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

Academic Editors: Patricia P. Iglesias-Sánchez and Carmen Jambrino-Maldonado Received: 23 March 2025 Revised: 11 April 2025 Accepted: 21 April 2025 Published: 23 April 2025 Citation: Vajda, B.; Drăgan, G.; Vajda, L.; Gáspár, M.-M.; Bagoly, M.L. The Role of Entrepreneurial Clusters in Advancing Circular Bioeconomy and Innovation: A Case Study from Romania. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su17093787 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article The Role of Entrepreneurial Clusters in Advancing Circular Bioeconomy and Innovation: A Case Study from Romania Boglárka Vajda 1,2,* , Gabriela Drăgan 1, Lajos Vajda 2, Mária-Magdolna Gáspár 2and Miklós Levente Bagoly 2 1Faculty of International Business and Economics, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Piat ,a Romană6, 010374 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] 2Asociatia Green Energy, Asociatia Asimcov, Presei 4, 520064 Sfantu Gheorghe, Romania; [email protected] (L.V.); [email protected] (M.-M.G.); [email protected] (M.L.B.) *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +40-749-096726 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. Keywords: circular; bioeconomy; cluster; networking; innovation; intermediaries 1. Introduction Ensuring sustainable food production, environmental protection, and economic competitiveness while improving quality of life is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. The increasing pressure on natural resources has exceeded sustainable levels, raising concerns about the long-term viability of food, raw materials, and energy supplies. The European Union (EU) has set ambitious climate goals, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050 [ 1 ]. Meeting these objectives requires fundamental restructuring of how economies extract, convert, distribute, and manage resources. The circular bioeconomy has emerged as a key driver of change, offering a pathway to economic growth while addressing environmental and social challenges [2]. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093787 Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 2 of 23 As an EU member state, Romania is actively engaging in the transition to a circular bioeconomy. The country possesses significant bioeconomic potential, with abundant agricultural, forestry, and bio-based resources [ 3 ]. However, despite its high biomass availability, Romania faces structural challenges, including limited value-chain integration, insufficient policy coordination, and fragmented stakeholder engagement [ 4 ]. The slow development of bio-based networks and innovation ecosystems is often attributed to the absence of strong intermediary organizations [5]. To bridge these gaps, regional clusters serve as dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems that drive bio-based business innovation, facilitate SME growth, and strengthen the circular bioeconomy. Clusters act as intermediaries that connect businesses, research institutions, policymakers, and civil society, fostering cross-sector cooperation, research-driven innovation, and SME competitiveness [ 6 ]. Their importance is particularly significant in rural and underdeveloped regions where they facilitate technology adoption, knowledge transfer, and market access for bio-based enterprises. The success of this transition will depend on sectoral articulation among businesses, policymakers, research institutions, and civil society in order to establish new bio-based value chains. Therefore, the exchange of knowledge, the co-creation of solutions together with shared problems, and a coordinated effort that transcends sectors is crucial in fostering innovation and fostering systemic transformation towards environmental sustainability. In this regard, intermediating organizations play a critical role in facilitating collaborations, serving as a bridge between producers and users, entrepreneurs and adopters, and researchers and policymakers [ 7 ]. Thereby, bioeconomy cluster initiatives are the key intermediaries. These initiatives facilitate interaction among enterprises, research groups and public agents, and a range of other stakeholders. In acting as systemic enablers of cluster developments, bioclusters may foster value-chain formation, technology transfer, innovation, and internationalization, which is necessary for advancing the circular bioeconomy [8]. While it is true that bioeconomy clusters enhance innovation, competitiveness, and sustainability, their effectiveness is very often dependent on the presence of strong intermediary mechanisms [ 9 ]. As systemic intermediaries, clusters help businesses adopt sustainable practices, access funding and expertise, and comply with policy objectives [4]. They also facilitate joint research projects, market access, and internationalization, and serve as platforms to aid skills development and business incubation [6]. This research paper draws on the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework [ 10 ] to examine how Romanian bioclusters contribute to the circular bioeconomy transition. Specifically, it explores their intermediary role in fostering key innovation system functions: guidance of the search, resource mobilization, and legitimation. The central research question guiding this study is: How do some bioeconomy-specialized clusters in Romania act as systemic intermediaries in advancing the circular bioeconomy? Therefore, the central objective of this study is to investigate how these clusters facilitate circular innovations and what challenges they face in fulfilling their intermediary role. While prior studies have examined innovation intermediaries in Western European contexts, this study contributes to the literature by applying the TIS framework to a multisectoral case study of Romanian clusters—an empirical landscape largely neglected in bioeconomy transition research. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2presents the theoretical framework on bioeconomy transitions and intermediary roles, Section 3details the research methodology, Section 4discusses the empirical findings from five Romanian bioclusters, and Section 5concludes with key implications for policy and practice. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 3 of 23 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Bioeconomy, Circular Economy, and Circular Bioeconomy The concept of the bioeconomy has become increasingly relevant due to its potential to transform biological resources, waste, and side-streams into value-added products, including bio-based materials and bioenergy [ 11 ]. According to the European Commission [ 12 ], the bioeconomy encompasses all sectors and systems that depend on biological resources, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, aquaculture, and bio-based industries. This framework integrates these sectors into a unified system that prioritizes sustainability, efficient resource use, and circular production and consumption processes [13]. The bioeconomy offers a route to more sustainable production and consumption on the basis of renewable and biological resources and not fossil-based resources [ 14 ]. One of the key elements of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy is its integration with the Circular Economy, an economic system that aims to maintain the value of products, materials, and resources for as long as possible while minimizing waste [ 15 ]. The circular bioeconomy is positioned at the intersection of the bioeconomy and circular economy concepts, emphasizing the sustainable and efficient management of bio-based materials. The European Commission [16] defines the circular bioeconomy as a systemic approach aimed at reducing dependency on finite natural resources, reshaping industrial processes, and fostering the sustainable production and conversion of biological resources into bio-based products and bioenergy. Additionally, this model is intended to create employment opportunities and drive innovation. D’Amato et al. [ 17 ] further refine this definition, describing the circular bioeconomy as the practical integration of circular economy principles into the bioeconomy, ensuring the responsible use and regeneration of renewable biological resources. The successful development of a circular bioeconomy necessitates the active participation of a diverse set of stakeholders, including businesses, consumers, policymakers, researchers, and civil society organizations. Collaborative efforts are essential for fostering innovation, knowledge exchange, and policy alignment. The BIOEAST initiative emphasizes that the expansion of the bioeconomy relies on multi-actor engagement, cross-sector collaboration, and targeted investments to accelerate sustainable transformation [ 18 ]. Despite the increasing momentum to expand the bioeconomy, significant disparities persist across Europe. A key barrier to bioeconomy development is the slow emergence of new bio-based networks, even in regions with strong bioeconomic potential. This challenge is largely attributed to the absence of intermediary or bridging organizations, as well as institutional lock-in to pre-existing markets, relationships, and knowledge systems [5]. 2.2. Clusters as Facilitators and Intermediaries A well-functioning circular bioeconomy depends on an interactive, multi-actor environment that facilitates continuous knowledge exchange and cooperation. Multistakeholder alliances play a crucial role in connecting key actors—including government agencies, businesses, research institutions, and civil society—to mobilize knowledge, resources, and expertise in pursuit of shared objectives [ 19 ]. Within this ecosystem, intermediaries act as enablers by bridging gaps between stakeholders, mitigating transaction costs, reducing information asymmetries, and overcoming communication barriers that often hinder collaboration [ 9 ]. Intermediary organizations fulfill multiple functions within the circular bioeconomy, including knowledge transfer [ 20 ], technological and financial support [ 21 ], fostering trust and knowledge exchange, and driving collaborative innovation [22]. The role of intermediaries varies depending on the needs and expectations of different stakeholder groups [6]. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 4 of 23 • For businesses, intermediaries provide access to broader networks, funding opportunities, and technical expertise; • For academic institutions, they serve as a bridge between theoretical research and practical applications while also influencing policy development; • From the perspective of public authorities, intermediaries play a key role in regional economic development and the enhancement of innovation ecosystems. As Barrie et al. [ 8 ], Laur [ 6 ], Blankenship et al. [ 23 ], and Kivimaa [ 7 ] suggest, intermediary organizations can take various forms: triple helix innovation systems, cluster initiatives, and business incubators. Among these, cluster initiatives have gained particular attention for their ability to facilitate innovation and productive knowledge interaction in bio-based industry sectors. Clusters operate not just as service providers, but also as platforms for strategic alignment and institutional support. Hermans [ 10 ] further emphasizes that bioclusters differ from traditional clusters by serving as both innovation ecosystems and transition arenas, making them especially relevant for addressing the systemic challenges of the bioeconomy transition. 2.3. Bio-Clusters as Intermediaries in the Bioeconomy In this study, we use the term bioclusters to refer to entrepreneurial clusters that are specialized in the bioeconomy sector. These clusters integrate actors across research, business, and policy domains to support innovation and sustainability-oriented transformation within regional economies. Clusters constitute an important organizational arrangement for enhancing the performance of regional innovation systems [ 24 ]. They are essentially a network of stakeholders, businesses, research and innovation entities, financial sector organizations, and governance bodies, working together for some common or complementary strategic objectives. This facilitative environment allows the firms and other actors in it to exploit shared competitive strengths and synergies, hence promoting solidarity in problem-solving and capacity-building. As dynamic and adaptive organizational structures, clusters facilitate both long-term strategic planning and short-term project-based collaborations. Consistent with the economic cluster theory [ 25 ], clusters are recognized for fostering industrial specialization, competitiveness, and innovation [ 26 ]. The growing prominence of bioeconomy and circular bioeconomy paradigms has further reinforced the importance of biocluster initiatives. These entities catalyze regional economic cooperation, support cross-sectoral knowledge flows, and facilitate sustainable transformation by aligning actors and building supportive institutional environments. Whereas traditional industrial clusters concentrate on competitiveness and innovation, bioclusters integrate additional objectives such as environmental responsibility and socio-economic resilience. In line with EU Green Deal priorities [ 27 ], bioeconomy clusters act as territorial platforms for mainstreaming circular bioeconomy principles and creating new bio-based value-chains. Bio-clusters operate as systemic intermediaries [ 28 ] within the TIS framework. They contribute to core innovation system functions such as resource mobilization, legitimation of emerging technologies, and guidance of the search [ 29 ]. As they evolve from project facilitators into agents of structural change, bioclusters influence regional development trajectories, foster institutional innovation, and enhance the legitimacy of sustainability-oriented practices [ 7 , 10 ]. Through these mechanisms, bioclusters simultaneously fulfill operational mandates and contribute to the structural transformation of the innovation system. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 5 of 23 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Research Design This study adopts a qualitative case study approach [ 30 ] to examine the role of bioclusters as intermediaries in Romania’s circular bioeconomy. Specifically, the analysis focuses on a biocluster ecosystem of five clusters spanning bioenergy, agro-food, forestry, textiles, and balneology. The selection criteria for these five clusters were based on the following. •Their economic relevance and maturity within Romania’s regional bioeconomy; • The need for sectoral diversity to ensure coverage of multiple industries engaged in bioeconomic innovation; •Their integration of circular bioeconomy principles within strategic operations. While this in-depth approach limits generalizability to other regions, the insights obtained offer replicable strategies that may inform similar bioeconomy cluster initiatives in Europe and beyond. 3.2. Data Collection The study employs a multi-method qualitative approach to gather comprehensive data and ensure methodological triangulation. The following three main data sources were used. •Semi-Structured Interviews: Ten key stakeholders—cluster managers, SME representatives, policymakers, and funding institutions—were interviewed to discuss cluster structures and strategic objectives, stakeholder roles, collaboration mechanisms, and challenges such as policy coordination and financing. • Document Analysis: Over 50 reports, policy documents, and strategic plans from clusters and public institutions were reviewed. These documents provided contextual background on cluster evolution, funding mechanisms, and policy alignment. • Direct Observation: The research team conducted field visits and virtual observations of cluster activities and stakeholder meetings, focusing on decision-making processes, internal communication channels, and policy engagement efforts. 3.3. Semi-Structured Interviews and Data Coding To gain deeper insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by these five bioclusters, the research team conducted ten semi-structured interviews from 10 January to 1 February 2025. The interviewees were chosen for their flexibility; each participant could elaborate on experiences specific to their cluster role, while the questions ensured that core topics—clusters’ intermediary roles, financing mechanisms, collaborative strategies, and innovation practices—were consistently addressed. Table 1below provides an overview of the interview participants. Anonymized codes (P1, P2, etc.) were assigned to safeguard confidentiality. Interviews were conducted by telephone, or in person, with durations ranging from 30 to 60 min. All interviewees provided informed consent and received explanations about the study’s purpose, scope, and data handling procedures. Data from interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and imported into NVivo 15 [ 31 ] for coding. A preliminary coding framework was developed based on the research objectives—intermediation, collaboration, innovation practices, financing, and policy alignment—and refined iteratively as transcripts were analyzed. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 6 of 23 Table 1. Overview of the semi-structured interview participants (N = 10). Interview Code Position/Role Type of Organization Date of Interview Duration (min) Method P1 Cluster manager Bioenergy Cluster 10 January 2025 45 Face-to-face P2 SME representative AgroFood Cluster 12 January 2025 40 Face-to-face P3 Cluster expert Balneo Cluster 15 January 2025 35 Telephone Call P4 Cluster manager Textile Cluster 16 January 2025 50 Face-to-face P5 SME representative Wood Cluster 20 January 2025 30 Telephone Call P6 Cluster expert Bioenergy Cluster 21 January 2025 40 Face-to-face P7 SME representative Textile Cluster 25 January 2025 45 Face-to-face P8 Cluster manager AgroFood Cluster 27 January 2025 60 Face-to-face P9 Cluster manager Wood Cluster 30 January 2025 35 Face-to-face P10 Consultant Consultancy Organization (SME) 1 February 2025 50 Face-to-face 3.4. Data Analysis Two researchers independently applied the coding framework to each transcript, following a thematic analysis approach. They met frequently to reconcile minor discrepancies, ensuring a consistent interpretation of the codes. After finalizing all thematic categories, Cohen’s kappa was calculated at 0.82, indicating a high level of inter-coder reliability. Data saturation was deemed to have been reached when no new themes or insights emerged, reflecting a redundancy of perspectives on the clusters’ intermediary roles and bioeconomic challenges. To strengthen validity, the study applied methodological triangulation, cross-referencing interview findings with the insights from document analysis and direct observation. This approach minimized subjectivity by confirming patterns across different data sources. The coded data were ultimately grouped into core thematic categories (e.g., “financing challenges”, “regulatory misalignment”, “cross-cluster cooperation”), guiding the comparative analysis of the five bioclusters presented in the subsequent sections. Although the focus on five regional clusters limits the direct transferability of findings to other contexts, the indepth examination of their intermediary role offers valuable insights for practitioners and policymakers seeking to strengthen cluster-based innovation strategies in the bioeconomy sector across Europe. 4. Results and Findings 4.1. The Growth of a Biocluster Ecosystem in Romania Michael Porter’s definition of clusters as geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions remains foundational to Romania’s industrial policy [25]. The European Commission’s Communication on Competitiveness and Industrial Policy further refines this concept by describing clusters as dynamic economic ecosystems that bring together enterprises, institutions, and regional actors to foster specialization and boost competitiveness [ 32 ]. Clusters in Romania are officially recognized under Government Decision 918/2006—Impact Programme, which defines clusters as groupings of producers, users, and/or beneficiaries that aim to transfer EU best practices to enhance industrial competitiveness. As of early 2024, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Business Environment recorded 78 cluster initiatives, reflecting the expansion of collaborative innovation structures within the country. Among these, 54 are members of CLUSTERO, Romania’s Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 7 of 23 national cluster association that unites the most active clusters in sectors such as renewable energy, textiles, wood and furniture, and agro-food [33]. Figure 1illustrates how clusters function as collaborative ecosystems, integrating key stakeholders across multiple sectors. The model underscores the importance of synergistic interactions among businesses, research institutions, public authorities, and support organizations. By fostering cooperation, these clusters enhance knowledge transfer, technological development, and economic growth while ensuring alignment with regional and national development strategies. The integration of the four-clover model further reinforces their role in driving sustainable innovation and long-term competitiveness. Sustainability 2025, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24 Business Environment recorded 78 cluster initiatives, reflecting the expansion of collaborative innovation structures within the country. Among these, 54 are members of CLUSTERO, Romania’s national cluster association that unites the most active clusters in sectors such as renewable energy, textiles, wood and furniture, and agro-food [33]. Figure 1 illustrates how clusters function as collaborative ecosystems, integrating key stakeholders across multiple sectors. The model underscores the importance of synergistic interactions among businesses, research institutions, public authorities, and support organizations. By fostering cooperation, these clusters enhance knowledge transfer, technological development, and economic growth while ensuring alignment with regional and national development strategies. The integration of the four-clover model further reinforces their role in driving sustainable innovation and long-term competitiveness. Figure 1. Clusters as collaborative ecosystems, integrating diverse stakeholders. Source: Compiled by the authors based on Carayannis et al. [34]. A cluster is defined as an integrated system of multiple actors—businesses, academia, public authorities, and catalyst organizations—that collaborate to enhance competitiveness and innovation in a specific field [35]. The cluster concept in Romania follows the four-clover model, expanding upon the triple-helix framework [36]. This model integrates businesses, academic institutions, government bodies, and financial/innovation intermediaries, enabling long-term sustainability and cross-sector collaboration. The regional biocluster ecosystem has evolved progressively, shaped by structural and economic policies that foster innovation. Its origins can be traced to the establishment of the Business Incubator of Sfântu Gheorghe in 2006, supported by the United Nations Development Programme. Initially designed as a business accelerator, the incubator has since transformed into a multifunctional hub offering incubation programs, coworking spaces, digital innovation support, and capacity-building initiatives. Between 2007 and 2024, the incubator has played a pivotal role in supporting 146 companies, with 63 businesses still active today. Additionally, it serves as a platform for 21 non-governmental organizations and other entities, reinforcing its long-term contribution to regional economic development and cluster sustainability (Table 2). Table 2. Sfântu Gheorghe Business Incubator evolution (2007–2025). Entity Type 2007–2024 2025 SMEs 146 63 Figure 1. Clusters as collaborative ecosystems, integrating diverse stakeholders. Source: Compiled by the authors based on Carayannis et al. [34]. A cluster is defined as an integrated system of multiple actors—businesses, academia, public authorities, and catalyst organizations—that collaborate to enhance competitiveness and innovation in a specific field [ 35 ]. The cluster concept in Romania follows the four-clover model, expanding upon the triple-helix framework [ 36 ]. This model integrates businesses, academic institutions, government bodies, and financial/innovation intermediaries, enabling long-term sustainability and cross-sector collaboration. The regional biocluster ecosystem has evolved progressively, shaped by structural and economic policies that foster innovation. Its origins can be traced to the establishment of the Business Incubator of Sfântu Gheorghe in 2006, supported by the United Nations Development Programme. Initially designed as a business accelerator, the incubator has since transformed into a multifunctional hub offering incubation programs, coworking spaces, digital innovation support, and capacity-building initiatives. Between 2007 and 2024, the incubator has played a pivotal role in supporting 146 companies, with 63 businesses still active today. Additionally, it serves as a platform for 21 non-governmental organizations and other entities, reinforcing its long-term contribution to regional economic development and cluster sustainability (Table 2). Table 2. Sfântu Gheorghe Business Incubator evolution (2007–2025). Entity Type 2007–2024 2025 SMEs 146 63 NGOs and other entities 20 21 Cluster management entity 5 5 Source: authors’ own elaboration based on data provided by ASIMCOV. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 8 of 23 Figure 2visually represents the biocluster ecosystem, illustrating its role in fostering sustainability and innovation through a structured approach. The diagram’s roof highlights the overarching goals—sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)— which serve as the foundation for all activities within the ecosystem. Sustainability 2025, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24 NGOs and other entities 20 21 Cluster management entity 5 5 Source: authors’ own elaboration based on data provided by ASIMCOV. Figure 2 visually represents the biocluster ecosystem, illustrating its role in fostering sustainability and innovation through a structured approach. The diagram’s roof highlights the overarching goals—sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—which serve as the foundation for all activities within the ecosystem. Figure 2. The biocluster ecosystem and its contribution to sustainability. Source: authors’ own elaboration. At the core of the ecosystem are five distinct bioclusters, each specializing in different sectors of the bioeconomy and circular economy. • Green Energy Biomass Cluster (#Bioenergy, #Bioeconomy)—focused on renewable energy solutions, biomass utilization, and decarbonization; • AgroFood Cluster (#Bioenergy, #Bioeconomy)—promoting sustainable agricultural practices, waste valorization, and food innovation; • ProWood Cluster (#Wood, #Forestry)—concentrating on sustainable forestry management, wood processing, and eco-friendly furniture production; • Textile Cluster (#Circular, #bio-based textiles)—advancing circular fashion, biobased materials, and low-impact textile manufacturing; • Balneo Cluster (#Natural bioresources)—leveraging Romania’s natural balneological resources for health tourism and wellness innovations (Table 3). Table 3. Composition of key bioclusters. CLUSTER ORGANIZATION Year Established Total Members Composition of Clusters Businesses Research, Universities, Education Public Authorities Others PROWOOD 2010 81 60 4 6 11 AGRO-FOOD 2011 117 60 39 13 5 TEXTILE 2012 47 44 1 1 1 GREEN ENERGY 2011 80 49 14 14 3 Figure 2. The biocluster ecosystem and its contribution to sustainability. Source: authors’ own elaboration. At the core of the ecosystem are five distinct bioclusters, each specializing in different sectors of the bioeconomy and circular economy. • Green Energy Biomass Cluster (#Bioenergy, #Bioeconomy)—focused on renewable energy solutions, biomass utilization, and decarbonization; • AgroFood Cluster (#Bioenergy, #Bioeconomy)—promoting sustainable agricultural practices, waste valorization, and food innovation; • ProWood Cluster (#Wood, #Forestry)—concentrating on sustainable forestry management, wood processing, and eco-friendly furniture production; • Textile Cluster (#Circular, #bio-based textiles)—advancing circular fashion, bio-based materials, and low-impact textile manufacturing; •Balneo Cluster (#Natural bioresources)—leveraging Romania’s natural balneological resources for health tourism and wellness innovations (Table 3). Table 3. Composition of key bioclusters. CLUSTER ORGANIZATION Year Established Total Members Composition of Clusters Businesses Research, Universities, Education Public Authorities Others PROWOOD 2010 81 60 4 6 11 AGRO-FOOD 2011 117 60 39 13 5 TEXTILE 2012 47 44 1 1 1 GREEN ENERGY 2011 80 49 14 14 3 BALNEO 2014 43 23 9 5 6 TOTAL 368 236 67 39 26 Source: Data provided by the clusters. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 9 of 23 Each biocluster is committed to networking, business development, knowledge transfer, and internationalization, ensuring alignment with the principles of the bioeconomy and circular economy. Their activities are strategically designed to enhance sustainable value chains and innovation, contributing to the long-term resilience of the Romanian biocluster ecosystem. The development of this ecosystem has been supported by a network of local and regional institutions, including public authorities, research centers, and private stakeholders. One of the key contributors to this framework has been the Association for Small and Medium Enterprises of Covasna County (ASIMCOV), established in 1996 with 21 members and now representing nearly 500 businesses [ 37 ]. ASIMCOV has played a central role in facilitating collaboration between public and private actors by working closely with local and regional authorities to create a supportive infrastructure for entrepreneurship and cluster development. By actively engaging in policy discussions and regional strategic initiatives and representing SME interests, ASIMCOV has contributed to the development of smart specialization strategies aligned with EU sustainability goals. Additionally, through programs such as the Digital Innovation Hub (DIH), it provides technology transfer, business incubation, and start-up acceleration services to ensure that SMEs can integrate digital transformation solutions and enhance their competitiveness. This broad-based partnership among public institutions, industry representatives, and intermediary organizations is essential in shaping the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of the biocluster ecosystem [38]. Based on both existing literature [ 6 , 7 ] and insights from our interview data (see Table 1 in Section 3.3), we identified six main categories of stakeholders that frequently interact within these Romanian bioclusters. While Figure 2illustrates the ecosystem visually, Table 4 below provides a concise overview of how each stakeholder group contributes to, and benefits from, the cluster environment. Table 4. Summarizing stakeholder roles in the Romanian biocluster ecosystem. Stakeholder Category Typical Examples Main Roles/Contributions Cluster Management Entities Cluster coordinators, cluster managers, steering boards •Oversee strategic direction and governance of the cluster • Facilitate networking, resource sharing, and joint project development •Communicate with public agencies to shape policy support SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) Agro-food producers, textile manufacturers, energy firms •Develop new products, technologies, and services •Provide feedback on practical challenges (e.g., cost barriers, market demands) •Engage in joint innovation and knowledge exchange Research and Academic Institutions Universities, R&D centers, vocational institutes •Conduct applied research relevant to bioeconomy and circular processes •Offer training programs to enhance workforce skills •Collaborate on pilot projects and technology testing Government/Public Authorities Regional authorities, national ministries, local agencies •Formulate and implement relevant policy frameworks •Provide funding opportunities and guidance via public grants •Ensure regulatory compliance and alignment with EU/national priorities Funding Institutions and Investors Banks, venture capital funds, private equity firms •Offer financial capital for cluster-related innovations •Assess risk and viability of emerging technologies •Encourage sustainable business practices via financing terms NGOs and Civil Society Organizations Environmental advocacy groups, community associations •Monitor environmental and social impacts of cluster activities •Facilitate stakeholder dialogue and community engagement •Promote ethical and inclusive governance Source: Adapted from Porter [25] and Carayannis and Campbell [34,39]. As indicated by several SME representatives (P2, P5, and P7 in Table 1), financing schemes and resource-sharing platforms are vital for sustaining innovative ventures. Meanwhile, cluster managers (P1, P4, and P8) pointed out that strong policy engagement with Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 16 of 23 and network formation—key functions that normally benefit from cluster intermediation. Lacking strong “organizational” intermediary support [ 7 ], SMEs fail to pool resources or leverage each other’s expertise, thereby hampering innovative capacity. 4.3.2. Heavy Reliance on EU Funding An equally prevalent theme—mentioned by eight participants—was the over-reliance on EU grants. While programs like Horizon Europe, Interreg, and COSME provide vital infusions of capital, the P6 noted: “There’s a need for more diverse funding sources—not just from the EU, but also national, regional, and private. Otherwise, we risk building systems that only work as long as the funding lasts”. Several respondents, including the P10 (Consultant), pointed out that national funding remains “sparse and unpredictable”, while private investment is hindered by perceived risks in emerging bio-based technologies. In TIS terms, this indicates a shortfall in resource mobilization beyond project-driven mechanisms. Clusters might act as systemic intermediaries by lobbying for stable national co-financing programs or by cultivating investor networks to reduce this vulnerability. 4.3.3. Regulatory and Administrative Barriers Six interviewees singled out regulatory complexity as a critical barrier, especially the misalignment between national legislation and EU-level directives. The need to simplify procedures was emphasized. The P1 (Cluster Manager) highlighted the challenge of demonstrating that legislation can be changed. Without clear policy signals, cluster members remain cautious about scaling up or adopting advanced technologies, as each shift can trigger unanticipated compliance hurdles. Such disparities hamper legitimation and guidance of the search [ 29 ], which are crucial for de-risking innovative bio-based solutions. 4.3.4. Connecting Insights to Eastern Europe’s Bioeconomic Context The challenges revealed by these interviews reflect broader structural and institutional constraints typical in Eastern European countries undergoing a shift from traditional industries to sustainable, knowledge-based models [ 57 ]. Limited domestic funding channels, persistent bureaucracy, and a less mature innovation culture complicate cluster-led transition. While triple-helix interactions [ 36 ] exist nominally, the synergy among universities, industry, and government is often constrained by fragmented policy frameworks and a low emphasis on commercializing R&D. 4.3.5. Strategies for Overcoming Challenges Despite these hurdles, interviewees offered several potential solutions. • Strengthening Cluster Intermediation: Many participants (e.g., P3, P8, P10) emphasized a need for centralized coordination that better aligns cluster goals with regional or national policy agendas; • Diversifying Funding: Half the interviewees recommended encouraging private– public partnerships, venture capital, or regional funding schemes to reduce the dependence on EU project cycles; • Deepening Cross-Cluster Collaboration: By broadening membership (to include AI and digital solution providers) and hosting joint training initiatives, clusters can enhance both organizational and systemic intermediary functions [7]; • Policy Advocacy: Some managers (P1, P4) called for a more formal policy role for clusters, possibly through regional committees or national councils, to ensure new regulations support eco-innovation. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 17 of 23 In TIS language, these recommendations target the “Resource Mobilization”, “Guidance of the Search”, and “Legitimation” functions—aiming to reduce institutional friction and empower clusters as catalysts for sustainability. 4.3.6. Conclusion of Interview Findings In summary, the interviews emphasize that fragmentation, funding vulnerability, and regulatory ambiguity hinder cluster development as intermediaries in Romania’s circular bioeconomy. By expanding membership to emerging tech sectors and forging tighter public–private collaboration, clusters may improve their intermediary capacity to unify stakeholders, boost resource flows, and lobby for supportive regulations. These insights further confirm that organizational and systemic intermediation must work in tandem to navigate the unique institutional environment of Eastern Europe. To visualize how these challenges manifest across the five bioclusters, the next subsection presents Table 5, offering a comparative overview of each cluster’s membership, financing approaches, policy engagement level, and key obstacles—integrating the interview findings outlined here. Table 5. Comparative overview of the five Romanian bioclusters. Cluster Sector and Focus Total Members Key Financing Sources Core Activities /Projects Policy Engagement Interview-Based Challenges Green Energy (established in 2011) Bioenergy, Biomass Residues 80 EU Horizon, COSME, Interreg BioVill, AgroBioHeat BioRural Greet CE thERBN Medium (Local/regional partnerships) - Underdeveloped biomass infrastructure - Reliance on project-based funding - Fragmented SME collaboration AgroFood (established in 2011) Sustainable Agriculture, Agro-Food 117 EU Horizon COSME, Interreg, STRING, TRACE-KEI, CEE2ACT Medium (Close ties with agri depts) - Supply chain issues - High dependency on EU grants - Regulatory misalignments (food safety vs. sustainability) ProWood (established in 2010) Forestry, Wood Processing, Furniture 81 EU Horizon, COSME, Interreg national schemes ROSEWOODFORESDA Smart Furniture BioWoodNet Medium (Regional cross-border projects) - Skilled labor shortage - Fluctuating timber market - Complex digital transformation Textile (established in 2012) Circular Textiles 47 EU projects, national schemes Digital Textile Waste Reuse, EcoTex HoReCa Low–Medium (Minimal direct policy input) - High cost of eco-friendly materials - Limited consumer awareness - Slow adoption of certifications Balneo (established in 2014) Balneo-tourism 43 Interreg Europe, local, regional funds InnovaSPA, Digital Mapping of Mineral Resources Medium (Regional engagement) - Outdated spa infrastructure - Seasonal demand fluctuations - Limited brand recognition Source: Data compiled from official cluster documents, interviews (P1–P10), and direct observations (2025). 4.4. Cross-Cluster Comparison: Linking Documentary Evidence and Interview Insights Having explored the individual clusters’ characteristics (Section 4.2) and the overarching challenges identified through stakeholder interviews (Section 4.3), this subsection consolidates both documentary data and empirical insights into a comparative overview. Table 5juxtaposes the five bioclusters’ key attributes—such as membership, financing, policy engagement, and main challenges—alongside the recurrent themes that emerged from the interviews (e.g., fragmented collaboration, heavy reliance on EU funding, regulatory hurdles). Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 18 of 23 Key Observations and Transition to Future Prospects Table 5reveals both commonalities and differences among the five clusters. Combined with the insights from stakeholder interviews (Section 4.3), the analysis in Section 4.2 highlights recurring structural barriers to Romania’s bioeconomy potential—namely insufficient cross-sector collaboration, excessive reliance on EU grants, and bureaucratic inefficiencies [58]. • Financing: All clusters depend heavily on EU-level funding (Horizon, COSME, Interreg), confirming interviewees’ concerns (P2, P6) that such dependence undermines long-term sustainability. Although Green Energy and AgroFood show slightly more diverse financing, they still rely on project-based support. • Innovation Activities: From bioenergy (Green Energy) to circular textiles (Textile), each cluster pursues distinct projects. Yet SMEs (P5, P7) described these efforts as “one-off” or “short-term”, echoing the fragmentation theme in Section 4.3. • Policy Engagement: Clusters’ influence on regional or national policies stands at a medium level. While engagement exists, it remains limited in impact, pointing to the need for stronger, unified efforts. As the P3 remarked, for balneology, “legislative action—is essential”. The P1 argued for adequate regulations in the bioenergy field. • Key Challenges: Interviews underscore that infrastructure gaps, administrative hurdles, and unstable funding consistently hinder each cluster’s intermediary capacity. For instance, Green Energy faces an inadequate biomass supply (P1), while Balneo struggles with outdated spa facilities (P3). Viewed through the TIS lens [ 29 ], these findings suggest that Resource Mobilization and Guidance of the Search remain underdeveloped, limiting the scalability of ecoinnovations. Clusters could strengthen their systemic intermediary role [ 7 ] by coordinating policy inputs, diversifying financial channels, and fostering cross-cluster synergies. Although each biocluster uniquely contributes to Romania’s circular bioeconomy, shared structural weaknesses hamper long-term resilience. Ultimately, these challenges reinforce the urgency for a national coordinating entity that aligns existing initiatives, promotes research–industry collaboration, and harmonizes policies with EU directives [ 49 ]. The next section (Section 5) builds on this comparative analysis to propose policy and managerial recommendations aimed at fortifying bioclusters’ intermediary capacities and addressing the core barriers identified in the interviews. 4.5. Future Prospects: Establishing the National Bioeconomy Hub 4.5.1. Identifying Priorities for National Bioeconomic Integration Building on the challenges identified in Sections 4.2 and 4.3—such as fragmented collaboration, dependence on EU project-based grants, and regulatory misalignments—there is growing consensus on the urgent need for a coordinated national strategy. According to the BIC Country Report [ 59 ], key national priorities for Romania’s bioeconomy revolve around the following. • Enhancing research and innovation in bio-based industries to boost EU-level competitiveness; • Developing sustainable agricultural, forestry, and food-processing systems to optimize resource use; • Stimulating cross-sectoral collaboration among industry clusters, academia, and public authorities; • Fortifying regulatory frameworks that enable circular production models and lowcarbon solutions. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 19 of 23 Sector-specific gaps underscore this urgency: For instance, Green Energy grapples with underdeveloped biomass supply chains, while AgroFood struggles with supply chain inefficiencies and cost barriers. Meanwhile, ProWood contends with workforce retention and patchy sustainability policies, Textile battles high eco-material costs and slow certification uptake, and Balneo faces seasonal demand fluctuation and outdated infrastructure. Addressing these barriers requires a central coordinating mechanism that unifies stakeholder efforts, aligns policy instruments, and fosters deeper innovation partnerships [59]. 4.5.2. Establishing a National Bioeconomic Integration Recognizing the need for an integrated national platform, Romania has advanced the CEE2ACT project (Empowering Central and Eastern European countries to develop circular bioeconomy strategies), channeling EU funding to create the National Bioeconomy Hub (NBH). This newly established entity is envisioned as a dynamic coordination platform, linking the following. • Government Institutions (e.g., the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, and Research); •Regional Development Agencies; •Research and Academic Centers focused on bio-based R&D; • Industry Clusters (Green Energy, AgroFood, ProWood, Textile, Balneo, as well as other bioeconomy-based clusters); •Funding and Investment Bodies (public/private investors, venture capital); •SMEs and other networks of bioeconomy actors (farmers, foresters, rural actors). The core mission of the NBH is to drive Romania’s transition toward a circular and knowledge-based bioeconomy by implementing targeted actions that include establishing public–private dialogue mechanisms to improve policy coherence and reduce bureaucratic barriers for bio-based businesses, organizing capacity-building programs and training workshops to enhance market readiness among SMEs, hosting networking events and promoting research collaborations to foster interdisciplinary innovation, and facilitating investments to attract both national and foreign capital for bioeconomy projects (Figure 4). Sustainability 2025, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 24 Figure 4. Bioeconomy Hub—ecosystem mapping. Source: Compiled by the authors. The establishment of the NBH represents a transformative milestone in Romania’s sustainable development strategy, as it leverages EU funding, strategic partnerships, and cross-sectoral collaboration to serve as a catalyst for scaling bioeconomic initiatives, ensuring investment security, and enhancing the global competitiveness of Romanian biobased industries. As the bioeconomy sector continues to expand, sustained commitment from government institutions, industry leaders, and research organizations will be essential for ensuring the long-term success of the hub. Looking ahead, the integration of Romanian bioclusters into EU-wide research consortia and international bioeconomy initiatives will play a critical role in securing Romania’s position within the bio-based economy [59,60]. 5. Conclusions In conclusion, this study highlights the pivotal role played by Romania’s bioeconomic clusters—spanning bioenergy, agro-food, forestry, textiles, and balneo-tourism— as intermediary organizations that connect SMEs, policymakers, and research institutions to foster circular bioeconomy innovation. By bridging sectoral gaps, these clusters facilitate knowledge exchange, financing opportunities, and policy support, thereby helping SMEs overcome structural challenges such as fragmented collaboration and over-dependence on EU grants. Nonetheless, the generalizability of our findings is constrained by the focus on five regional clusters and the predominantly qualitative methodology; additional research involving more regions and quantitative metrics could yield a fuller understanding of the clusters’ long-term impact. The newly established National Bioeconomy Hub offers a promising avenue for unifying stakeholders across sectors and strengthening Romania’s position in the broader European bioeconomy. Ultimately, sustained policy coordination, diversified funding strategies, and deepened collaboration between public and private actors will be crucial to ensuring that cluster-driven eco-innovations achieve meaningful scale and resilience. This study is not without limitations. Its focus on a single biocluster ecosystem restricts the generalizability of the findings. Future research should incorporate comparative analyses across multiple European regions to identify common success factors and challenges. Incorporating quantitative assessments to measure economic, environmental, and social impacts—as well as adopting a longitudinal approach to track cluster evolution—would offer deeper insights into the long-term contributions and adaptability of bioclusters. Furthermore, exploring alternative governance models that enhance cluster Figure 4. Bioeconomy Hub—ecosystem mapping. Source: Compiled by the authors. By targeting the structural gaps identified across the five bioclusters, the NBH aims to unify local efforts under one strategic umbrella, amplifying Romania’s integration into the EU bioeconomy ecosystem [ 59 ]. This approach aligns with the TIS principles, wherein a robust intermediary can bolster resource mobilization, legitimation, and collaborative learning— factors seen as critical for scaling circular bio-based ventures (Sections 4.2 and 4.3). Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 20 of 23 The establishment of the NBH represents a transformative milestone in Romania’s sustainable development strategy, as it leverages EU funding, strategic partnerships, and cross-sectoral collaboration to serve as a catalyst for scaling bioeconomic initiatives, ensuring investment security, and enhancing the global competitiveness of Romanian bio-based industries. As the bioeconomy sector continues to expand, sustained commitment from government institutions, industry leaders, and research organizations will be essential for ensuring the long-term success of the hub. Looking ahead, the integration of Romanian bioclusters into EU-wide research consortia and international bioeconomy initiatives will play a critical role in securing Romania’s position within the bio-based economy [59,60]. 5. Conclusions In conclusion, this study highlights the pivotal role played by Romania’s bioeconomic clusters—spanning bioenergy, agro-food, forestry, textiles, and balneo-tourism—as intermediary organizations that connect SMEs, policymakers, and research institutions to foster circular bioeconomy innovation. By bridging sectoral gaps, these clusters facilitate knowledge exchange, financing opportunities, and policy support, thereby helping SMEs overcome structural challenges such as fragmented collaboration and over-dependence on EU grants. Nonetheless, the generalizability of our findings is constrained by the focus on five regional clusters and the predominantly qualitative methodology; additional research involving more regions and quantitative metrics could yield a fuller understanding of the clusters’ long-term impact. The newly established National Bioeconomy Hub offers a promising avenue for unifying stakeholders across sectors and strengthening Romania’s position in the broader European bioeconomy. Ultimately, sustained policy coordination, diversified funding strategies, and deepened collaboration between public and private actors will be crucial to ensuring that cluster-driven eco-innovations achieve meaningful scale and resilience. This study is not without limitations. Its focus on a single biocluster ecosystem restricts the generalizability of the findings. Future research should incorporate comparative analyses across multiple European regions to identify common success factors and challenges. Incorporating quantitative assessments to measure economic, environmental, and social impacts—as well as adopting a longitudinal approach to track cluster evolution— would offer deeper insights into the long-term contributions and adaptability of bioclusters. Furthermore, exploring alternative governance models that enhance cluster intermediary functions could yield practical recommendations for designing more effective bioeconomy support mechanisms. Author Contributions: Writing—original draft, visualization, data curation, and methodology, B.V.; writing—review and editing, validation, supervision, and formal analysis, G.D.; writing—review and editing, visualization, investigation, data curation, and project administration, L.V.; writing—review and project administration, M.-M.G.; writing—review and project administration, M.L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was supported by CEE2ACT—Empowering the Central and Eastern European Countries to Develop Circular Bioeconomy Strategies and Action Plans project funded by the European Union, Grant agreement 101060280, Greet CE—Green Transition in Central Europe, funded by the European Union, Grant agreement 101133227, and BioRural—Accelerating circular bio-based solutions integration in European rural areas, funded by the European Union, grant agreement 101060166. Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study in accordance with the legal provisions outlined in Article 8 of Law No. 190/2018. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 21 of 23 Data Availability Statement: The data will be made available upon reasonable request. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises TIS Technological Innovation System NBH National Bioeconomy Hub References 1. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019. 2. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. 3. Hamelin, L.; Borz˛ecka, M.; Kozak, M.; Rafał, P. A spatial approach to bioeconomy: Quantifying the residual biomass potential in the EU-27. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019,100, 127–142. [CrossRef] 4. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. European Bioeconomy Policy: Stocktaking and Future Developments; Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022. 5. Gerdes, H.; Kiresiewa, Z.; Beekman, V.; Bianchini, C.; Davies, S.; Griestop, L.; Janssen, R. Engaging Stakeholders and Citizens in the Bioeconomy; Ecologic Institute: Berlin, Germany, 2018. 6. Laur, I. Cluster Initiatives as Intermediaries: A Study of Their Management and Stakeholders. Ph.D. Thesis, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping, Sweden, 2015. 7. Kivimaa, P. Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Res. Policy 2014,43, 1370–1380. [CrossRef] 8. Barrie, J.; Zawdie, G.; João, E. Assessing the role of triple helix system intermediaries in nurturing an industrial biotechnology innovation network. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,214, 209–223. [CrossRef] 9. Kanda, W.; Río, P.; Hjelm, O.; Bienkowska, D. A technological innovation systems approach to analyze the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,227, 1136–1148. [CrossRef] 10. Hermans, F. The potential contribution of transition theory to the analysis of bioclusters and their role in the transition to a bioeconomy. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2018,12, 265–276. [CrossRef] 11. Klitkou, A.; Jolly, S.; Suvinen, N. Systemic intermediaries and the transition toward forest-based bioeconomy in the North. Rev. Evol. Political Econ. 2020,4, 321–348. [CrossRef] 12. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. A Bioeconomy Strategy for Europe: Working with Nature for a More Sustainable Way of Living; Publications Office of EU: Luxembourg, 2013. 13. Tan, E.C.D.; Lamers, P. Circular bioeconomy concepts—A perspective. Front. Sustain. 2021,2, 701509. [CrossRef] 14. Bugge, M.; Hansen, T.; Klitkou, A. What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2016,8, 691. [CrossRef] 15. European Commission. Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. 16. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection Between Economy, Society and the Environment: Updated Bioeconomy Strategy; Publications Office of EU: Luxembourg, 2018. 17. D’Amato, D.; Droste, N.; Allen, B.; Kettunen, M.; Lähtinen, K.; Korhonen, J.; Leskinen, P.; Matthies, B.D.; Toppinen, A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,168, 716–734. [CrossRef] 18. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; Barrett, P.; Dupont-Inglis, J.; Kuliši´c, B.; Maes, D.; Vehviläinen, A. Deploying the Bioeconomy in the EU: A Framework Approach for Bioeconomy Strategy Development: 10 Policy Recommendations for Building National Bioeconomies Toward a Fair and Just Climate Neutral Europe; Publications Office of EU: Luxembourg, 2021. 19. Dragomir, C.C.; Fori¸s, D.; ¸Tî¸tu, A.M.; Fori¸s, T. The Role of Intermediaries in Supporting Collaboration for Sustainability: A Model of Commissioning Intervention in the Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration for Sustainable Territorial Development. Sustainability 2020,12, 6769. [CrossRef] 20. Smedlund, A. The roles of intermediaries in a regional knowledge system. J. Intellect. Cap. 2006,7, 204–220. [CrossRef] 21. Zhang, Y.; Li, H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: The role of ties with service intermediaries. Strateg. Manag. J. Wiley Blackwell 2010,31, 88–109. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 22 of 23 22. Inkinen, T.; Suorsa, K. Intermediaries in Regional Innovation Systems: High-Technology Enterprise Survey from Northern Finland. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010,18, 169–187. [CrossRef] 23. Blankenship, H.; Kulhavý, V.; Lagneryd, J. Introducing strategic sustainable development in a business incubator. Prog. Ind. Ecol. 2007,6, 243–264. [CrossRef] 24. Philp, J.C.; Winickoff, D.E. Realising the Circular Bioeconomy; OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. 25. Porter, M.E. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998,76, 77–90. 26. Kardung, M.; Cingiz, K.; Costenoble, O.; Delahaye, R.; Heijman, W.; Lovri´c, M.; van Leeuwen, M.; M’Barek, R.; van Meijl, H.; Piotrowski, S.; et al. Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators. Sustainability 2021,13, 413. [CrossRef] 27. European Commission. Communication and Roadmap on the European Green Deal. Available online: https://commission. europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 5 February 2025). 28. Teigland, R.; Lindqvist, G. Seeing eye-to-eye: How do public and private sector views of a biotech cluster and its cluster initiative differ? Eur. Plan. Stud. 2007,15, 767–786. [CrossRef] 29. Hekkert, M.P.; Suurs, R.A.A.; Negro, S.O.; Kuhlmann, S.; Smits, R.E.H.M. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007,74, 413–432. [CrossRef] 30. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. 31. QSR International. NVivo, Version 15; QSR International: Melbourne, Australia, 2023. 32. European Commission. Communication on Competitiveness and Industrial Policy—A New European Agenda for Industrial Innovation. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/12127 (accessed on 5 February 2025). 33. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business Environment. Annual Report on Cluster Initiatives in Romania; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business Environment: Bucharest, Romania, 2024. 34. Carayannis, E.G.; Barth, T.D.; Campbell, D.F.J. The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J. Innov. Entrep. 2012,1, 2. [CrossRef] 35. Lämmer-Gamp, T.; Meier zu Kôcker, G.; Christensen, T.A. Clusters Are Individuals—Creating Economic Growth Through Cluster Policies for Cluster Management Excellence; The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. 36. Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university– industry–government relations. Res. Policy 2000,29, 109–123. [CrossRef] 37. DevelopmentAid. Available online: https://www.developmentaid.org/organizations/view/205527/asimcov-covasnaassociation-of-small-and-medium-enterprises (accessed on 2 February 2025). 38. ASIMCOV. About Us—History. Available online: https://www.asimcov.org/about (accessed on 5 February 2025). 39. Carayannis, E.G.; Campbell, D.F.J. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and How Do Knowledge, Innovation and the Environment Relate To Each Other?: A Proposed Framework for a Trans-disciplinary Analysis of Sustainable Development and Social Ecology. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 2010,1, 41–69. [CrossRef] 40. Green Energy Biomass Cluster. Available online: www.greencluster.ro (accessed on 1 February 2025). 41. Green Energy Cluster. BioVillMap. Available online: https://www.biovillmap.ro/en/ (accessed on 2 February 2025). 42. Cluster Agrofood. Available online: https://agrofoodcluster.com/en/ (accessed on 1 February 2025). 43. European Commission. EU Bioeconomy Strategy Report: Strengthening Sustainability in Agri-Food Systems. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/SWD_2023_4_1_EN_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2025). 44. ProWood Cluster. Available online: www.prowood.ro (accessed on 5 February 2025). 45. European Forest Institute. Forest Governance and Sustainability: Pathways for Resilient Landscapes. Available online: https: //efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-bank/2023/efi_fstp15_2023.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2025). 46. ECCP. Transylvania Textile & Fashion Cluster. Available online: https://profile.clustercollaboration.eu/profile/clusterorganisation/c1846e23-544c-488a-ae84-1b4f9b2ea2e4 (accessed on 11 February 2025). 47. UNEP. Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain: A Global Roadmap. Available online: https: //circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/2023-12/Full%20Report%20-%20UNEP%20Sustainability%20 and%20Circularity%20in%20the%20Textile%20Value%20Chain%20A%20Global%20Roadmap_0.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025). 48. Hora, S.T.; Bungau, C.; Negru, P.A.; Radu, A.-F. Implementing Circular Economy Elements in the Textile Industry: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2023,15, 15130. [CrossRef] 49. European Cluster Collaboration Platform. Transylvania Regional Balneological Tourism Cluster. Available online: https://profile. clustercollaboration.eu/profile/cluster-organisation/13872ab9-fee8-4b3b-a104-f2833758fc77 (accessed on 11 February 2025). 50. ETC. European Tourism: Trends & Prospects. Available online: https://etc-corporate.org/reports/european-tourism-trendsprospects-q2-2024 (accessed on 26 February 2025). 51. The Government of Romania. Strategia Na t , ionalăPentru Dezvoltarea Durabilăa României 2030. Available online: https: //dezvoltaredurabila.gov.ro/strategia-nationala-pentru-dezvoltarea-durabila-a-romaniei-2030-i (accessed on 1 March 2025). Sustainability 2025,17, 3787 23 of 23 52. The Government of Romania. Strategia Na t , ionalăPrivind Economia Circulară. Available online: https://dezvoltaredurabila.gov. ro/strategia-nationala-privind-economia-circulara-13409762 (accessed on 1 March 2025). 53. Craiut, L.; Bungau, C.; Negru, P.A.; Bungau, T.; Radu, A.-F. Technology Transfer in the Context of Sustainable Development—A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications in the Field. Sustainability 2022,14, 11973. [CrossRef] 54. Szarka, N.; Kittler, R. Bioeconomy Networks in Europe. In The Bioeconomy System; Thrän, D., Moesenfechtel, U., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 243–255. 55. Kirchgeorg, M. Cluster, Network, Platform: Organisational Forms of the Bioeconomy. In The Bioeconomy System; Thrän, D., Moesenfechtel, U., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 181–193. 56. Stegmann, P.; Londo, M.; Junginger, M. The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 2020,6, 100029. [CrossRef] 57. Hansen, T.; Coenen, L. The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015,17, 92–109. [CrossRef] 58. Deloitte. Renewable Energy in Romania|Roadmap to 2030. Available online: https://rpia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ RES-in-Romania-2030_RWEA_full-study_v21.09.2023.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2025). 59. BIC. Mapping Romania’s Bio-Based Potential. Available online: https://biconsortium.eu/publication/mapping-romanias-biobased-potential (accessed on 15 February 2025). 60. CEE2ACT. Empowering Central and Eastern European Countries to Develop Circular Bioeconomy Strategies. Available online: https://www.cee2act.eu/ (accessed on 20 February 2025). Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.