Not every strategic relationship is best structured as an acquisition. In complex corporate environments, joint ventures, alliances, and strategic partnerships can offer a more precise way to pursue a defined objective without requiring a company to take on the full risk, cost, or integration burden of outright ownership.

Anubhav Mittal, vice president and global head of Business Development and M&A at ADM, leads work across a range of strategic transaction structures, including acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, strategic partnerships, and capital investments. That breadth reflects a disciplined corporate development approach, where the form of a transaction is evaluated alongside its strategic rationale.

Why Deal Structure Matters

The Anubhav Mittal Business Development and M&A profile is not limited to traditional acquisitions. His work includes transaction structures that require different forms of governance, economic sharing, strategic alignment, and execution discipline.The rationale for a transaction answers one question: why pursue the opportunity? Deal structure answers another: how should the relationship be organized so the strategic objective can be achieved with the right balance of risk, control, capital commitment, and long-term flexibility?

That second question can be just as important as the first. A strong strategic rationale can be undermined by a poorly designed structure. A carefully structured joint venture or partnership, by contrast, can give each party a clearer role, a more defined set of obligations, and a more practical path to execution.

The Role of Joint Ventures in Corporate Development

Joint ventures can be useful when two organizations bring complementary capabilities to a shared objective. One party may bring market access, customer relationships, operational experience, technology, supply chain capabilities, or category knowledge. The other may bring capital, scale, infrastructure, or commercial reach.

For corporate development leaders, the question is not simply whether a joint venture is possible. The question is whether shared ownership is the right structure for the opportunity. That requires careful evaluation of governance rights, capital contributions, management responsibilities, exit provisions, and performance expectations.

The Anubhav Mittal ADM narrative is relevant because Mittal’s role at ADM includes work across joint ventures and strategic partnerships as part of a broader global business development mandate. That mandate requires transaction judgment beyond the acquisition model, including the ability to evaluate when collaboration may be more appropriate than ownership.

Strategic Partnerships as a Deal-Making Tool

Strategic partnerships can offer another path for companies seeking access to capabilities, markets, products, or commercial channels without creating a jointly owned entity. These arrangements may be narrower than a joint venture, but they can still require substantial planning and disciplined execution.

A partnership may be designed around commercial collaboration, product development, distribution, supply, customer access, or a defined strategic initiative. The structure depends on what each party contributes and what the relationship is expected to accomplish.

For a corporate development function, partnerships require a different analytical lens from acquisitions. The focus is less on purchase price and integration, and more on contribution, governance, operating responsibilities, expected benefits, and accountability. The financial case still matters, but the structure has to reflect how value will be created through collaboration rather than control.

Governance and Long-Term Relationship Management

One of the most important dimensions of joint ventures and partnerships is governance. A transaction may be well negotiated at signing, but long-term value depends on how the relationship operates after the agreement is complete.

Governance includes decision rights, reporting expectations, performance metrics, dispute resolution mechanisms, management responsibilities, and processes for revisiting the structure if circumstances change. These elements are not administrative details. They determine whether the partnership can adapt while still remaining aligned with its original purpose.

This is where deal-making connects directly to operating discipline. A collaborative structure requires ongoing management. The parties must understand how decisions will be made, how results will be tracked, and how accountability will be maintained over time.

Transaction Discipline Beyond Acquisitions

Acquisitions often receive the most attention because they are visible and easier to categorize. Joint ventures and partnerships can be more nuanced. They require close attention to incentives, governance, control, and long-term alignment.

The Anubhav Mittal CFO background matters in this context because finance leadership brings a disciplined view of capital, risk, and performance measurement. A CFO-level perspective can help evaluate whether a collaborative structure is financially sound, whether the economics are durable, and whether the arrangement supports broader portfolio priorities.

That finance lens is especially important when the transaction does not produce a simple ownership answer. In a partnership or joint venture, value may depend on shared execution. The structure has to make that execution measurable, accountable, and economically rational for all parties involved.

Capital Allocation and Collaborative Structures

Joint ventures and partnerships are also capital allocation decisions. They determine where an organization commits resources, management attention, and strategic focus. Even when the capital required is lower than in a full acquisition, the opportunity cost can still be significant.

Mittal’s work at ADM includes investment governance and prioritization of growth, productivity, and strategic investment decisions. That experience connects naturally to collaborative deal-making. A joint venture or partnership should be evaluated against other possible uses of capital, including organic investment, acquisition, divestiture, or no action.

The strongest transaction structures begin with that comparison. They ask whether collaboration offers a better risk-adjusted path than ownership, whether the expected benefits justify the commitment, and whether the organization has the capacity to manage the relationship effectively.

Strategic Fit and Partner Alignment

Strategic fit matters in every transaction, but it is especially important in collaborative structures. In an acquisition, one company ultimately controls the asset. In a partnership or joint venture, the parties continue to operate with their own priorities, cultures, incentives, and decision processes.

That makes alignment critical. The parties need a shared understanding of the objective, the economics, the timeline, and the operating model. Without that alignment, even a strong opportunity can become difficult to manage.

For Anubhav Mittal, collaborative deal-making sits within a broader career pattern across M&A, capital allocation, portfolio strategy, and business transformation. His experience across acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, carve-outs, IPO readiness, strategic partnerships, and capital investments gives him a wide view of how different structures serve different strategic purposes.

A Broader View of Corporate Development

Corporate development is not only about buying companies. It is about shaping a company’s strategic position through the right combination of investments, partnerships, divestitures, governance processes, and portfolio choices.

That broader view is important because the best structure depends on the objective. An acquisition may be appropriate when control is essential. A divestiture may be appropriate when an asset no longer fits the portfolio. A joint venture may be appropriate when shared ownership creates the right balance of risk and access. A strategic partnership may be appropriate when collaboration can accomplish the goal without the complexity of integration.

Mittal’s career reflects that broader corporate development discipline. His transaction work spans approximately $10 billion in strategic investments and includes multiple deal structures across global companies. The consistent theme is not transaction volume. It is the disciplined evaluation of structure, economics, strategic fit, and execution requirements.

About Anubhav Mittal

Anubhav Mittal is a senior finance and corporate development executive with more than two decades of experience in M&A, joint ventures, strategic partnerships, capital allocation, and global business development at ADM and Kellogg Company. He currently serves as vice president and global head of Business Development and M&A at ADM. He holds an MBA from Anubhav Mittal Harvard Business School, a B.Tech. from IIT Kanpur, and both the CFA and CMA designations. To learn more, visit Anubhav Mittal’s professional profile.