The Impact of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions on Corporate Organisational Resilience: Insights from Dynamic Capability Theory

Abstract

Utilising panel data from Chinese listed companies between 2008 and 2020, this study employs propensity score matching (PSM) in conjunction with a multi-temporal difference-in-differences (DID) model to examine the causal impacts of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) on the organisational resilience of enterprises. The findings reveal that while cross-border M&As augment company risk-taking and short-term financial volatility, they also bolster long-term growth, thereby enhancing overall organisational resilience. Cross-border M&As are particularly beneficial for bolstering organisational resilience in state-owned enterprises, non-manufacturing firms, and companies located in the eastern and central regions of China. Moreover, adhering to the principles of corporate social responsibility and possessing substantial market power are found to enhance the impact of cross-border M&As on organisational resilience. The results of this research hold important practical implications for companies seeking to improve organisational resilience and achieve sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Enterprises are key pillars of socioeconomic growth, and building their organisational resilience is vital to their development [1]. Organisational resilience, defined as the ability to recover and adapt amidst extraordinary environmental shocks [2], is crucial for businesses to navigate adversity and rebuild a competitive edge [3]. It is recognised as a pivotal factor in differentiating enterprise growth [4]. With rapid shifts in the global economy, enterprises face an increasingly complex and uncertain operational landscape [5]. Thus, it is imperative to enhance organisational resilience, enabling effective crisis management and rapid recovery [3,6]. Although being challenging to measure directly, the positive impact of organisational resilience is clear, it not only helps enterprises navigate and expedite recovery from crises but also fosters sustainable growth [7,8]. Organisational resilience reduces financial uncertainty [9], boosts investor confidence [10,11], and aids businesses in overcoming adverse conditions. Furthermore, resilient enterprises are better positioned to capitalise on new opportunities in crises, reshaping their competitive advantages for a potential rebound [12]. Despite an increase in the research on resilience in recent years, we still have a very limited understanding of how specific resources and capacities enhance resilience and where they come from [3].

As China shifts from rapid growth to high-quality development, its large market is becoming an essential platform for attracting global resources. By reinforcing both domestic and international markets, China has not only improved the quality and scale of trade and investment cooperation but also made significant strides in foreign direct investment (FDI). China’s FDI outflows in 2022 were USD 163.1 billion, ranking it second globally. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) were the main investment form. These M&As expedite corporate expansion and provide rapid access to new markets and resources [13]. However, cross-border M&As are often accompanied by high risks [14,15], which may stem from differences in political, economic, and cultural environments, as well as divergent rules and regulations across various institutional frameworks [16]. These disparities increase the turbulence faced by enterprises in their internal and external environments, potentially leading to significant losses. Examples include the reorganisation of management hierarchies and decision-making processes, internal conflicts due to cultural differences, changes in market competition dynamics, adaptation to legal and policy environments, and the impact of international trade relations [17]. Despite these challenges, cross-border M&As present growth opportunities in new markets, crucial for sustained organisational resilience. Therefore, understanding their impact on organisational resilience is of paramount importance.

Current studies have yet to reach a consensus on the impact of cross-border M&As on organisational resilience. In terms of theoretical mechanisms, some scholars suggest that the financial, strategic, and procedural risks associated with cross-border M&As may induce financial instability, thus undermining organisational resilience [18]. On the contrary, others argue that these M&As offer prospects for long-term growth, potentially bolstering organisational resilience [19]. Cross-border M&As may bring about a more pronounced efficiency enhancement effect and a smaller resource substitution effect, creating greater synergy than domestic M&As [20]. The inconsistency in research conclusions may stem from differences in the measurement of organisational resilience and the research methodologies employed.

The current literature lacks consideration of how internal and external factors of firms influence the relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience. Companies with commendable corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance are likely to garner support from stakeholders, and research indicates that CSR can enhance the performance of cross-border M&As [21]. Firms that place a greater emphasis on social responsibility recover more swiftly during economic crises [22,23]. Additionally, a stronger market power aids companies in more effectively acquiring and integrating resources, thereby enhancing their ability to adapt to environmental changes [24]. Therefore, CSR and market power are likely to have a moderating effect on how cross-border M&As impact organisational resilience. This aspect has not been explored in the existing literature.

This study aims to deepen the understanding of how cross-border M&As influence organisational resilience. Building on the aforementioned discussions, this paper contributes to the existing literature in the following ways: First, this paper enhances the evaluation of corporate organisational resilience by addressing the shortcomings identified in existing scholarly work. It extends the measurement scope of organisational resilience by evaluating three different aspects—risk perception ability, rapid response capability, and recovery capacity—for the first time. Then, by drawing on the dynamic capability theory, it explores the mechanisms by which cross-border M&As impact organisational resilience across three dimensions: long-term growth, short-term financial volatility, and risk assumption levels.

Second, while the existing literature predominantly engages in a qualitative exploration of the relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience, this paper utilises data from Chinese listed companies from 2008 to 2020 and employs propensity score matching (PSM) along with a multi-temporal difference-in-differences (DID) model to empirically investigate the causal impact of cross-border M&As on corporate organisational resilience, thereby enriching this category of empirical research.

Last, this study examines how CSR and market power modulate the relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience, providing theoretical and practical guidance for firms aiming to formulate more effective cross-border M&A strategies.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the theory and hypotheses, Section 3 details the data and methods, Section 4 discusses the results, Section 5 delves into the moderating effects analysis, Section 6 draws the paper to a close with the results and a discussion, and Section 7 addresses the theoretical contributions and policy application.

2. Theory and Hypotheses

2.1. Defining and Measuring Corporate Organisational Resilience

Although resilience has long been applied in fields like physics, ecology, and psychology, it only gained prominence in business and management research in the 1980s [25,26]. The emphasis in the organisational area related to resilience was on how firms may respond to a quickly evolving business environment [27,28]. Corporate organisational resilience refers to a business’s ability to recover and bounce back from adverse events, growing against the odds through reflection and improvement [23,29]. Recognised as crucial for navigating unexpected threats and crises [30], it has become a key strategic element in tumultuous business climates, particularly since the global financial crisis [31]. Academic interest has led to two primary perspectives on organisational resilience: dynamic and static. The dynamic view sees organisational resilience as an organisational capability, ensuring safety in crises or adverse situations [32]. In contrast, the static view defines it from an outcome perspective as the ability to adapt and survive in the face of uncertain environments or sudden events [33,34]. The concept of organisational resilience includes two key characteristics: first, the enterprise’s exposure to the variability and turbulence of social, economic, and global environments; second, the enterprise’s ability to maintain robust operations, adapt, and recover when impacted [35]. Therefore, this paper defines it as the ability of enterprises to identify environmental risks, apply resources and strategies against short-term disruptions, and achieve long-term growth.

However, although the academic community is enthusiastic about corporate organisational resilience, due to the singularity of the research environment, it mainly adopts the method of theoretical reasoning, focusing on the discussion of the definition and principles of organisational resilience and its role in the face of adversity [3,36]. While qualitative research on corporate organisational resilience is plentiful, quantitative studies are less common. This scarcity is attributed to the abstract nature of the concept and its varied interpretations, leading to diverse measurement approaches. These methods fall into three broad categories. The first is the questionnaire method, which involves creating surveys based on organisational resilience concepts [37]. For instance, Lin and Fan (2024) employed a seven-point Likert scale to gauge corporate organisational resilience, and it segmented the measurement of corporate organisational resilience into two dimensions: proactive organisational resilience and reactive organisational resilience [38]. Wang (2019) measured organisational resilience across nine items in three dimensions: adaptability, recovery ability, and situational awareness [39]. Kantur and Say (2012) designed a resilience questionnaire based on the dimensions of robustness, agility, and integrity [40]. Lu et al. (2021) combined corporate interviews and referenced Kantur et al. (2015) to objectively measure resilience in terms of recovery time and level [41,42]. The second method is a financial analysis. This approach treats organisational resilience as an intangible, path-dependent quality, indirectly measurable through financial metrics. It hinges on financial indicators for assessing resilience. Desjardine et al. (2019) took a narrow view, defining organisational resilience as the extent of loss and subsequent recovery following adverse events, quantified by changes in stock prices and the duration of recovery [8]. Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal (2016) adopted a broader perspective, using financial volatility and long-term growth as proxies for organisational resilience, whereby long-term growth signifies resilience enhancement and financial volatility represents its protective mechanism [9]. Zhang et al. (2023) employed the entropy method to derive measures from long-term growth and financial volatility, providing a holistic assessment of organisational resilience [43]. Liu and Xu (2024) focused on resilience in terms of resistance and recovery, evaluating resistance by the magnitude of the stock price decline and recovery by the extent of the stock price rebound after a crisis [44]. The third approach incorporates internal and external influencing factors, measuring resilience based on competitive advantage and market responsiveness or enhancements in human resource management [45,46]. The right competencies and qualities of people within firms are fundamental for leveraging other assets to build resilience [47]. These diverse methodologies each have distinct features and applications, but a unified standard for measuring corporate organisational resilience has yet to emerge.

The prevailing literature indicates that corporate organisational resilience can be assessed through performance outcomes in response to environmental shifts, typically using measures of long-term growth and short-term financial fluctuations [2]. Nonetheless, several studies underscore ‘challenging conditions’ as pivotal in evaluating organisational resilience [48]. This paper argues that for a robust assessment of organisational resilience, long-term growth reflects the capacity for post-impact recovery, and short-term financial volatility signifies rapid response efficacy. However, existing methodologies overlook the measurement of risk perception ability, omitting the integration of ‘challenging conditions’ in resilience evaluation. Therefore, this paper enhances the measurement framework by holistically quantifying organisational resilience, considering a triad of factors: corporate risk-taking, long-term growth, and short-term financial dynamics.

2.2. Cross-Border M&As and Corporate Organisational Resilience

The resource-based view posits that material assets, cash resources, human resources within a firm, and social resources external to the organisation are crucial components of organisational resilience [29,47,49,50]. Compared to domestic acquisitions, cross-border M&As can first overcome imperfect markets, thereby reducing operational costs and enhancing operational performance, creating more material and financial assets for firms. Second, firms can acquire more heterogeneous advantageous elements such as foreign technology, brands, and marketing networks from cross-border M&As [51], which add significant value to the firm’s production and operations. Therefore, cross-border M&As have a positive impact on organisational resilience.

From the perspective of the dynamic capability theory, the resource endowments brought about by cross-border M&As enhance a firm’s dynamic capabilities, thereby improving organisational resilience. Teece et al. (1997) first introduced the dynamic capability theory, highlighting the significance of integrating, constructing, and reconfiguring internal and external resources in response to market changes [52]. This theory posits that a firm’s dynamic capabilities are primarily utilised to address environmental turbulence [53]. In environments marked by fierce competition, unpredictable demand, and rapid technological shifts, dynamic capabilities allow firms to adapt strategically and operationally, while managing risks [54,55]. Teece (2007) notably categorised dynamic capabilities into sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring capabilities [56], a framework extensively explored by subsequent scholars [57,58]. Wang and Ahmed (2007) identified absorptive, adaptive, and innovative capabilities as key dimensions [59], while Li and Mao (2010) focused on sensing, decision-making, and resource base-changing capabilities [60]. Thus, dynamic capabilities encompass behavioural aspects like resource integration and restructuring as well as cognitive aspects, such as perceiving opportunities and threats, which manifest in various forms across organisational levels [61].

Cross-border M&As provide firms with financial resources [62], technological resources [63], entrepreneurial resources [64], intangible resources [65], human capital [66], organisational experience [67,68], complementary resources [63], heterogeneous resources [69], and initial endowments [70], all of which can enhance a firm’s dynamic capabilities. Fang and Zou (2009) found that the quantity of resources and the complementary characteristics of resources in cross-border joint ventures have a significant positive impact on marketing dynamic capabilities [71]. By enhancing their dynamic capabilities, firms can maximise their ability to acquire, allocate, and utilise resources (integrative capabilities), identify environmental opportunities, and respond swiftly (sensing capabilities), ensuring effective engagement in multi-agent interactions [72].

The influence of cross-border M&As on corporate risk-taking correlates with the firm’s sensing capabilities. These capabilities, as Teece (2007) outlined, involve perceiving external environmental opportunities and threats in rapidly changing markets [56]. Companies that engage in cross-border M&As develop their dynamic capabilities by identifying and responding to environmental opportunities [73]. In terms of organisational culture, a diversified international culture can garner support from various participants in activity allocation, thereby enhancing a firm’s sensing capabilities [74,75,76]. Highly internationalised firms can track shifts in the global business environment, perceive risks and opportunities, and offer chances to reallocate resources, transfer knowledge, and hedge risks through arbitrage [77]. At the individual level, a manager’s knowledge, experience, and skills [78], as well as their international perspective [79], are crucial in perceiving opportunities and threats, making timely market decisions, and changing the resource base to develop new products. Nonetheless, cross-border M&As face challenges like navigating legal and cultural differences and managing internal resource integration and synergy. Mergers between culturally and managerially diverse companies risk cultural conflicts and management issues, escalating overall operational risks [80,81]. Furthermore, adherence to varied legal, tax, and compliance frameworks across nations can lead to intricate legal and compliance dilemmas, heightening legal risks [82,83] Thus, while cross-border M&As can boost sensing capabilities, their inherent complexity and uncertainty may undermine existing strengths, elevate risk-taking, and adversely affect organisational resilience.

The impact of cross-border M&As on short-term financial volatility is related to a firm’s seizing capabilities. Seizing capabilities primarily refer to the ability of firms to fully utilise and deploy resources in response to rapidly changing environments [56]. Dynamic capabilities act as a causal mechanism for generating economic rents or profits and play a crucial role in achieving superior short-term financial performance [84]. Teece (2012) emphasised that both large and small enterprises need to improve existing practices and implement new ones in order to establish and maintain exceptional financial performance [85]. However, cross-border M&As involve higher ‘synergy costs’ and ‘operational costs’, including knowledge and technology integration, production restructuring, personnel adjustments, and industry entry barriers. Institutional and cultural differences can escalate these costs [82,86]. The merging of companies can lead to short-term operational inefficiencies due to cultural, managerial, and business practice differences. However, cross-border M&A firms can seek and further develop resources to render them commercially valuable [87]. The abovementioned studies indicate that the seizing capabilities of firms involved in cross-border M&As significantly influence both short-term financial volatility and long-term financial performance.

The influence of cross-border M&As on long-term corporate growth is tied to reconfiguration capabilities. These capabilities include strategic management to guide internal transformation, as well as the integration and reconfiguration of resources to maintain a competitive advantage [56]. In volatile market environments, companies need to reconfigure and update existing resources in response to market shifts and technological opportunities. Dynamic capabilities aid in strategic renewal and rapid resource integration and realignment for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage [24]. In terms of long-term growth, dynamic capabilities continuously influence sustained competitive advantages, driving the long-term adaptability of organisations [88]. Diversified multinational corporations have a knowledge edge in nurturing dynamic capabilities [89]. By leveraging reconfiguration capabilities, cross-border M&A firms can integrate and reconfigure resources to support long-term growth strategies [19,90]. As a major investment activity for businesses, dynamic capabilities also help entrepreneurs or management teams resolve decision-making disagreements, ensuring strategic consistency and deploying resources effectively in order to seize opportunities [91]. In terms of innovation performance, reconfiguration capabilities transform market-generated knowledge into resources, skills, and activities that meet customer needs. Firms continually alter their existing resource base by utilising, creating, acquiring, and releasing resources, configuring new knowledge for various forms of innovation, while supporting innovative activities like product development and market expansion, promoting business internationalisation [92]. This demonstrates that cross-border M&As are not only a means for enterprises to achieve long-term growth but also a crucial strategy for driving innovation and market expansion.

In summary, cross-border M&As may heighten corporate risk-taking and induce short-term financial fluctuations, yet they are conducive to long-term growth. Hence, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Cross-border M&As increase corporate risk-taking, short-term financial volatility, and long-term growth levels, ultimately enhancing corporate organisational resilience.

2.3. Cross-Border M&As, CSR and Corporate Organisational Resilience

CSR refers to a business’s commitment to going beyond profit-making objectives to enhance social welfare. An organisation with a robust CSR agenda is more regularly engaged and anchored in its society [93]. According to Desjardine et al. (2019), CSR enhancing stakeholders’ engagement is an essential attribute of corporate organisational resilience [8]. Utilising broad stakeholder engagement, CSR gives rise to more flexibility when firms can access distinctive and diverse viewpoints and adjustments to external changes, fostering these firms’ capacity to absorb shocks, which supports their organisational resilience [94,95]. However, Heinz et al. (2021) emphasised that investment in CSR shapes deeper relationships with stakeholders in stable periods before shocks, providing firms with a greater opportunity to exhibit stability and recover more quickly after those shocks [22]. Studies have shown that companies that are more dedicated to social responsibility recover faster from economic crises [95,96]. Furthermore, CSR can improve the performance of cross-border M&As [21]. As the global emphasis on CSR has increased, it has been integrated with the dynamic capability theory [97].

First, CSR aids businesses in adapting to market and societal changes, thereby facilitating resource reconfiguration. Adaptability, the ability to identify and exploit market opportunities [59], is a key dimension of the dynamic capability theory. In the process of creating cross-border M&As, businesses need to reconfigure resources to fit new market contexts. CSR enhances a firm’s adaptability and social capital, thereby strengthening organisational resilience. Thus, CSR not only boosts a company’s social image and reputation but also becomes a vital force for sustained growth and adaptation in the complex and ever-changing global market.

Second, CSR plays a pivotal role in fostering corporate innovation and learning capabilities. It often inspires innovation in products, services, and operational models, with the aim of meeting social and environmental needs. As a key dimension of dynamic capabilities, innovation capacity is a firm’s ability to develop new products and markets, focusing on the relationship between a company’s resources and capabilities and the product market [59]. In the context of cross-border M&As, this innovation capability is essential for adapting to new markets and integrating different operations, while also being crucial for strengthening organisational resilience. Human capital is fundamental to corporate innovation capacity. By fulfilling their responsibilities towards employees, businesses can attract top talent and enhance employee engagement [98]. CSR boosts employee satisfaction and commitment, thereby promoting innovative behaviours [99]. Moreover, in fulfilling their responsibilities towards consumers and suppliers, businesses gain deeper insights into market environments and demand structures. This aids in new product development based on market orientation and advanced supplier technologies, enhancing innovation success rates. Additionally, through strategic engagement in CSR, firms can innovate products and processes to meet stakeholder needs, granting them a significant competitive advantage in long-term performance growth [100]. Therefore, CSR is a key driver for promoting innovation and long-term corporate growth.

Third, viewed through the lens of bolstering stakeholder cooperation and coordination, CSR is instrumental in fostering solid relationships with a range of stakeholders [101], which in turn enhances organisational resilience [102]. CSR disclosures can elevate a company’s governance ratings [103,104], mitigate information asymmetry [105], and secure stakeholder support. These relationships are vital to dynamic capabilities, boosting a company’s ability to seize opportunities. In cross-border M&As, this facilitates adaptation to new markets, improves post-M&A stability and coordination efficiency, enables firms to buffer external shocks [106], and accelerates recovery by leveraging external resources from stakeholder networks [95], thus augmenting organisational resilience [8]. Therefore, CSR plays a crucial role in long-term corporate development, not only promoting strong cooperation and coordination with stakeholders but also providing robust support for continuous growth and market adaptation.

In summary, CSR bolsters dynamic capabilities by facilitating resource reconfiguration, fostering innovation, and enhancing stakeholder cooperation, helping firms tackle the challenges and uncertainties of cross-border M&As and thus boosting organisational resilience. Therefore, this paper suggests that CSR plays a key role in shaping or reinforcing organisational resilience in cross-border M&A firms.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

The implementation of CSR positively influences the link between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience.

2.4. Cross-Border M&As, Market Power and Corporate Organisational Resilience

Market power refers to a company’s competitive position and influence in the market, encompassing market share, pricing power, and control over industry standards. This makes it a crucial aspect of a firm’s market competitive advantage [107]. Datta et al. (2011) noted that firms with greater pricing power or market influence within their industry are better able to maintain their profit margins amidst market shocks [108]. By leveraging their market power to increase prices, companies attain excess profits and returns, enhancing their market competitiveness and providing better investment and development opportunities [109,110]. As a measure of a firm’s ability to control the market, market power reflects the changes in market structure and enterprise performance [111]. Market power can be linked to the dynamic capability theory in several respects.

First, it boosts a company’s market adaptability. Stronger market power aids in resource acquisition and integration, enhancing adaptability to environmental changes [24]. In cross-border M&As, dynamic capabilities facilitate the integration of new business units, increasing M&A success rates, and thereby fortifying organisational resilience [112]. Hence, market power is not only a vital asset for market competition but also a key factor in addressing challenges and achieving sustainable development in the ever-changing global market environment.

Second, market power is a key driver of corporate innovation. Innovation enables companies to maintain and enhance their dynamic capabilities [59]. Porter (1985) highlighted that market power can provide the space and motivation for innovation by influencing competitors’ behaviours and industry norms [113]. Firms can harness their market power to innovate in products, services, and business models, thereby boosting their dynamic capabilities. Thus, market power offers opportunities for growth and profit and is a significant force for sustained innovation and enhancement of competitive strengths.

Third, market power can enhance a firm’s risk management capabilities, enabling greater resilience in the face of market fluctuations. This is particularly pertinent to cross-border M&As, in which firms often encounter numerous risks. According to the dynamic capability theory, companies with significant market power can more effectively utilise their adaptability and resource reconfiguration abilities. This means they can respond swiftly to market volatility, implement risk diversification strategies, and maintain stable operations during crises. Therefore, by increasing their market power, firms not only strengthen their capacity to manage risks and survive but also foster the resilience to bounce back [114]. This ability allows businesses to maintain a competitive edge in uncertain market conditions and confront various challenges, thus ensuring long-term stable growth.

In summary, market power enhances a firm’s dynamic capabilities by improving market adaptability, innovation capacity, and risk management. This empowers companies to address challenges and uncertainties in cross-border M&As, thereby strengthening their organisational resilience.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Market power positively influences the relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience.

3. Data and Methods

3.1. Model Specification

This paper identifies the causal relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience, which necessitates the addressing of self-selection bias and endogeneity issues. Existing studies indicate that decisions to undertake cross-border M&As are non-random [115]. For instance, firms with higher productivity or profitability may be more inclined towards cross-border M&As, thereby necessitating consideration of biases arising from corporate self-selection. There could also be a bidirectional influence between cross-border M&As and organisational resilience, leading to endogeneity issues. Additionally, unobserved corporate factors, such as corporate culture and institutional elements, may contribute to endogeneity [116].

The matching approach is one possible solution to the selection bias [117]. Its basic idea is to find a large group of nonparticipants, those individuals who are similar to the participants in all relevant pre-treatment characteristics X. That being done, differences in outcomes of this well-selected and thus adequate control group and of participants can be attributed to the programme. Since conditioning on all relevant covariates is limited in the case of a high dimensional vector X (‘curse of dimensionality’), Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) suggested the use of so-called balancing scores b(X), i.e., functions of the relevant observed covariates X such that the conditional distribution of X given b(X) is independent of assignment into treatment [118]. One possible balancing score is the propensity score, i.e., the probability of participating in a programme given observed characteristics X. Matching procedures based on this balancing score are known as propensity score matching (PSM) [119]. PSM can mitigate self-selection bias but does not address endogeneity arising from omitted variables. In contrast, the difference-in-differences model (DID) can manage endogeneity and capture treatment effects. The standard DID model generally targets the same period of time when the policy is implemented and the state of receiving intervention will continue. Otherwise, the model setting will seriously violate the assumption of a parallel trend, resulting in a biased estimation coefficient of the processing effect. When the policy time point is different, it is more appropriate to implement the time-varying DID model. Therefore, we employed a time-varying PSM-DID model to test the causal effects of cross-border M&As on corporate organisational resilience. We began by constructing a decision model for cross-border M&As, as shown in Equation (1), using a logit model to calculate propensity scores. We applied a yearly matching approach to form control groups in a 1:5 ratio without replacement from neighbouring units, ensuring a well-balanced comparison with the treatment group:

$$\mathrm{P}\left({treatment}_{it}=1|X_{it}\right)=\mathrm{F}\left(X_{it}{\beta }_i\right)=\mathsf{\phi }\left(\alpha +{{\beta }_i{X}^{\prime }}_{it}+{\gamma }_t+{\sigma }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}\right)$$

(1)

where $\mathrm{F}\left(X_{it}{\beta }_i\right)$ represents the cumulative distribution function of the logistic distribution, $X_{it}$ is the set of matching variable vectors. ${\gamma }_t$ denotes time fixed effects, ${\sigma }_i$ represents individual fixed effects, and ${\epsilon }_{it}$ accounts for the random error term.

Due to the disparate timing of cross-border M&As among various companies, we specified a time-varying DID model as follows:

$${Resilience}_{it}={\alpha }_0+{\beta }_1{treat}_{it}+{{\alpha }_i{X}^{\prime }}_{it}+{\gamma }_t+{\sigma }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(2)

where ${Resilience}_{it}$ represents a company’s organisational resilience in a given year, ${treat}_{it}$ denotes the treatment variable, assigned a value of 1 for the year in which the company undergoes any cross-border M&As, and 0 otherwise. ${\gamma }_t$ denotes time fixed effects, ${\sigma }_i$ represents individual fixed effects, and ${\epsilon }_{it}$ accounts for the random error term.

This study further examined the moderating effects of CSR and market power in the impact of cross-border M&As on corporate organisational resilience. The empirical equation is as follows:

$${Resilience}_{it}={\alpha }_0+{\beta }_1{treat}_{it}\times {moderator}_{it}+{\beta }_2{treat}_{it}+{\beta }_3{moderator}_{it}+{{\alpha }_i{X}^{\prime }}_{it}+{\gamma }_t+{\sigma }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(3)

where ${moderator}_{it}$ represents the moderating variable for a company in the given year, while other variables are defined as in Equation (1).

3.2. Variables

3.2.1. Dependent Variables

Refining our conceptualisation of corporate organisational resilience, we developed an enhanced measurement approach. This involved assessing risk perception ability via corporate risk-taking, evaluating rapid response capability through short-term financial volatility, and measuring recovery ability based on long-term growth levels. We initially computed the firm’s risk-taking, long-term growth, and short-term financial volatility. Following standardisation, corporate organisational resilience was calculated by subtracting risk-taking and short-term financial volatility from the long-term growth figure.

Following the work of John et al. (2008), we employed a three-year rolling standard deviation of return on assets (ROA) adjusted by industry, in order to gauge a company’s risk-taking [120]:

$${Risk}_{it}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{T-1}{\sum }_{t=1}^T{\left({Ad{j}_{ROA}}_{it}-\frac{1}{T}{\sum }_{t=1}^T{Ad{j}_{ROA}}_{it}\right)}^2}|T=3,$$

and,

$${Ad{j}_{ROA}}_{it}=\frac{{EBIT}_{it}}{{ASSET}_{it}}-\frac{1}{X}{\sum }_{k=1}^X\frac{{EBIT}_{it}}{{ASSET}_{it}}$$

where ${Ad{j}_{ROA}}_{it}$ denotes the company’s ROA, adjusted by subtracting the annual industry average ROA. Here, ${EBIT}_{it}$ represents the company’s earnings before interest and taxes, while ${ASSET}_{it}$ denotes the company’s total assets at year-end.

Following Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal (2016), we measured long-term growth using the cumulative growth in net sales over three years [9]. Cumulative growth is a better measure of long-term trends than annual growth, as performance increases are likely to be continuous and incremental over time [2]. Short-term financial volatility was assessed using the company’s stock return volatility. For each year, we calculated the standard deviation of the monthly stock return.

3.2.2. Control Variables

Simultaneously, we included a range of firm-level control variables, namely, company age (FirmAge), corporate profits (Profits), return on assets (ROA), leverage (Lev), management ownership percentage (Mshare), and Tobin’s Q ratio (TobinQ).

Table 1. Variable definition and measurement.

Variables	Definition	Data Source
Dependent Variables
Resilience	Following standardisation, corporate organisational resilience is calculated by subtracting risk-taking and short-term financial volatility from the long-term growth figure.	CSMAR
Risk	The firm’s risk-taking, calculated from the three-year rolling standard deviation of the adjusted ROA	CSMAR
Growth	The long-term growth level of the enterprise is measured by the cumulative value of the enterprise’s three-year net sales growth	CSMAR
Volatility	The short-term financial volatility is measured by the standard deviations of monthly stock returns in each year.	CSMAR
Moderator
CSR	Corporate social responsibility is measured using Hexun’s corporate social responsibility score/100	Hexun
Lerner	Firm market power is measured by the Lerner index	CSMAR
Control Variables
FirmAge	Age of enterprise, based on the date of establishment	CSMAR
Profits	Total profit of enterprise	CSMAR
ROA	Net profit rate on total assets	CSMAR
Lev	Asset-liability ratio	CSMAR
Mshare	Management shareholding ratio	CSMAR
TobinQ	Tobin’s Q	CSMAR

summarises the definitions and data sources for all the variables.

3.3. Data and Sample

This paper merged data from two distinct sources to construct an unbalanced panel dataset of Chinese listed companies from 2008 to 2020. Cross-border M&A data were sourced from the Zephyr database compiled by Bureau van Dijk, widely recognised, and used by scholars in the field of M&A research. To date, the database has collated over one million M&A transactions from various industries worldwide, including those involving Chinese enterprises. Zephyr provides information on the identities of the transacting parties, transaction dates, amounts, and statuses. Unlike other M&A data sources like Thompson Financial Securities data, Zephyr’s advantage lies in its lack of a minimum transaction value limit, making its collection of M&A records more comprehensive.

Data selection followed four principles: (1) The acquirer was defined as a listed company from China. (2) Only transactions classified as ‘acquisition of over 50% ownership’ and completed between 2008 and 2020 were retained, a common setup in similar studies [121]. (3) Transactions involving Chinese listed companies in ‘ST’ or ‘ST*’ status and those for tax avoidance purposes (with targets in the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, or Bermuda) were excluded. (4) For companies undergoing multiple cross-border M&As within the sample period, due to the potential overestimation of the local average treatment effect (LATE) in PSM-DID estimates, this study used the first successful cross-border M&A as the subject of the study, a common approach in the M&A literature [116,122].

The second data source, the China Stock Market and Accounting Research (CSMAR) database, supplied the financial information from Chinese listed companies. We applied a 1% trimming process to the micro-level company data to eliminate outliers. The remaining records were then integrated with transaction details from the Zephyr database using the companies’ stock codes.

Our main estimation dataset consisted of 32,748 firm-year observations, including 852 cross-border M&A companies (treatment firms) and 3137 non-cross-border M&A companies (control firms).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of treatment and control groups.

	M&As Enterprises			Non-M&A Enterprises
	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD
Resilience	4240	0.003	0.599	19,650	−0.032	0.473
Risk	4572	0.001	1.003	21,354	−0.000	0.999
Growth	4656	0.131	1.435	25,665	−0.0237	0.897
Volatility	4643	−0.055	0.788	25,199	0.010	1.034
CSR	4771	0.240	0.161	24,437	0.237	0.151
Lerner	5004	0.0679	0.440	4771	0.240	0.161
FirmAge *	5004	2.868	0.345	27,744	2.791	0.390
Profits *	5004	1.414 × 109	6.441 × 109	27,744	5.293 × 108	3.707 × 109
ROA *	5004	0.038	0.072	27,744	0.045	0.064
Lev *	5004	0.467	0.196	27,744	0.417	0.209
Mshare *	4888	0.127	0.184	26,795	0.140	0.207
TobinQ *	4909	1.964	1.341	27,253	2.040	1.363

Note: * represent matching variables that participate in the PSM.

displays descriptive statistical results for variables across the treatment and control groups. The data in Table 2 reveal a notable trend: companies that engage in cross-border M&As generally display marginally higher organisational resilience than those that do not, primarily driven by their substantial long-term growth. Moreover, those companies engaged in cross-border M&As exhibit greater average corporate risk-taking but experience lower short-term financial volatility.

Figure 1 further illustrates the geographical distribution characteristics of cross-border acquisition firms. The top five provinces for cross-border M&A activity are Guangdong, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Beijing, and Shanghai. These five provinces alone account for more than 60% of the total transaction volume. Guangdong exhibits the highest absolute number of cross-border M&As, being at the forefront of China’s reform and opening-up, and a key participant in the construction of the Greater Bay Area. Zhejiang and Jiangsu are known for their strong manufacturing sectors, while Beijing and Shanghai represent China’s most developed municipalities and serve as central hubs for the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei and Yangtze River Delta city clusters. This distribution highlights significant regional disparities in cross-border acquisition activities.

4. Results

4.1. Basic Results

Table 3. The benchmark results of the effects of cross-border M&As on corporate organisational resilience.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Variables	Resilience	Resilience	Growth	Volatility	Risk
Model	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID
treat	0.059 ***	0.016 ***	0.064 ***	0.056 **	0.030 ***
	(2.63)	(3.08)	(2.63)	(1.99)	(3.04)
FirmAge		−0.032	0.193 ***	0.110	−0.065
		(−0.64)	(3.15)	(1.53)	(−0.68)
Profits		0.000 ***	0.000 ***	−0.000	−0.000
		(38.41)	(58.08)	(−0.80)	(−0.08)
ROA		−2.060 ***	−0.422 ***	0.418 ***	−5.807 ***
		(−34.28)	(−4.03)	(3.47)	(−52.91)
Lev		0.138 ***	0.239 ***	0.126 **	−0.140 **
		(4.48)	(4.80)	(2.19)	(−2.47)
Mshare		−0.101 **	−0.061	0.209 ***	−0.257 ***
		(−2.31)	(−0.90)	(2.64)	(−3.13)
TobinQ		0.061 ***	0.000	0.092 ***	0.076 ***
		(19.45)	(0.05)	(14.94)	(13.20)
Constant	0.014	−0.016	−0.622 ***	−0.428 **	0.355
	(0.88)	(−0.13)	(−4.33)	(−2.55)	(1.49)
Observations	23,890	23,102	29,327	28,859	24,573
R-squared	0.005	0.125	0.122	0.021	0.134
Number of stkcd	3211	3203	3778	3704	3397
Firm FE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Year FE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Control variables	N	Y	Y	Y	Y

Robust t-statistics in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05.

reports the impact of cross-border M&As on corporate organisational resilience. In columns (1) and (2), cross-border M&As show a significant positive effect on corporate organisational resilience at the 1% significance level, regardless of the inclusion of control variables. This suggests that cross-border M&As of Chinese firms enhance their organisational resilience. Column (3) shows that cross-border M&As increase the long-term growth level at the 1% significance level, indicating that cross-border M&As primarily enhance corporate organisational resilience by improving long-term growth. Column (4) reveals that cross-border M&As increase short-term financial volatility at the 5% significance level, while column (5) shows that cross-border M&As increase corporate risk-taking at the 1% significance level. Although cross-border M&As can enhance dynamic capabilities, the complexity, uncertainty, and increased costs associated with these activities may lead to short-term financial volatility and elevated levels of corporate risk-taking.

4.2. Robustness Test Analysis

To ensure the accuracy of the aforementioned estimation results, we conducted a series of robustness tests. These included parallel trend tests, placebo tests, and recalculations of corporate organisational resilience using the entropy method.

First, a key assumption of the DID model is that the organisational resilience of the companies involved has a similar pre-existing trend before cross-border acquisitions. To test the parallel trends assumption, we established the following estimation equation:

$${\ln \left(Resilience\right)}_{it}={\alpha }_0+\sum _{k=-5,k\ne -1}^5{\beta }_k{treat}_i\times {Post}_{ik}+{{\alpha }_i{X}^{\prime }}_{it}+{\gamma }_t+{\sigma }_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

(4)

Here, $k$ denotes the relative year, which is the difference between the natural year and the year of cross-border acquisition. The primary explanatory variables represent whether a cross-border acquisition has occurred (${treat}_i$) and its interaction with relative year dummies (${Post}_{ik}$). The reference group is the one-year period prior to the cross-border acquisition year, with other variables configured as in Equation (2). Figure 2 presents the estimation results for Equation (4), indicating that there is no significant difference in organisational resilience between the treatment and control groups before the cross-border acquisitions. However, after the cross-border acquisitions, there is a significantly strengthened positive effect on organisational resilience, validating the parallel trend test.

Second, while the baseline model controls the various firm characteristics, organisational resilience may also be influenced by unobservable factors and corporate strategies. Hence, this study employed a placebo test to ensure the robustness of the baseline results. Given the use of a time-varying DID model, we randomly selected 852 companies from the sample as the treatment group (consistent with the baseline model’s treatment group size), while the remaining 3137 companies served as the control group. Subsequently, we randomly selected acquisition years for each company in the treatment group and re-estimated the baseline model presented in Equation (2) to obtain 500 random results.

Figure 3 displays the kernel density distribution of 500 random results and p-values for the coefficients when corporate organisational resilience was considered as the dependent variable. We observed that most of the estimated coefficients are to the right of the true coefficients, approximating a normal distribution. Additionally, the majority of the estimated coefficients have p-values greater than 0.1 (not statistically significant at the 10% significance level). These results indicate that the estimations from the baseline model are unlikely to be obtained by chance or significantly influenced by other corporate strategies or random factors, thus underscoring the robustness of our conclusions.

Third, we recalculated corporate organisational resilience using the entropy method; the results are presented in

Table 4. Recalculated corporate organisational resilience using the entropy method.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Dependent Variable	Resilience	Resilience	Growth	Volatility	Risk
Model	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID	Time-Varying DID
treat	0.008 ***	0.003 **	42.028 ***	0.002	0.089 ***
	(2.60)	(2.22)	(3.98)	(0.55)	(3.08)
FirmAge		0.039 ***	116.230 ***	0.010	0.127
		(5.07)	(4.38)	(1.04)	(0.43)
Profits		0.000	0.000 ***	0.000	−0.000
		(0.55)	(52.64)	(0.27)	(−0.66)
ROA		−0.105 ***	−180.131 ***	0.079 ***	−22.429 ***
		(−8.02)	(−3.99)	(5.03)	(−66.14)
Lev		0.021 ***	93.283 ***	0.009	−0.356 **
		(3.42)	(4.33)	(1.16)	(−2.03)
Mshare		−0.031 ***	−30.145	0.024 **	−1.385 ***
		(−3.65)	(−1.02)	(2.29)	(−5.47)
TobinQ		0.005 ***	1.388	0.011 ***	0.251 ***
		(6.98)	(0.60)	(13.01)	(14.16)
Constant	0.753 ***	0.658 ***	−314.129 ***	0.166 ***	3.330 ***
	(225.93)	(36.62)	(−5.06)	(7.56)	(4.51)
Observations	30,322	29,328	29,327	28,859	24,573
R-squared	0.451	0.447	0.105	0.138	0.237
Number of stkcd	3787	3778	3778	3704	3397
Firm FE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Year FE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Control variables	N	Y	Y	Y	Y

Robust t-statistics in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05.

. The results with the alternative dependent variable do not exhibit significant differences from the baseline results, reaffirming the robustness of the baseline conclusions.

4.3. Heterogeneity Analysis

We also explored how cross-border M&As impact the organisational resilience of firms with different ownership structures, industries, and regional locations. In

Table 5. Results of the heterogeneity tests.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Dependent Variable	Resilience
Model	Time-Varying DID
Heterogeneity	Ownership		Industry		Region
	State	Private	Manufacturing	Non-Manufacturing	Eastern	Central	Western
treat	0.001 ***	−0.003 **	0.002 **	0.004 *	0.002 ***	0.001 *	0.009
	(2.64)	(−2.01)	(1.99)	(1.78)	(4.48)	(1.86)	(0.83)
Constant	0.677 ***	0.693 ***	0.654 ***	0.659 ***	0.662 ***	0.616 ***	0.652 ***
	(16.42)	(17.78)	(17.73)	(16.51)	(20.80)	(8.55)	(9.09)
Observations	11,073	15,992	19,361	9967	20,655	4706	3946
R-squared	0.719	0.302	0.408	0.520	0.408	0.568	0.534
Firm FE	1225	2555	2716	1337	2773	572	471
Year FE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Control variables	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

Robust t-statistics in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

, columns (1) and (2) show that cross-border M&As positively impact the organisational resilience of state-owned enterprises but negatively affect that of private enterprises. State-owned enterprises benefit from resource and institutional advantages in acquiring strategic resources during cross-border deals, enhancing their organisational resilience. Columns (3) and (4) reveal a positive impact of cross-border M&As on both manufacturing and non-manufacturing enterprises, narrowing the organisational resilience gap between them. Columns (5)–(7) demonstrate that cross-border M&As led to more significant improvements in organisational resilience in the eastern region, followed by the central region. However, no significant impact was observed in the western region. This suggests that the eastern and central regions’ open institutional environments and high-quality resources better leverage the positive effects of cross-border deals on corporate organisational resilience.

5. Moderating Effects Analysis

Table 6. Results of moderating effect analysis.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Dependent Variable	Resilience	Resilience	Resilience	Resilience
CSR × treat	0.029 ***	0.034 ***
	(4.41)	(4.78)
CSR	0.010 **	0.030 ***
	(2.50)	(7.01)
treat	0.001	−0.005	0.007 **	0.002
	(0.27)	(−1.14)	(2.10)	(0.60)
lerner × treat			0.006 *	0.009 **
			(1.87)	(2.42)
lerner			−0.001	0.003 **
			(−1.38)	(2.32)
Constant	0.825 ***	0.758 ***	0.753 ***	0.660 ***
	(186.35)	(21.96)	(183.46)	(36.71)
Observations	27,077	26,301	30,322	29,328
R-squared	0.213	0.220	0.451	0.447
Number of stkcd	3731	3722	3787	3778
Firm FE	Y	Y	Y	Y
Year FE	Y	Y	Y	Y
Control variables	N	Y	N	Y

Robust t-statistics in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

reports the moderating effects of CSR and market power on the relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience. Columns (1) and (2) show the moderating role of CSR. Regardless of the inclusion of control variables, CSR positively moderates the impact of cross-border M&As on organisational resilience at the 1% significance level. This indicates that fulfilling CSR enhances the positive effect of cross-border M&As on organisational resilience. In the short term, CSR can boost stakeholder recognition of the acquiring company, which is crucial for gaining access to overseas markets [123]. In the long term, CSR becomes a core competitive strength of the company, positively influencing the performance of cross-border M&As.

Columns (3) and (4) demonstrate that market power positively moderates the impact of cross-border M&As on organisational resilience at the 10% significance level. The greater a company’s market power, the stronger are its bargaining position and financial resources, enhancing its ability to manage risk and improving the performance of cross-border M&As.

6. Results and Discussion

6.1. Research Results

Organisational resilience is the capacity of businesses to survive, adapt, and grow in tumultuous commercial environments. Such resilience plays a vital role in building sustained competitive advantages. This study utilised data from Chinese listed companies from 2008 to 2020, employing PSM and a multi-temporal DID model to investigate empirically the causal impact of cross-border M&As on corporate organisational resilience.

We found that cross-border M&As not only increase company risk-taking and short-term financial volatility but also enhance long-term growth, ultimately boosting organisational resilience. We conducted a series of robustness tests. These included parallel trend tests, placebo tests, and recalculations of corporate organisational resilience using the entropy method. The results did not exhibit significant differences from the baseline results, reaffirming the robustness of the baseline conclusions.

The heterogeneity analysis indicated that cross-border M&As are more beneficial for improving organisational resilience in state-owned enterprises, non-manufacturing firms, and companies in the eastern and central regions of China. Notably, CSR and market power enhance the positive impact of cross-border M&As on organisational resilience.

Therefore, companies should actively implement cross-border M&A strategies, expand their market power, and undertake CSR activities in order to boost corporate organisational resilience and achieve sustainable development.

6.2. Research Results in Discussions

Although cross-border M&As can enhance dynamic capabilities, the complexity, uncertainty, and increased costs associated with these activities may lead to short-term financial volatility and elevated levels of corporate risk-taking. However, such risks and fluctuations are an integral path for companies pursuing long-term growth and expansion. In the long run, cross-border M&As can augment a firm’s growth level and organisational resilience.

This indicates that firms, through effective integration and management post-acquisition, can surmount short-term challenges, achieve optimal resource allocation, and enhance market competitiveness, ultimately bolstering their ability to adapt to environmental changes and withstand external shocks. This aspect is particularly evident in state-owned enterprises, non-manufacturing firms, and companies located in the central and eastern regions, possibly due to their certain advantages in resource allocation, policy support, and market receptivity.

Moreover, active engagement in CSR can enhance a firm’s brand image and reputation, increasing the loyalty of employees and consumers. This aids the post-M&A integration process by reducing cultural and managerial friction, thereby better realising the positive effects of cross-border M&As. Additionally, firms with significant market power are more likely to achieve effective resource allocation and rapid market penetration in cross-border M&As, improving the success rate of such ventures.

6.3. Conclusions

Based on the foregoing analysis, we may draw the following conclusions: Within the context of a globalised economic environment, cross-border M&As are not merely strategic choices for corporate expansion but also crucial means to enhance a firm’s adaptability, organisational resilience, and long-term competitiveness. However, to successfully achieve this objective, firms not only require efficient risk management and resource integration capabilities but also need to possess a strong sense of social responsibility and a dominant market position. Enterprises should adopt comprehensive strategies based on a thorough assessment of their own conditions and the external environment to ensure that cross-border M&A activities genuinely result in long-term positive impacts.

7. Theoretical Contributions and Policy Application

7.1. Theoretical Contributions

First, this study refines the measurement of corporate organisational resilience. Previous studies primarily measured organisational resilience through survey analysis [37,41], financial analysis techniques [43,44], or incorporation of internal and external influencing factors [46]. Among these, long-term growth [9] and short-term financial volatility are widely adopted as metrics for assessing organisational resilience [2]. However, as cross-border M&As are significant investment activities for firms, their impact extends beyond financial indicators to significantly influence corporate risk-taking. Existing methodologies overlook the measurement of risk perception ability. Thus, this paper improves the measurement of organisational resilience by incorporating corporate risk factors, addressing the existing methodology’s oversight of corporate risk.

Second, this paper enriches research on the determinants of corporate organisational resilience. Existing studies mostly consider theoretical perspectives such as conceptual definitions, context selection [124,125], and developmental pathways [29]. This study links significant investment activities with organisational resilience, exploring the causal relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience. By examining the impact of cross-border M&As on the construction of organisational resilience and the mechanism for sustaining competitive advantage from the perspectives of risk-taking, short-term financial volatility, and long-term growth, it addresses the gaps in the current literature research.

Third, this paper expands the research on the economic consequences of cross-border M&As. Owing to the advantages of cross-border M&As in resource transfer, realisation of economies of scale, and reduction of operational costs, as well as the ability of firms to acquire more heterogeneous advantages such as foreign technology, brands, and marketing networks from cross-border acquisitions [51], cross-border M&As by Chinese firms have improved corporate operational performance to a certain extent [20,126]. However, scant research has explored the impact of cross-border M&As on the construction of corporate organisational resilience or investigated the internal and external factors affecting the relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience. Based on this, our study investigated the moderating roles of CSR and market power in the relationship between cross-border M&As and corporate organisational resilience, providing empirical evidence for the effective operation of cross-border M&As.

7.2. Managerial Implications, Limitations, and Future Research

The findings of this study offer insightful guidance for enterprises on formulating cross-border M&A strategies, securing lasting competitive edges, and pursuing sustainable growth.

First, the formulation of strategic planning with a long-term development perspective is crucial. When devising cross-border M&A strategies, firms should look beyond the confines of short-term financial performance, placing greater emphasis on building organisational resilience to withstand uncertainties. This entails (a) conducting thorough analyses of market and technological trends to ensure that acquisition targets align with the company’s long-term strategic goals, thereby introducing new growth avenues and core competencies; (b) investing in the long-term development of talent and technology, utilising the new technologies, expertise, and human resources acquired through M&As to fuel innovation and growth; (c) fostering organisational learning and adaptability, accelerating the learning and innovation process through knowledge spillovers and cultural exchange promoted by cross-border M&As, thus enhancing the ability to rapidly adapt to market changes.

Second, strengthening corporate social responsibility (CSR) to optimise stakeholder relationships is vital. In the process of cross-border M&As, firms should commit to their social responsibilities, enhancing organisational resilience by (a) establishing transparent and open communication mechanisms for active engagement with stakeholders, thereby gaining their trust and support; (b) actively participating in social welfare activities in the acquisition target regions, improving corporate image, increasing social capital, and laying a solid foundation for post-acquisition business integration and market expansion; (c) proactively identifying and addressing social issues and responding to societal challenges with innovative business models and products, thereby achieving dual growth in business and social value.

Third, enhancing market power to boost adaptability and competitiveness is key. Increasing a company’s market power is essential for strengthening organisational resilience, with technological innovation being one of the primary pathways to building market power. Companies should intensify their investment in innovation and research and development (R&D) using technological innovation to enhance product competitiveness and meet changing consumer needs, thereby strengthening market influence. Furthermore, promoting industry–academia–research collaboration by partnering with universities and research institutions can provide access to the latest scientific research and technological support. This accelerates technology transfer and application, enhancing the innovation level of products and services. Achieving cost leadership and product differentiation to meet consumer demands will expand market share and enhance market power.

This study has several limitations. First, it concentrates on the organisational resilience of Chinese listed companies. On considering the inherent strategic, financial, and managerial strengths of these firms, there is a possibility that the sample may amplify the effects of cross-border M&As on the organisational resilience of Chinese companies. Future research, contingent on the availability of data, could extend the analysis to a wider variety of enterprise types. Second, this paper focuses on the positive impacts of successful cross-border M&A strategies on organisational resilience. However, in practice, due to diverse institutional and cultural influences, the success rate of cross-border M&As is relatively low. Therefore, future research could explore the causes of failures in cross-border M&As, their impact on corporate organisational resilience, and strategies to help enterprises achieve successful cross-border M&As.