The integration of CEE countries into the EU represents a significant transformation in the political, economic, and organizational landscapes. EU accession triggered a realignment of management and organizational strategies to align with European norms, fostering regulatory harmonization, institutional restructuring, and market-oriented decision-making (Cieślik and Turgut, 2021). However, EU integration has not been a uniform process across all member states; historical, cultural, and institutional factors have mediated its effects, leading to varied adoption of managerial best practices across the region (Copeland, 2014; Böwer and Turrini, 2010).

The enlargement of the EU has sparked an ongoing debate on whether management practices in CEE countries are converging with those of Western Europe or whether persistent institutional and cultural differences are preventing full alignment. While EU integration promotes harmonization of managerial standards, regulatory frameworks, and corporate governance, empirical research continues to highlight significant divergences due to historical legacies, economic structures, and institutional variations (Copeland, 2014; Pridham, 2008).

The impact of EU integration on organizational behavior extends beyond economic growth and regulatory alignment. It influences corporate decision-making, managerial practices, and workforce dynamics, yet gaps remain in understanding how factors such as labor mobility, innovation capabilities, digital transformation, and socio-cultural influences shape management strategies in post-accession CEE firms. The transition from centrally planned economies to integrated market economies has created a complex environment where firms must navigate the dual challenge of global competitiveness and compliance with EU regulations while accounting for national institutional constraints. Scholars such as Copeland (2014) and Pollack (2009) have emphasized that while EU directives provide a framework for business modernization, the actual transformation of organizational behavior remains an uneven process across the region.

One of the most profound effects of EU integration on CEE organizations has been the opening of labor markets, which has redefined workforce management strategies. The free movement of labor within the EU has allowed skilled professionals to seek employment in Western Europe, but this has also led to challenges related to brain drain and workforce sustainability. Sharman (2004) highlights that certain industries, such as healthcare and technology, have been particularly affected, as high-skilled workers migrate to countries offering better salaries and career opportunities.

This shift has forced firms in CEE to compete for talent not just within national borders but across the entire EU, leading to adjustments in recruitment strategies, compensation models, and employee retention policies. At the same time, labor mobility has had positive effects by facilitating cross-border knowledge transfer, exposing CEE firms to Western European business models, and encouraging the adoption of multinational HR practices that improve corporate governance and workplace diversity. However, research suggests that these changes have not been uniform across industries, as firms in labor-intensive sectors continue to struggle with workforce shortages. Hunya and Iara (2006) argue that EU labor policies aim to facilitate economic convergence, but the reality remains that labor migration has created imbalances in regional employment structures, particularly in smaller economies with limited capacity to attract returning skilled workers.

EU membership has also played a significant role in fostering innovation-driven organizational change in CEE countries. However, while firms are encouraged to adopt advanced technologies and participate in EU-funded innovation programs, the actual impact of these initiatives on managerial decision-making remains underexplored. Cieślik and Turgut (2021) note that while EU directives promote investment in digital infrastructure and research and development, firms in CEE often struggle to translate these investments into competitive advantages. This is partly due to institutional inefficiencies and management cultures that are less risk-oriented than those in Western Europe. Copeland (2014) further emphasizes that regulatory-driven innovation does not automatically lead to shifts in managerial behavior, particularly in firms where leadership remains hierarchical and centralized. Some CEE firms have successfully adapted to the EU’s innovation-driven agenda by adopting Western-style leadership models that emphasize collaboration and data-driven decision-making. However, others, particularly state-influenced enterprises, continue to operate under rigid decision-making structures, slowing the diffusion of innovation throughout the organization. Plekhanov et al (2023) argue that future research must examine the direct relationship between EU integration, technological adoption, and managerial transformation to better understand how firms in the region are leveraging innovation for long-term growth.

Another critical but underexplored area in the literature is the influence of socio-cultural factors on organizational adaptation to EU integration. Family-owned businesses continue to play a dominant role in many CEE economies, yet studies on their response to EU membership remain limited. Reina et al (2023) highlight that cultural values and socioemotional wealth considerations significantly influence how family firms integrate EU governance policies into their management practices. Many of these businesses, particularly those with generational leadership, prioritize stability and long-term legacy over rapid regulatory adaptation. Soltész (2004) argues that this cautious approach to change means that many family businesses have integrated EU norms selectively, choosing compliance measures that align with their strategic goals while resisting external governance models that could disrupt established leadership structures.

Unlike multinational corporations, family businesses tend to be more resistant to adopting Western-style corporate social responsibility and transparency initiatives. Hughes and Allen (2009) suggest that while some family firms have viewed EU integration as a growth opportunity and restructured their ownership models to attract Western investors, others remain protective of traditional management practices and prefer to adapt at a slower pace. The intersection of culture and regulatory compliance in CEE’s family business sector remains a significant research gap that requires further exploration.

Digital transformation represents another dimension of organizational behavior that has been influenced by EU integration but remains insufficiently studied in the context of CEE firms. While digitalization has become a priority for businesses across Europe, the extent to which it has altered managerial behavior and organizational agility in CEE is still unclear. Pomerlyan and Belitski (2023) argue that although EU funding initiatives, such as the Digital Europe Program, have provided significant resources for digitalization, structural barriers within firms continue to hinder the effective adoption of digital tools.

One major obstacle is limited digital literacy among middle and senior managers, particularly in industries that have historically relied on traditional business models. Pollack (2009) observes that while younger, tech-savvy leaders are pushing for modernization, legacy organizational structures often resist change, leading to the slow adoption of data-driven decision-making processes.

At the same time, the EU’s emphasis on cross-border e-commerce and smart supply chains has incentivized firms in more developed CEE economies, such as Poland and Estonia, to modernize logistics and customer engagement strategies. Cieślik and Turgut (2021) note that these countries have successfully leveraged EU funding to develop IT infrastructure that supports digital business models, but in less developed economies, firms still struggle to integrate digital tools effectively. Future research should focus on how digital transformation is reshaping leadership styles and corporate decision-making across different sectors and countries within CEE.

Overall, while EU integration has significantly shaped organizational behavior in CEE firms, the transition remains uneven across industries and firm types. The challenges associated with labor mobility, innovation policies, digitalization, and cultural adaptation suggest that EU membership alone is not sufficient to drive full managerial convergence. Institutional weaknesses, leadership structures, and historical legacies continue to influence how firms respond to EU-driven reforms.

Future research must go beyond regulatory compliance to examine how managers in CEE are transforming organizational cultures and leadership frameworks in response to the evolving demands of the EU market. There remains a critical need for longitudinal studies that track how these behavioral shifts unfold over time, particularly in response to emerging trends such as sustainability, artificial intelligence, and further EU policy changes.

EU integration has driven significant organizational transformation across member states, particularly in CEE countries, which have undergone profound shifts to align with EU regulatory frameworks and remain competitive in the single market. The literature consistently highlights EU membership as a catalyst for structural changes in firms, prompting them to realign their strategic planning, operational processes, and innovation strategies to meet the demands of a more integrated European business environment. However, while EU-driven policies and funding mechanisms have encouraged innovation and organizational restructuring, the actual outcomes of these changes vary significantly across CEE firms due to institutional and cultural differences (Copeland, 2014; Pollack, 2009).

Scholars such as Pomerlyan and Belitski (2023) and Liao et al (2023) argue that EU membership has compelled firms to undergo deep organizational restructuring, particularly in economies that previously operated under centralized state control. Many CEE firms were required to rethink their strategic direction and modernize operational processes to comply with EU regulations, leading to a fundamental shift in management practices. A growing emphasis on efficiency, regulatory compliance, and sustainability has reshaped corporate decision-making, with firms integrating Western-style governance structures and innovation-driven management models.

The EU’s funding mechanisms have played a pivotal role in accelerating innovation within CEE firms. Programs such as Horizon 2020 and the European Structural and Investment Funds have encouraged cross-border collaborations, supporting firms in developing R&D capabilities and expanding into international markets (Virtanen et al, 2023). These initiatives have strengthened the region’s innovation ecosystem, enabling firms to invest in new technologies, product development, and digital transformation. However, disparities remain between CEE firms and their Western European counterparts in innovation output and technological adoption rates (Böwer and Turrini, 2010).

Despite the availability of EU support, the impact on innovation has not been uniform across CEE economies. Ribeiro et al (2023) note that institutional weaknesses, limited R&D investment, and structural inefficiencies continue to hinder innovation-led growth in some CEE countries. Firms in countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic have benefited significantly from EU integration, developing competitive high-tech industries and strong international trade networks. However, in economies such as Romania and Bulgaria, weaker institutional environments and slow regulatory adaptation have resulted in lower R&D output and a reduced ability to compete in high-tech sectors (Pridham, 2008; Phinnemore, 2014).

Institutional differences continue to shape how firms adapt to EU integration and leverage innovation policies. Sundermeier and Mahlert (2023) argue that regulatory alignment alone is insufficient in driving innovation; instead, national institutions and market conditions influence how businesses respond to EU integration. The capacity of firms to adopt new technologies, restructure management practices, and expand into European markets is often constrained by factors such as bureaucratic inefficiencies, corruption risks, and underdeveloped venture capital markets (Sharman, 2004). These constraints have limited the effectiveness of EU-driven innovation initiatives, leaving gaps in competitiveness between CEE and Western European firms (Hunya and Iara, 2006).

Beyond formal institutional factors, informal institutions and cultural norms also play a significant role in mediating the effects of EU integration on organizational practices and innovation. Hemrajani et al (2023) argue that while EU integration has led to greater participation in innovation networks and technological collaboration, cultural attitudes toward financial risk, entrepreneurship, and market competition still shape how firms approach innovation. The legacy of centralized economic planning in CEE countries has contributed to more cautious business strategies, with firms often relying on incremental improvements rather than disruptive innovation. This contrasts with the more risk-tolerant entrepreneurial culture in Western Europe, where firms are more likely to invest in high-risk, high-reward innovation strategies (Copeland, 2014).

Despite these challenges, EU integration has undeniably transformed the organizational landscape of CEE economies, pushing firms toward greater collaboration, efficiency, and technological advancement. However, the long-term sustainability of these changes depends on continued institutional reform, investment in knowledge-based economies, and the ability of firms to overcome cultural and structural barriers to innovation. Policymakers must focus on closing the innovation gap by addressing institutional deficiencies, enhancing access to venture capital, and supporting digital entrepreneurship in CEE economies (Böwer and Turrini, 2010).

In conclusion, while EU integration has been a powerful driver of organizational change and innovation, the degree of impact varies significantly across the CEE region. While some firms have successfully transitioned into globally competitive players, others remain constrained by institutional inefficiencies and slow adaptation processes. Future research should explore how firm-level strategies, national policies, and regional innovation clusters interact to shape long-term organizational change in CEE economies. More importantly, understanding the relationship between formal EU regulations and informal business norms will be essential in ensuring that the benefits of integration are broadly distributed across different sectors and national contexts.

This study employs a comprehensive dataset from the World Bank and other relevant sources, covering the period 1995 to 2023 across 13 countries within the EU, including both CEE and Western European nations. The dataset includes key economic and managerial indicators that allow for a detailed examination of the gradual impact of EU integration on management practices.

To ensure a more precise analysis of the transition process, this study expands the timeframe and introduces multiple periods for a gradual, stage-based examination. This approach acknowledges that many firms began adjusting their management strategies well before formal EU accession, making it essential to capture these anticipatory changes rather than relying on a simple before-and-after comparison.

The analysis incorporates data from 1995 to 2023, segmenting it into the following five distinct periods:

The DiD approach is employed to evaluate the causal impact of EU integration on management practices in CEE countries. This method compares EU accession countries (treatment group) with non-EU European countries (control group) to isolate the effect of EU membership while controlling for external influences such as global economic shifts or regional business cycle fluctuations.

SEM is used to model the complex relationships between latent variables (unobserved factors) and observed variables (measured indicators). In this study, SEM helps us analyze how economic development and investment climate (latent variables) influence management practices and other observed indicators like FDI inflows and GDP per capita.

The SEM approach is especially useful for understanding the interdependencies between multiple variables, such as how external factors (e.g., EU regulations) might affect internal organizational practices. SEM allows us to examine the causal relationships and the direct and indirect effects of various factors on management practices.

Formula:

(2) $Y={\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\eta }+ϵ$

(3) $\eta =B_{\eta }+\mathrm{\Gamma }\xi +\zeta$

Where:

$Y$represents observed variables (e.g., GDP_per_capita, FDI_inflow)

$\mathrm{\Lambda }$ is the matrix of factor loadings linking observed variables to latent variables ($\eta$).

($\eta$) represents latent variables (e.g., Economic Development, Investment Climate).

$B$ and $T$ are matrices representing the relationships among latent variables.

$\xi$ represents external variables influencing the latent variables.

$ϵ$ and $\zeta$ are vectors of errors or residuals in the equations for observed and latent variables, respectively.

The CIE methodology allows us to compare the post-accession outcomes of treated countries (those that joined the EU) with the counterfactual—outcomes for the same countries if they had not joined the EU.

The counterfactual model is constructed by comparing the actual post-accession outcomes for the treated group with the predicted outcomes for the same countries, assuming they had not integrated into the EU.

• Treatment Group: Countries that became EU members between 2004 and 2007.

• Control Group: Non-EU countries that did not undergo EU integration during this period, were selected to match as closely as possible with the treatment group.

We construct a model that estimates the “no EU” scenario and compares it to actual outcomes (post-EU membership) to determine the treatment effect of EU integration on management practices.

Formula:

(4) $Y_{\text{post,treatment}}-Y_{\text{post,control}}=(Y_{\text{pre,treatment}}-Y_{\text{pre,control}})+\tau +ϵ$

Where:

$Y_{\text{post,treatment}}$ is the post-intervention outcome for the treated group.

$Y_{\text{post,control}}$ is the post-intervention outcome for the control group.

$Y_{\text{pre,treatment}}$ and $Y_{\text{pre,control}}$ are the pre-intervention outcomes for the treated and control groups, respectively.

$\tau$ is the treatment effect of EU integration on the outcome variable.

$ϵ$ is the error term.

To complement the quantitative findings, this study incorporates qualitative interviews to explore managerial perspectives on the changes in management practices due to EU integration.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the dataset, offering an overview of the economic and innovation conditions of Central and Eastern European countries from 2000 to 2023. This table is essential for understanding the trends and shifts in management practices and organizational behavior, both before and after EU integration.

The data includes information on GDP per capita, which serves as a key indicator of the economic health and standard of living in the countries studied. By examining this metric, we can observe the economic diversity across the region. The variation in GDP per capita reflects the different economic conditions in these countries and helps contextualize how changes in management practices might have responded to the economic environments during the study period.

FDI inflows, measured in USD millions, provide insight into the investment climate of the countries. FDI is often used as a gauge of a country’s economic openness and attractiveness to foreign investors. The data shows fluctuations in FDI inflows, which can significantly influence organizational strategies and management practices, especially in the context of EU integration. As countries joined the EU, the increased cross-border investment would likely have encouraged changes in how organizations operate and manage their affairs.

R&D expenditure, expressed as a percentage of GDP, is another critical measure in the dataset. It reflects a country’s commitment to technological advancement and innovation. Countries with higher R&D spending are typically more focused on fostering an innovative environment, which is closely tied to the adoption of advanced management practices. The dataset highlights how varying levels of R&D expenditure across these countries correlate with the development of competitive organizational practices in response to EU integration.

The unemployment rate, expressed as a percentage, is another important factor. This indicator is significant for understanding how labor market conditions may have impacted management practices, particularly concerning human resource strategies and organizational restructuring. A higher unemployment rate might lead to changes in how companies approach hiring, training, and retention, while a lower rate might indicate a more competitive labor market, influencing management practices in other ways.

The business regulation environment score reflects the overall quality of the regulatory framework in each country. This score provides a measure of how conducive the business environment is for organizational efficiency and growth. Countries with higher scores typically experience smoother operations in terms of compliance, market access, and regulatory standards. As EU integration generally involves harmonizing regulations, this score can be used to assess how well companies adapted their management practices to align with EU norms and standards.

Finally, the innovation index is a composite measure that evaluates the level of innovation within a country. A higher innovation index indicates a greater focus on developing new ideas, technologies, and processes, which are critical to effective management. As innovation is often closely linked to the competitiveness of organizations, this index serves as an important indicator of how advanced management practices are within a country, particularly as countries integrate further into the European market.

Each of these variables helps paint a picture of the economic and regulatory landscape in which management practices have evolved in CEE countries over time, especially in response to EU integration. The dataset provides valuable context for understanding the shifts in organizational strategies and behaviors, offering insights into how external economic and regulatory factors influenced the evolution of management practices in these countries.

Grounded in the eclectic paradigm (Dunning, 1988) and organizational change theories (Lewin, 1947; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), this study investigates the impact of EU integration on management practices within CEE countries. The hypothesis suggests that EU integration leads to a positive transformation in management practices, driven by economic expansion, regulatory harmonization, and enhanced innovation capacities (Corciolani, 2023).

To assess these changes, a DiD approach was applied, comparing pre- and post-integration periods between CEE countries (treatment group) and a control group of non-EU European countries (Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, and Ukraine). This method allows for a more accurate measurement of the causal impact of EU integration by controlling for external macroeconomic trends that may have influenced managerial practices independently of EU membership. Fig. 1 presents the pre- vs. post-EU Integration Economic indicators.

Fig. 1 presents a comparative analysis of economic indicators before and after EU integration, highlighting significant structural and managerial transformations in CEE economies. The legend accurately represents all economic indicators, ensuring clarity in the distinction between pre-EU and post-EU data.

The post-EU integration period shows a notable increase in GDP per capita across all CEE countries, indicating that integration into a larger economic bloc contributes to overall economic growth. This expansion provides firms with greater financial resources to invest in innovation, workforce development, and management improvements.

FDI inflows increased significantly after EU accession, reflecting enhanced investor confidence. The influx of capital introduces new business strategies, expertise, and governance practices, improving overall operational efficiency.

R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP also increased post-integration, reinforcing the role of EU membership in fostering innovation. However, disparities with Western European firms persist, indicating that additional institutional support may be required.

Unemployment rates declined post-EU integration, suggesting improved labor market efficiency, better workforce allocation, and more structured employment policies driven by EU-wide labor mobility policies.

The findings demonstrate that EU membership has had a positive impact on corporate decision-making, innovation strategies, and regulatory compliance, reinforcing the link between EU integration and economic modernization.

The SEM analysis in this study focuses on exploring the complex relationships between EU integration, regulatory harmonization, market access, and management practices in CEE countries. It aims to capture both the direct and indirect effects of EU membership on management practices, with a particular emphasis on the mediating role of innovation capabilities.

Management Practices in this analysis are defined as the organizational processes and strategies employed by firms that are influenced by both external (EU integration) and internal (organizational adaptation) factors. In the SEM framework, management practices are conceptualized as a latent variable, which is measured by observed variables related to organizational strategies and innovation practices. These observed variables include things like innovation adoption, regulatory compliance, and strategic decision-making that firms implement in response to the regulatory and economic pressures post-EU accession.

Innovation Capabilities are treated as a mediator in this model. According to Rogers (2003)’s Diffusion of Innovations Theory, innovations within firms are influenced by external pressures and internal capacities, which align with the role of innovation capabilities as a bridging factor between EU integration and enhanced management practices. Innovation capabilities represent the ability of firms to develop and implement new technologies and strategies, which are key drivers of organizational performance and management evolution in the context of EU membership.

The SEM model seeks to answer how EU integration leads to changes in management practices via multiple pathways, particularly through regulatory harmonization, market access, and innovation capabilities. Each of these pathways is assigned a coefficient that quantifies the strength of the relationship between the variables. Fig. 2 below illustrates the paths and coefficients in the SEM model, showing the relationships between EU integration, regulatory harmonization, market access, innovation capabilities, and management practices.

In the figure above, each path in the model represents a hypothesized relationship, and the coefficients indicate the strength of each relationship.

EU Integration to Regulatory Harmonization (Coefficient = 0.7): This path shows a strong effect, indicating that EU integration significantly influences the regulatory harmonization process in CEE countries. As EU regulations become more standardized, firms must adapt their management practices to comply with these new rules, which is a direct precursor to other changes in organizational behavior.

Regulatory Harmonization to Innovation Capabilities (Coefficient = 0.8): This path reveals an even stronger relationship, suggesting that the regulatory changes driven by EU membership play a central role in fostering innovation capabilities within firms. As regulatory environments align with EU standards, firms are incentivized to innovate and invest in new technologies to maintain competitiveness in the larger EU market.

Innovation Capabilities to Management Practices (Coefficient = 0.9): The strongest path in the SEM model, this coefficient indicates a direct and strong impact of innovation capabilities on management practices. As firms’ ability to innovate improves, it directly influences their management practices, making them more adaptable and competitive in a rapidly changing environment.

EU Integration to Market Access (Coefficient = 0.6): This path signifies that EU integration opens up new market opportunities for firms. The lower coefficient compared to other paths suggests that while market access is influenced by EU integration, its impact on management practices is somewhat indirect compared to regulatory harmonization and innovation capabilities.

Market Access to Management Practices (Coefficient = 0.75): The positive relationship between market access and management practices highlights the importance of access to broader EU markets. Firms that gain access to these markets are more likely to adjust their management practices to meet the demands of international competition, further enhancing organizational performance.

EU Integration to Management Practices (Coefficient = 0.5): This coefficient indicates a moderate direct influence of EU integration on management practices. While the direct effect of EU integration on management practices is positive, the stronger indirect effects through regulatory harmonization and innovation capabilities play a more significant role.

The SEM results provide a comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms through which EU integration influences management practices in CEE countries. Fig. 3 illustrates the conceptual framework and path coefficients, highlighting the relationships among key variables.

The CIE technique provides a powerful tool for assessing the causal effects of the EU integration on management practices in CEE countries. By constructing a counterfactual scenario—what the situation would have been in the absence of EU integration—CIE allows for a nuanced understanding of the integration’s actual impact. This methodology is particularly relevant given the theoretical backdrop of the eclectic paradigm (Dunning, 1988), organizational change theories (Lewin, 1947; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), and innovation diffusion (Rogers, 2003), which underscore the transformative potential of such macro-level changes on organizational behaviors and practices.

Rooted in our hypothesis that EU integration significantly enhances management practices in CEE countries by promoting regulatory harmonization, access to new markets, and innovation (Alcaraz et al, 2024; Corciolani, 2023), the CIE analysis aims to empirically substantiate these assertions. It assesses the extent to which observed improvements in management practices can be directly attributed to EU integration, as opposed to other extraneous factors. Fig. 4 presents the CIE analysis of the impact of EU integration on Management Practices.

In the figure above, the is a noticeable divergence between the observed and counterfactual outcomes across several key dimensions: Regulatory Harmonization, Market Access, Innovation Capabilities, and Overall Management Practices. Specifically, we observe a pronounced enhancement in Regulatory Harmonization, where the observed outcome significantly surpasses the counterfactual scenario, indicating a robust effect of EU integration in aligning CEE countries with broader EU regulatory standards.

This finding is consistent with the insights provided by Zhelyazkova et al (2024) and Alcaraz et al (2024), emphasizing the pivotal role of EU-driven regulatory harmonization in elevating management practices. Similarly, the domain of Market Access reveals a substantial improvement, attributable to the EU integration process.

This enhancement aligns with the theoretical propositions of Dunning (1988), suggesting that integration facilitates greater market access, thereby fostering more dynamic and outward-looking management practices among CEE firms. The positive differential observed in the figure supports our hypothesis regarding the catalytic effect of EU integration on expanding operational horizons for businesses in the region. Moreover, the Innovation Capabilities segment of the figure underscores the critical influence of EU integration in bolstering innovation-driven management practices.

This observation is rooted in the diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003), reflecting how integration facilitates the adoption of innovative technologies and processes, driving the modernization of management practices across CEE countries. The gap between observed and counterfactual outcomes in this category highlights the integral role of EU policies and initiatives in enhancing the innovation ecosystem within these nations. Lastly, the Overall Management Practices curve showcases the cumulative impact of EU integration across all examined facets. This comprehensive view reaffirms our hypothesis that EU integration acts as a significant enhancer of management practices, contributing to a more sophisticated, innovative, and adaptive organizational landscape in CEE countries.

The divergence between the observed and counterfactual scenarios encapsulates the broad spectrum of positive changes induced by EU integration, from regulatory compliance and market engagement to innovation and organizational efficiency. These results, depicted in the figure, provide empirical support for our overarching narrative that EU integration has been a critical driver of management practice evolution in Central and Eastern Europe, fostering a convergence towards more advanced, competitive, and sustainable organizational models. The analysis underscores the transformative potential of EU integration in reshaping the business and management landscape of CEE countries, offering valuable insights for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners alike.

This qualitative analysis seeks to explore the nuanced perceptions and adaptive strategies of managers facing the challenges and opportunities presented by EU integration. Anchored in the theoretical frameworks of international business (Dunning, 1988), organizational change (Lewin, 1947; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), and innovation management (Rogers, 2003), this section aims to uncover the lived experiences of managers navigating the complex landscape of EU integration (Zhelyazkova et al, 2024; Alcaraz et al, 2024; Corciolani, 2023).

The qualitative analysis of managerial perspectives on EU integration provides a rich, nuanced understanding of how EU policies and economic integration have influenced management practices across CEE countries. Through semi-structured interviews with 30 managers from various sectors—ranging from manufacturing to IT and services—we sought to capture the diversity of experiences and strategic responses to EU integration. These managers were selected based on their direct involvement in strategic decision-making processes and their firsthand experience with the challenges and opportunities presented by EU integration.

The interviews were meticulously transcribed, and the data were subjected to thematic analysis, a method that enables the identification, analysis, and reporting of patterns (themes) within data. This approach facilitated a deep dive into the complex dynamics at play, revealing four major themes that reflect the multifaceted impact of EU integration on management practices in the interview. Managers highlighted the need for strategic realignment to navigate the expanded market and regulatory environment. This theme encapsulates discussions on shifting business models, market entry strategies, and the reevaluation of competitive positioning in light of EU integration. Managers expressed that access to a larger market demanded a more sophisticated understanding of diverse consumer preferences and competitive landscapes. Respondents frequently cited the challenge and necessity of adapting to EU regulatory standards.

This theme includes insights into the complexities of aligning local practices with EU directives, particularly in areas such as environmental compliance, labor laws, and data protection. Managers noted that while this adaptation process was resource-intensive, it ultimately led to more robust governance structures and enhanced corporate responsibility. A significant emphasis was placed on the role of EU integration in accelerating innovation and digitalization efforts. Managers reported increased investment in R&D and digital infrastructure, driven by both the opportunities presented by the digital single market and the competitive pressure to innovate.

This theme reflects the broader trend towards embracing digital technologies as a cornerstone of competitive strategy in the EU context. Managers articulated the importance of navigating cultural and institutional differences within the EU framework.

This theme underscores the relationship between global standardization and local adaptation, highlighting how firms strive to balance EU-wide practices with the nuances of local traditions and business environments. Managers stressed the value of cultural awareness and institutional knowledge in crafting strategies that are both compliant with EU norms and responsive to local contexts.

Fig. 4 presents the frequency with which these themes emerged during the interviews, providing a details representation of their relative prominence in the discussions. The balanced distribution of themes suggests that EU integration impacts a broad spectrum of managerial concerns, from the strategic to the operational and from the technical to the cultural. Our analysis revealed several key themes that underscore the multifaceted impact of EU integration on management practices.

As illustrated in Fig. 5, the most frequently cited themes in managers’ perspectives on EU integration include strategic reorientation, regulatory adaptation, and innovation-driven transformation, highlighting the multifaceted impact of integration on organizational thinking.

In the figure above, for matters relating to Strategic Reorientation, any managers reported a significant shift in their strategic outlook, emphasizing the need for greater market orientation and competitiveness in the broader EU landscape. This reflects the influence of EU integration in compelling firms to adopt more outward-looking and proactive strategies to leverage new opportunities. As for Regulatory Adaptation, respondents highlighted the challenge of navigating the complex regulatory environment of the EU, with many noting the extensive organizational changes required to ensure compliance.

This supports the notion that EU integration acts as a catalyst for regulatory harmonization, necessitating substantial adaptation efforts on the part of CEE firms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). A common theme was the acceleration of innovation and digital transformation initiatives, driven by the need to compete effectively in the EU market. Managers pointed to the pivotal role of EU integration in facilitating access to new technologies, funding, and collaborative networks, which has been instrumental in driving innovation (Rogers, 2003).

A for Cultural and Institutional Sensitivities, Despite the overarching narrative of convergence towards EU standards, managers also emphasized the importance of maintaining local cultural and institutional idiosyncrasies. This finding aligns with the hypothesis that while EU integration fosters a degree of harmonization, distinct local adaptations and responses remain crucial to organizational success (Corciolani, 2023).