Amid Europe’s demographic decline and the intensifying global “war for talent,” migration is increasingly viewed as a critical source of human capital capable of sustaining economic growth and welfare systems. Nevertheless, the literature on Macro-Talent Management (MTM) has primarily focused on the attraction of highly skilled expatriates, paying limited attention to how national integration systems shape the broader capacity of countries to attract and retain migrant talent. Addressing this gap, the present study conceptualizes migrant integration as a strategic component of macro-level talent management and evaluates the “talent attractiveness” of different European welfare and migration regimes. Methodologically, the study develops a multi-criteria evaluation framework based on the PROMETHEE II (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations) outranking method, enabling the simultaneous assessment of institutional, socio-economic, and administrative dimensions of migration governance. The model integrates nine indicators combining policy inclusiveness (e.g., Migrant Integration Policy Index—MIPEX (Migrant Integration Policy Index), citizenship accessibility), labor market outcomes (employment and gender gaps), and systemic pressures on migration management (asylum applications). By integrating policy indicators with real-world labor market performance and administrative capacity, the proposed framework offers a novel analytical tool for comparative migration policy evaluation and decision support. The empirical application covers six European countries representing distinct migration regimes: Portugal, Sweden, France, Poland, Greece, and Germany. The results challenge the conventional assumption that economic strength alone determines migrant attractiveness. Portugal emerges as the most attractive destination, demonstrating that inclusive rights-based integration policies can offset lower GDP levels. In contrast, Germany ranks last in the sample, revealing signs of systemic overextension due to extreme administrative pressure, while Greece occupies the fifth position characterized by structural integration deficits. The study contributes to the literature by linking migration governance, integration policy effectiveness, and macro-level talent management and by introducing a multi-criteria decision-analytic approach for evaluating national migration systems in Europe. The study offers a reassessment of the ‘talent attractiveness’ of European welfare models in a post-pandemic context (2023).

Greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport are now priced, audited and contractually allocated, yet no study in the corpus reviewed here provides firm-level evidence on how shipping companies measure, allocate and use these costs internally. This critical, integrative review addresses environmental cost accounting in shipping management, synthesizing environmental management accounting (EMA), carbon accounting, material flow cost accounting, maritime economics and ESG research. Deliberately comparative, it confronts competing positions on measurement quality, regulatory pressure, implementation barriers and the ESG–performance relationship. Three findings emerge. First, the documented evidence shows that shipping firms respond to carbon pricing through pass-through and rerouting, while the reviewed literature provides little direct evidence that these data are systematically used in internal environmental costing and management control. Second, read jointly, the two bodies of literature imply that barriers operate interdependently across technical, organizational, economic and contractual levels, shipping’s mobile cost objects and owner–charterer structures invalidating assumptions of land-based EMA research. Third, emerging asset-pricing, financing and chartering evidence suggests that environmental costing capability is beginning to function as a competitive advantage. These findings inform the Pressure–Absorption–Integration–Outcomes (PAIO) framework, distinguishing compliance-level, decision-level and strategy-level integration and yielding six research items that address this gap.