific acquisition experience can mitigate these negative effects. Our results cannot be explained by country-level labor regulations or by target-level employment policies.

We investigate firms' decisions to pay elective stock dividends, known in the UK as scrip dividends. Scrip dividends give investors the choice between receiving new shares or the equivalent value as a cash dividend. UK firms paying scrip dividends are more likely to be financially constrained, and scrip dividends are used more when access to external financing is costly. Our results are robust to using the 2008 financial crisis as an exogenous shock to credit supply. Cash preservation is the most important corporate incentive to use scrip dividends as they tend to be distributed in combination with dividend cuts and with major corporate investments such as debt-financed mergers and acquisitions. Analysis of US dividend reinvestment plans by which investors purchase new shares confirms firms' cash-preservation motives.