IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p3787-d1640227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Entrepreneurial Clusters in Advancing Circular Bioeconomy and Innovation: A Case Study from Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Boglárka Vajda

    (Faculty of International Business and Economics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Piața Romană 6, 010374 Bucharest, Romania
    Asociatia Green Energy, Asociatia Asimcov, Presei 4, 520064 Sfantu Gheorghe, Romania)

  • Gabriela Drăgan

    (Faculty of International Business and Economics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Piața Romană 6, 010374 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Lajos Vajda

    (Asociatia Green Energy, Asociatia Asimcov, Presei 4, 520064 Sfantu Gheorghe, Romania)

  • Mária-Magdolna Gáspár

    (Asociatia Green Energy, Asociatia Asimcov, Presei 4, 520064 Sfantu Gheorghe, Romania)

  • Miklós Levente Bagoly

    (Asociatia Green Energy, Asociatia Asimcov, Presei 4, 520064 Sfantu Gheorghe, Romania)

Abstract

This paper explores how bioeconomy-specialized clusters function as systemic intermediaries that support innovation, coordination, and business transformation in the transition to a circular bioeconomy. Using a qualitative case study methodology, we analyze how bioclusters in Romania enable SME development, knowledge transfer, and cross-sector innovation, ultimately strengthening regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Findings highlight the role of clusters in supporting innovation management, access to financing, and policy alignment in the transition toward a circular bioeconomy. By fostering entrepreneurial networks, facilitating skill development, and supporting SME-driven innovation, clusters act as catalysts for inclusive and resilient business growth. This study highlights how clusters create an enabling environment by providing access to financing, technology, and market expansion opportunities. Although focused on a specific regional biocluster ecosystem, the findings underscore the scalability and replicability of this model across Europe, reinforcing its contribution to entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional economic development. This study contributes to the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems and circular bioeconomy governance, emphasizing the role of clusters as intermediary organizations that facilitate business-led sustainability transitions. The findings offer practical insights for policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers, outlining strategies to strengthen cluster-based innovation, enhance SME competitiveness, and embed circular practices into national and regional bioeconomy strategies. This paper’s added value lies in combining the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework with empirical evidence from Romanian clusters—a context underexplored in current literature on circular bioeconomy transitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Boglárka Vajda & Gabriela Drăgan & Lajos Vajda & Mária-Magdolna Gáspár & Miklós Levente Bagoly, 2025. "The Role of Entrepreneurial Clusters in Advancing Circular Bioeconomy and Innovation: A Case Study from Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3787-:d:1640227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3787/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/3787/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yan Zhang & Haiyang Li, 2010. "Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 88-109, January.
    2. Maximilian Kardung & Kutay Cingiz & Ortwin Costenoble & Roel Delahaye & Wim Heijman & Marko Lovrić & Myrna van Leeuwen & Robert M’Barek & Hans van Meijl & Stephan Piotrowski & Tévécia Ronzon & Johanne, 2021. "Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Lisa Craiut & Constantin Bungau & Paul Andrei Negru & Tudor Bungau & Andrei-Flavius Radu, 2022. "Technology Transfer in the Context of Sustainable Development—A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Simina Teodora Hora & Constantin Bungau & Paul Andrei Negru & Andrei-Flavius Radu, 2023. "Implementing Circular Economy Elements in the Textile Industry: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Kivimaa, Paula, 2014. "Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1370-1380.
    6. Hermans, Frans, 2018. "The potential contribution of transition theory to the analysis of bioclusters and their role in the transition to a bioeconomy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 265-276.
    7. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Mauricio Alviar & Andrés García-Suaza & Laura Ramírez-Gómez & Simón Villegas-Velásquez, 2021. "Measuring the Contribution of the Bioeconomy: The Case of Colombia and Antioquia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    3. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    4. Siska Noviaristanti & Nuran Acur & Kepa Mendibil, 2024. "The different roles of innovation intermediaries to generate value," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 2545-2577, December.
    5. Leonard Prochaska & Daniel Schiller, 2021. "An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 141-249, April.
    6. Rebolledo-Leiva, Ricardo & Moreira, María Teresa & González-García, Sara, 2023. "Progress of social assessment in the framework of bioeconomy under a life cycle perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    7. Antje Klitkou & Suyash Jolly & Nina Suvinen, 2023. "Systemic intermediaries and the transition toward forest-based bioeconomy in the North," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 321-348, July.
    8. Leire Barañano & Naroa Garbisu & Itziar Alkorta & Andrés Araujo & Carlos Garbisu, 2021. "Contextualization of the Bioeconomy Concept through Its Links with Related Concepts and the Challenges Facing Humanity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Tévécia Ronzon & Susanne Iost & George Philippidis, 2022. "Has the European Union entered a bioeconomy transition? Combining an output-based approach with a shift-share analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8195-8217, June.
    10. Wilde, Kerstin & Hermans, Frans, 2024. "Transition towards a bioeconomy: Comparison of conditions and institutional work in selected industries," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 50, pages 1-1.
    11. P. J. Stephenson & Anca Damerell, 2022. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy Approaches Need to Enhance the Focus on Biodiversity to Achieve Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Edler, Jakob & Köhler, Jonathan Hugh & Wydra, Sven & Salas-Gironés, Edgar & Schiller, Katharina & Braun, Annette, 2021. "Dimensions of systems and transformations: Towards an integrated framework for system transformations," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S03/2021, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    13. Marcelo Sili & Jochen Dürr, 2022. "Bioeconomic Entrepreneurship and Key Factors of Development: Lessons from Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-28, February.
    14. Han, Shaojie & Su, Jingqin & Lyu, Yibo & Liu, Qing, 2022. "How do business incubators govern incubation relationships with different new ventures?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Qi‐an Chen & Shuxiang Tang & Yuan Xu, 2022. "Do government subsidies and financing constraints play a dominant role in the effect of state ownership on corporate innovation? Evidence from China," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(8), pages 3698-3714, December.
    16. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    17. Daniela Pasnicu & Mihaela Ghenta & Aniela Matei, 2019. "Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-9, February.
    18. Dwibedy, Punyashlok, 2022. "Informal competition and product innovation decisions of new ventures and incumbents across developing and transitioning countries," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    19. Shao, Yan & Sun, Lingxia, 2021. "Entrepreneurs’ social capital and venture capital financing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 499-512.
    20. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:3787-:d:1640227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.