Greenfield Investment or Merger and Acquisition

Listen to this postGreenfield investment is defined by Investopedia as “A form of foreign direct investment where a parent company starts a new venture in a foreign country by constructing new operational facilities from the ground up.” So is greenfield investment is a better choice to enter a new market in a developing country, or should the investor target an existing local company for merger or acquisition.

Nanda (2009) state that greenfield Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can bring benefits to the developing countries while Merger and Acquisition (M&A) FDI can be harmful or have little help for the same country. FDI should promote economical growth in the developing country to be considered a useful investment.  FDI transfer physical capital to the developing country along with technology and other intangible assets (Miao & Wong, 2009). Greenfield investment should start new business that help the developing country to grow, however, some of the investments are oriented mostly toward benefiting the investor (Nanda, 2009). M&A investments should be welcomed in the developing countries to help national ailing organization that need capital and knowhow to rise again as a competitive organization.

M&A investment is easier in developing countries because of the acquired organizations is established and operating within the local rules and regulations. The greenfield investments would need clearances from different governmental departments that could delay the greenfield investment beyond the target date (Nanda, 2009). Nanda (2009) state that China has more stringent regulatory regime than India but China is faster in approving or disapproving FDI projects. This simple fact is believed to be one of the reasons that made China more economically successful than India (Nanda, 2009). A study based on 84 countries from 1987 to 2001 by Miao & Wong (2009) showed positive growth effect from the greenfield investments while the M&A had negative effect. Furthermore, M&A investments required a minimum level of human capital to have positive impact on the developing country’s economy, but the Greenfield investment does not need that level of human capital to be effective (Miao & Wong, 2009). Muller (2007) had more accurate segmentations on the choice of entry mode in the developing countries. Muller (2007) suggest that Greenfield investments is best used if the competition in the local market is either high or low, but acquisition would be the best choice if the completion is intermediate.

Also read in this blog: Mergers and Acquisitions: How Good Are They?


Nanda, N. (2009). Growth effects of FDI: Is greenfield greener? Perspectives on Global Development & Technology, 8(1), 26-47. doi: 10.1163/156914909×403171

Miao, W., & Wong, M. C. S. (2009). What drives economic growth? The case of cross-border M&A and greenfield FDI activities. Kyklos, 62(2), 316-330. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2009.00438.x

Muller, T. (2007). Analyzing modes of foreign entry: Greenfield investment versus acquisition. Review of International Economics, 15(1), 93-111. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9396.2006.00634.x

About Sami Malallah
My thoughts and ideas are without politics, sarcasm or negativity. Please comment on them and share them with others.

14 Responses to Greenfield Investment or Merger and Acquisition

  1. Moubine Nsouli says:

    Just dropped by to wish a happy eid and congratulate you on the new look. It seems I have a lot of catching up to do!

  2. Pingback: Greenfield Investment or Merger and Acquisition « مدونة عائلة مال الله

  3. iqbalgreen says:

    Thank you again for such informations 🙂

  4. Thanks a lot, really useful!!!!

  5. Clara Palma says:

    really usefull. thank u a lot. by the way, could u pls say anything about this concept from the developed and underdeveloped country’s perspective?

  6. Vishal says:

    Thanks a lot, your thought are very informative.

  7. Aruma says:

    sami! its helpingG…:)

  8. Evert says:

    It really got me started with an assignment on FDI in Rwanda.. Still, I think we’re mixing up perspectives here. Whereas Nanda is arguing from the perspective of the host country, Müller is rather giving a strategic consideration for the investor. It’s a very different approach, with potentially very different results.

  9. Pingback: How To Grow Your Business Abroad | start my ripple

  10. Pingback: What’s Greenfield Investment | Want Bitcoin

  11. Information really usefull. Thanks.

  12. Greenfield Investments says:

    Information really usefull.

  13. Greenfield Investments says:

    I think greenfield investment
    should promote economical growth in the developing country to be considered a useful investment

Leave a Reply to Moubine Nsouli Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: