The best way to understand how acquisitions go wrong in animal health is to look beyond the balance sheet. In one case, a respected company was bought, its long-serving chief executive stayed through the handover, and then the leadership around him was rapidly stripped away. Regulatory, technical and commercial leaders departed in short order, not because they had failed, but because the new owner preferred its own structure. The result, as the account showed, was a weakened pipeline, damaged customer relationships and years of recovery. In another deal, a much smaller business lost its principal salesperson after completion; within two years, the company was gone. The message is uncomfortable but plain: sometimes the buyer acquires the asset and loses the engine.
That lesson sits squarely within a broader body of M&A research. In a widely cited Harvard Business Review article, Clayton Christensen and his co-authors argued that acquirers frequently pay for visible resources such as products, approvals and contracts, while undervaluing the processes and values that make those resources work. Private equity advisers at Grant Thornton say the same issue still dominates post-deal performance, stressing that key people must be identified and retained early if a transaction is to deliver its intended value. PwC similarly warns that talent loss can quickly translate into lower productivity, weaker customer confidence and revenue pressure.
Animal health is especially exposed because so much of its value resides in relationships rather than systems. McKinsey has noted in its coverage of Boehringer Ingelheim’s purchase of Sanofi’s animal health business that integration in this sector is as much about culture and trust as it is about spreadsheets and reporting lines. A salesperson who has spent years serving the same veterinary practices and distributors does not hand over that credibility with a CRM export. Nor does a regulatory specialist’s tacit knowledge of agency expectations, or a formulation expert’s hard-won development discipline, automatically survive a restructuring memo. When those people leave, competitors often move quickly to recruit them.
That is why integration should be treated as part of the deal, not as an afterthought. McKinsey’s work on talent retention in M&A argues that buyers need disciplined selection and retention plans for critical employees, while Grant Thornton recommends designing clear incentives and support mechanisms that help key staff succeed after closing. In practical terms, that means naming the roles that truly matter, defining what must be preserved, and resisting the urge to standardise every process on day one. If a business depends on one or two people to hold customer trust, technical continuity or regulatory credibility together, their retention is not an HR issue; it is a valuation issue.
Researchers in organisational design and post-acquisition integration have long argued that there is a trade-off between coordination and autonomy, and that value is most likely to be created when trust and human integration come before deeper process alignment. That is a useful lens for animal health, where founder-led and family-run firms often succeed because they are built on judgment, informal know-how and personal accountability. Buyers that respect those features can preserve what they paid for. Those that do not may discover, too late, that the real business left the building with the people who knew how it worked.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services