As primary law stipulates, the EU must be open to its citizens. However, this can be challenging in the digital age, as e-governance tools can simplify data and transparency rules rather than guarantee openness. The European Parliament concluded this in a recent report on the EU's Transparency requirements. The report also references the EU Ombudsman's recommendation of proactive transparency.

Proactive transparency refers to disclosure regimes that operate without further request from data subjects through the public release of specific data sets in the pursuit of openness and accountability. More specifically, proactive regimes are based on the public's right to information, the general demand for the information necessary to hold governments to account, and active participation in decision-making. The benefits of proactive transparency include increased public trust, improved decision-making processes and enhanced accountability, all of which are crucial for effective EU governance.

The paper cites the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as a pioneer of proactive transparency following the glyphosate saga, which led to adopting such rules in EFSA's work. In other regions, glyphosate, marketed worldwide, has been partially banned. However, the EU has re-authorised this active substance several times, the most recent being at the end of 2023. This controversy led to a demand for more openness in food legislation with the new General Food Law (GFL) reform in 2019, introducing proactive transparency measures (EFSA publishes all supporting data and information on applications). Moreover, this system presents opportunities and challenges for other EU policies, potentially spilling over to sectors with similar authorisation requirements and agency-like expert bodies (like pharmaceutical and chemical authorisations).

The paper aims to explore the impact of the GFL reform on the functioning of the EFSA and the potential to apply these lessons from the proactive transparency regime to other policy areas of the EU. In a broader context, this research could also reflect the new realities of openness regimes as the EFSA recognises the administrative burdens and capacity concerns posed by the proactive transparency reform. Therefore, the project could also reflect the challenges of public policy and administrative reforms at the beginning of the XXI century.

This study investigates how the merger between Bombardier and Alstom shapes organizational change management strategies and leadership practices in virtual teams. Through an interdisciplinary approach, the research focuses on the Human Resources (HR) teams based in Cluj-Napoca, which coordinate processes for employees located in various European regions (i.e. the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Nordic countries) and beyond. Specifically, the analysis highlights two major dimensions: (1) the harmonization of corporate procedures and cultures inherited from both companies in the context of European integration and governance requirements, and (2) the adaptation of virtual leadership styles to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the adoption of remote work.

Methodologically, the study combines internal document analysis with semi-structured interviews to capture the perspectives of both managers and HR specialists directly involved in the post-merger process. Preliminary findings suggest that, although the merger intensifies tensions concerning organizational identity and the distribution of responsibilities, it also enhances opportunities for transnational collaboration. Moreover, the pandemic has prompted a recalibration of leadership styles, emphasizing digital coordination and the maintenance of cohesion among employees spread across different time zones and cultural contexts.

The conclusions provide relevant insights into how large European corporations can bolster their resilience and competitiveness adapting to the new global pressures. By underscoring the role of EU policies in facilitating (or constraining) merger processes, this study also highlights the potential of the railway industry to contribute to a stronger, more inclusive Europe better equipped to tackle emerging global challenges.

The European Union has established itself as an international actor in crisis management. The first communication on crisis management, authored by the European Commission, dates back to 2003. Two decades later, crisis management is recognised as one of the central pillars of the EU’s external action. Operating in a poly-crisis, complex and uncertain environment, the EU seeks to implement an integrated approach encompassing all phases of the crisis cycle and coordinating multiple policies and instruments. In this context, enhancing crisis preparedness and resilience has become a priority for the EU. Following the Niinistö Report, the European Council considered that coordinated military and civil preparedness is required in an all-hazards and whole-of-society approach. This paper focuses on the contribution of the CSDP, in its dual civil and military components, to international health crisis management, aiming to analyse the adaptability of a complex organisation to ex ante unforeseeable crises. By applying the combined theoretical framework of organisational resilience and international actorness, based on its three interrelated concepts of opportunity, capability, and presence, to the Covid-19 crisis, it addresses the research question: How did the adaptability of civilian missions and military operations unfold in response to the Covid-19 pandemic crisis? The analysis of the civilian-military nexus is particularly insightful considering the policy areas under analysis (security and health policies) and the EU’s global actorness ambition. We conducted a Qualitative Thematic Analysis of selected EU documents to identify, analyse, and report meaningful patterns within their discourses. Then, we confronted the discourses with the patterns of action. The paper is organised in four sections. First, we present the theoretical framework, the key concepts, and the methodology. The second section describes the environment where the mission and operations (opportunity) were operated. In the third section, we analyse how the EU responded to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in the framework of CSDP (capability). The fourth section explores the ability of an actor to exert influence through adaptability beyond its borders in a critical environment (presence).