The last few decades have been characterized by high levels in merger and acquisition activity, and this trend continues to be a very popular form of corporate and profitable growth. In the current context of globalization, the process becomes more complex when entering new markets. Capturing the intangible value in the merger, and growing that value through integration, it is a complex and poorly understood challenge. As a consequence of the increasing foreign economic activity, companies need to pay more attention in the creation of a strong brand that may compete internationally. Although many practitioners have been focused on mergers and acquisitions branding from different dimensions, none of them have performed a study analyzing the different choices in brand strategies after mergers and acquisitions and its subsequent economic and financial consequences.

This thesis examines the alternatives that companies have in branding strategies after mergers and acquisitions. Concretely, a qualitative study is performed to analyze the main advantages and disadvantages of each brand strategy through a multiple case study of four leading companies within the energy sector in the Nordic countries. In addition, a descriptive and exploratory research is carried out in order to suggest the more appropriate brand strategy. The information was gathered through the published annual reports of these companies as well as books, press releases and information provided in their web pages.

The results of this research indicates positive values and specific benefits for each brand strategy, suggesting business as usual brand strategy as the most beneficial and profitable one for companies that have carried out an acquisition. Findings are derived from concrete key figures and its variations in a six year period for the studied company. Concretely, business as usual brand strategy appear to be the most successful one with an overall increase for the period of 521,82% in revenues, a 457,52% of rise for EBITDA and an increase of 205% in the order backlog. However, the EBITDA margin decreased until a 2, 8% with an increase of 165% in the number of employees