H-form

H-form

a form of company structure in which constituent companies are completely or partially owned by a HOLDING COMPANY. Generally such structures arise out of merger or acquisition activity. The product range, production facilities and management structures are often left largely unchanged, and constituent companies can thus be said to be undigested. Little direct control is exercised by the holding company other than receipt of profits. The absence of central direction is often contrasted with that in the M-form company but in so far as the holding company confines itself to acquisitions, divestment and simple financial control it could be said to be a ‘pure’ form of the latter. H-form companies were at one time a common feature of UK industry but in the last thirty years the structure and activities of many have been rationalized (digested) to form multi-divisional companies. See PRODUCT-BASED STRUCTURE.
References in periodicals archive ?
Heating of phosphate cation-exchange resin in the H-form in water within 30 hours at temperature of boiling of water slightly reduced size of exchange capacity.
Therefore, interaction of cation-exchange resin in Na- and H-forms with salt solutions of copper sulfate, nickel, cobalt, chloride sodium, calcium and nitrate of uranyl were examined.
Less dramatically, and against the background of strengthening shopsteward organization in the UK during the 1960s and 1970s, Marginson (1985) has argued that the divisionalized company offered two advantages over the more loosely co-ordinated H-form.
Headquarters non-intervention on operational issues is characteristic of both the M-form and H-form.
Beyond that, both versions see the U-form as appropriate to companies engaged in a single business, whilst neither of them provides a theoretical warrant of any kind for the H-form, notwithstanding Hill's demonstration of its superior profitability in the UK of the 1980s.
Since the H-form companies tend to be just as diverse as the M-forms (Figure 1) are larger (Figure 2) and probably more profitable (Hill and Pickering 1986), it is difficult, within a rational action framework, to account for the tendency of these companies to evolve into the M-form as observed by Hill and Pickering (1986).
Though presented as a comparison of M-form and U-form companies, no details are given of how CM-form and H-form companies were filtered from the previously published data.
Finally, although the H-form companies tend to be larger than the other types with intermediate levels, neither this, nor any other size difference between companies with intermediate levels is significant.
As expected, the divisional structure is associated with the devolution of pay bargaining, but so, although the numbers are small, is the H-form.
The zaibatsu were characteristically diversified, but they used the holding company form or H-form, not the U-form or the M-form which Chandler depicted as "modem.
Although these large firms with many subsidiaries and affiliated firms have the multi-divisional structure which Chandler underlined as that of the modern firm, in Japan they also have an industry-wide H-form (Holding-company form).
But they have also adopted different forms like the H-form of the hierarchical keiretsu.