https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316668293_Energy_Investments_An_adaptive_approach_to_profiting_from_uncertainties

In my new book, I look at divestiture as a reversal of a prior commitment, where the value could be similar to a put option. Usually, an asset or a business is divested to avoid future losses, or in the case of non-core business, the result could be releasing capital for investment in the core business.   

In this case, the price achieved for the divested business or asset may only be part of the story (and the least important part at that). How the divestment creates pathways for new value adding opportunities is more relevant to the strategic value of the entire firm.

Going back to your question, you may consider reframing your research question. A number of academic works suggests that MA&D does not always add value. The conclusion is arrived at by having a narrowly focused proposition where value add is measured as enhanced earnings, or returns (usually over and above the capital costs as proxy for "opportunity" costs). For this reason, if you are trying to correlate divestment to a single variable, you may arrive at a similar view that does not fully evaluate the value of the divestments. 

In my book, I illustrated examples of serial MA&D. Two stranded oil & gas fields in the North sea were valued at next to zero by the previous owners. One has reserves but too small to justify building infrastructures to access the UK market. By acquiring both assets, a third player managed to consolidate a number of small fields into a portfolio that achieved scale while given access to existing infrastructures. The capital spend to interconnect the different fields became more manageable (and affordable) to achieve an economically viable business. This is an example of how one acquisition gave the buyer an option to access a lucrative market (UK), while providing the seller with an exit from an investment that would prove marginal given the size of their portfolio (a large energy player). Combined within a small or medium sized portfolio, the value add to the medium sized exploration company is substantial.  

The above illustration is an example of what I call the contextual nature of decision-making, where the firm and its initial endowments provide a context as to how a strategic action could be value adding (or eroding). The value could only be fully appreciated when the chain of transactions are examined - an approach that simple correlations do not quite achieve or highlight.

Book Energy Investments: An Adaptive Approach to Profiting from U...

 Thank you so much for your constructive answer. I totally agree with  your opinion. Succusseful divestiture is more than simple financial result. Before all, it's a strategic action but it's difficult to maesure its extent. 

In fact, i'm woderning how organizationnal learning contributes to a success of divestiture and i know that i must explain different sides of my variable. I need may be more litterature to understand the mechanism.

I'll read your book with great interest.

Best regards.

There are a number of literature that addresses organisational learning. These are usually focused on post acquisition integration (for the buyer) or the portfolio reorganisation post divestment. The actual deal making revolves around deal structuring  and the formulation of a deal strategy, once the firm has decided to divest certain assets. The question managers usually faced at this point is whether to outsource the task of divesting to investment banks (given their perceived expertise and experience), or in major firms like Royal Dutch Shell, part of this skill and learning is embedded within commercial finance and strategy functionally, and in the business units. For larger deals, it is a combination of in-house and external resources.

For your research, you may consider doing a case study instead. The lessons you could gain would be more substantive than running correlations or regressions.