By 2030, the UN expects that the world's population will demand at least 40% more water, 35% more food, and 50% more energy. Additionally, it is anticipated that worldwide food consumption will grow by 70% by 2050 (FAO, 2009), global energy consumption will increase by 25% by 2040 and global freshwater demand will increase by about 55% by 2050 (IEA, 2018).

The circular economy (CE) and its principles have developed as a new paradigm in our pursuit of sustainability, presenting new chances for development and progress (Raworth, 2017; Vanham et al., 2019). A circular model, in fact, envisions the long-term use of biomass as products that are processed, reused, and ultimately reintegrated into the biosphere as bioproducts at the end of their useful life.

However, the economy of the European Union remains mostly linear. According to the report (Eurostat, 2017), the EU's circular material consumption rate was just 11.2% in 2017, and only 8.6% of the economy would be circular in 2020 (Circle Economy, 2020). The purpose of transitioning to a circular economy is to obtain environmental benefits (Taranic et al., 2016), which include cost savings and market expansion, both of which result in further economic benefits via employment creation. As numerous scholars have argued (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2010; Kemp, 2010; de Jesus et al., 2018; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018), the primary impediment to this transition is the growing need for innovation, which includes not only research on new technologies but also clear guidance on their use, policy support for establishing appropriate regulatory frameworks, and providing the appropriate incentives for technology adoption.

The European Union has been in the forefront of environmental actions since the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Summit, enacting a range of laws and funding research projects. The introduction of a new word, “eco-innovation”, has rekindled interest in environmental sustainability. What becomes evident is that eco-innovation is considered as a source of technical progress that helps a business to expand economically and market share, maybe via “green” methods (Andersen, 2004; Hellström, 2007; Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2009, 2010; Berkhout, 2011).

Recent articles have examined the European framework for member states' innovative responses to the transition to a circular economy (Arbolino et al., 2022; Bîrgovan et al., 2022). Marino and Pariso (2020), for example, discovered that the 28 EU member states have adopted a diverse variety of solutions, with just a handful judged successful in resolving circular economy concerns across the EU, and Melece (2016) examined the situation and trends in the EU's efforts to achieve green growth and a circular economy.

Agri-business is a big and fast-growing industry. In 2017, the EU bio-based industry earned €2.4 trillion in revenue in the EU-28, a 25% growth over 2008 (Porc et al., 2020). The primary challenges confronting the food industry in producing sustainably need system-wide innovation, including a change in value creation logic and the development of new circular economy-compatible models (Bocken et al., 2014a; Moreno-Miranda and Dries, 2022). Transitioning to a circular and resource-efficient economy would need a systematic shift in production and consumption patterns, and eco-innovations will be critical in developing new technologies, processes, commodities, and services, as well as business models (EU). Additionally, the circular economy's technological and organizational innovations would increase European resource productivity by 3% by 2030, resulting in 1.8 trillion in total benefits across three sectors: mobility, food, and the built environment, including cost savings on primary resources and costs associated with externalities such as the health effects of air pollution (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). On the other hand, major change, in addition to technological breakthroughs, needs considerable changes in institutional and cultural norms and structures (Prosperi et al., 2020).

The goal of this research is to assess the innovation performance of European Union firms throughout the 3-year period 2012–2014. The information was gathered using the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), which is designed to quantify innovation in enterprises, contains data that can be compared across countries and over time, and is intended to provide information on the innovative capacity of sectors by type of enterprises, the various types of innovation, and various aspects of innovation development, such as goals, sources of information, government funding, and spending on innovation. The study's objective was to ascertain the most significant drivers of circular benefits for product, process, organizational, and marketing innovations, as well as the most significant drivers of circular benefits for enterprises and end users. Moreover, the authors' objective was to demonstrate how the importance of the drivers differs significantly across the food, beverage, and tobacco sectors (FBT) and the whole sample of enterprises. The research questions are as follows:

The results reveal that the whole sample of enterprises and the sector of food, beverage, and tobacco enterprises provide significantly different outcomes. To begin, Table 2 provide an overview of the variations between countries and between the number of food industries and the overall sample of enterprises.

The most striking findings are to Spain and Bulgaria, which had the highest participation rates of 30.70 and 14.43%, respectively, while no food sector enterprises from Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Lithuania, or Latvia participated in the questionnaire. Slovakia, on the other hand, has a relatively low participation rate (2.82%) in comparison to the whole sample of enterprises, although practically all of them (2.12%) are in the food sector.

The Table 3 summarizes the number of innovations implemented by foods, beverage, and tobacco enterprises. The 12 types of innovation related to product, process, organizational and marketing are: introduction into the market a new or significantly improved good; introduction into the market a new or significantly improved service; introduction a new or significantly improved method of production; introduction a new or significantly improved logistic, delivery or distribution system; improved supporting activities for process such as maintenance systems or operations for purchasing, accounting, or computing; introduction of new business practices for organizing procedures; introduction of new methods of organizing work responsibilities and decision making; introduction of new methods of organizing external relations; significant changes to the aesthetic design or packaging; introduction of new media or techniques for product promotion; introduction of new methods for product placement or sales channels; and introduction of new methods of pricing goods or services.

The results demonstrate how low the rate of innovation introduction inside enterprises is. Indeed, 57.40% of the total number of enterprises report that they have not implemented any kind of innovation, 12.25% report that they have implemented one, and just 8.06% report that they have implemented two innovations.

Rather than that, the following tables illustrate the elements that have driven the creation of circular-benefit innovations. Indeed, as seen in Table 4, multivariate analysis reveals different results. Almost all factors have a significant effect on the circular benefits of product innovations for the whole sample of enterprises. Only the encost and enrequ variables are proven to be important, i.e., the high cost of electricity, water, or materials, and the obligation to satisfy criteria for public procurement contracts. For food enterprises, the outcome seems to be changing. Indeed, only the variables endem and enrep seem to influence the circular benefits associated with product innovations in food enterprises, i.e., existing or predicted market demand for environmental advances and boosting the enterprise's reputation.

Table 5 illustrates a similar case. Indeed, for the whole sample of enterprises, practically all factors have a significant effect on the circular benefits associated with process innovations. Only the variables enregf and engra are not significant, i.e., anticipated future environmental laws or fees, as well as government grants, subsidies, and other financial incentives for environmental advances. In the case of food enterprises, only three variables appear to significantly influence the circular benefits of process innovations: engra, or government grants, subsidies, or other financial incentives for environmental innovations; encost, or the high cost of energy, water, or materials; and enrequ, or the requirement to comply with public procurement contract requirements.

Table 6 demonstrates even more atypical outcomes. Indeed, whereas many factors seem to have a significant impact on the circular benefits associated with organizational innovations for the overall sample of enterprises, the circular benefits associated with organizational innovations appear to be unaffected by any factor in the food industry. On the other hand, for the total sample of enterprises, the variables enereg, i.e., existing environmental regulations, enregf, i.e., anticipated future environmental regulations or fees, enrep, i.e., enhancing the enterprise's reputation, enagr, i.e., voluntary actions or initiatives for good environmental practices in the industry, and enrequ, i.e., the requirement to comply with public procurement contract requirements, are significant.

The findings in Table 7 seem to be comparable as well. The circular benefits of marketing innovations are highly impacted by most parameters for the complete sample of enterprises. The variables enereg, which refers to present environmental rules, enregf, which refers to anticipated future environmental regulations or fees, and engra, which refers to additional financial incentives for environmental innovation, seem to have no effect. In contrast, the circular benefits of market innovations are greatly impacted in the food industry by factors such as engra, or additional financial incentives for environmental innovation, and enrequ, or the necessity to satisfy standards for public procurement contracts.

The Tables 8, 9 shows the aspects enterprises and end consumers regard to be crucial in achieving circular benefits. Specifically, Table 8 reveals that virtually all factors are deemed extremely important by companies for the complete sample of enterprises. Only the variable enetx seems to be insignificant, i.e., current environmental taxes, fees, or levies. For the food sector, on the other hand, the key factors are enereg, or current environmental legislation, enagr, or industry-wide voluntary efforts or initiatives to promote good environmental practices, and encost, or the high cost of energy, water, or materials.

Table 9 explains which characteristics are deemed significant by end customers when it comes to gaining circular benefits. Indeed, the findings for the whole sample of enterprises are comparable. Unlike (Table 9), the encost variable is not substantial, i.e., the high cost of energy, water, or materials. For food industries, on the other hand, the variables enereg, or existing environmental regulations, and encost, or the high cost of energy, water, or materials, are insignificant, whereas enrequ, or the requirement to comply with requirements for public procurement contracts, has a significant impact.

The results of the link between the circular benefits associated with product, process, organizational, and market innovations and the perceived benefits of enterprises and end users are shown. Two ordered regression locations are shown in Tables 10, 11.

The Table 10 shows that ecorg and ecomkt variables do not seem to have a significant effect on the number of circular benefits gained by the enterprise. All other factors, on the other hand, are positively correlated with the number of circulating benefits generated by enterprises. The odds ratio results indicate that, in the food industry, product and process innovations have a greater influence on the number of circular benefits than organizational and marketing innovations, whereas in the total sample of enterprises, process and organizational innovations have a greater influence on the number of circular benefits. Thus, marketing innovations seem to be those that have the least impact on the quantity of circular benefits.

Table 11 shows that all factors are positively linked with the perceived circular benefits by end users. The odds ratio findings indicate that, in comparison to perceived benefits, marketing and organizational innovations have a bigger weight for food industries, but product and marketing innovations have a greater weight for the overall sample of enterprises. In comparison to them, marketing innovations seem to have a stronger influence on the number of circular benefits accruing to end-users.

Because of the preceding tables, the food enterprises situation is distinct from that of the overall sample of enterprises. We may presume that there are underlying reasons why many of the criteria that are critical for attaining circular benefits in the whole sample of enterprises seem to have little effect on food enterprises pursuit of them. The next part will address possible explanations for why innovation inside a food industry is more difficult, attempting to explain why the move from a linear economy to a circular economy takes longer.

The findings provide a picture of the elements that drive innovation creation and which product, process, organizational, and marketing innovations have the greatest impact on the number of circular benefits seen by enterprises and end users. Market demand for environmental innovations and the aim to enhance the company's image were shown to be variables influencing the development of product innovations in food enterprises. In comparison, environmental innovations and contractual requirements have an impact on the development of marketing and process innovations, the latter of which are also impacted by high energy, water, and material prices. Additionally, it is discovered that process and product innovation have a significant influence on the number of circular benefits seen by enterprises, in comparison to organizational and marketing innovations, which seem to have a higher effect on end users.

Therefore, we may presume that our findings support what has previously been stated in the literature about the difficulties associated with implementing CE practices in the food industry. Indeed, various studies demonstrate that bio-based products continue to face technological and operational impediments (Gatto and Re, 2021), making access to product and process innovations inside food enterprises challenging. Several barriers include: high investment costs (Unay-Gailhard and Bojnec, 2016; Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020); lack of appropriate technology (Borrello et al., 2016; Clark et al., 2019; Farooque et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2019; Gedam et al., 2021); lack of financial and government support (Rizos et al., 2015; Urbinati et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2018; Mangla et al., 2018; Ranta et al., 2018; Farooque et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2019); administrative burdens (Rizos et al., 2015); inadequate information management systems (Romero and Molina, 2011; Rizos et al., 2015); social barriers related to lack of interest and awareness by enterprises and customers (Kirchherr et al., 2018; Singh and Giacosa, 2019; Singh et al., 2021); lack of qualified personnel (de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018; Korhonen et al., 2018a,b; Stewart and Niero, 2018; Guldmann and Huulgaard, 2020); lack of support from top management, lack of circular design (Lahane et al., 2020); lack of network support (Jabbour et al., 2020; Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020; Chhimwal et al., 2021); lack of know-how (Farooque et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2019; Unay-Gailhard and Bojnec, 2021); lack of reverse logistics management (Borrello et al., 2016; Clark et al., 2019; Gedam et al., 2021); lack of cross-sectoral cooperation (Rizos et al., 2016; Farooque et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2019; Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020); low investor confidence in high-risk models; processing inefficiencies; and lack of markets to use energy and byproducts (De Clercq et al., 2016; Nghiem et al., 2017; Armington et al., 2018; Hegde et al., 2018; Lahane et al., 2020).

It is important to stress that eco-innovation and transformational innovation both contribute to the reduction of obstacles to the circular economy's implementation (de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018) through the innovativeness of business models (Magretta, 2002; Osterwalder et al., 2005; Richardson, 2005; Borrello et al., 2017; De Cleene and Bora, 2020; Cembalo et al., 2021). Indeed, the literature has already concentrated on the investigation of acceptable approaches and instruments to assist enterprises in innovation in recent years (Bocken et al., 2019; Pieroni et al., 2019; Rosa et al., 2019). However, developing eco-innovations takes a range of timescales, depending on the kind of barrier and the modifications to current manufacturing processes required (Kiefer et al., 2019), as well as the creation of a diverse set of tools adaptable to various sizes and organizations (Whalen, 2017; Pigosso et al., 2018; Werning and Spinler, 2020). The innovation needs “structure and direction to define and concentrate thought” (Eppler and Hoffmann, 2011) and may take place in one of two modes: the creation of an altogether new business model or the reconfiguration of current business model aspects (Zott and Amit, 2010). This process include testing and assessing several models that are suited for the goal model and involves changes inside the business, facilitated by the engagement of internal and external stakeholders (Bocken et al., 2018). Services are also seen as crucial in assisting with business model innovation, as well as product and process development (Pelli et al., 2017). Despite the growing body of literature on sustainable business model innovation in recent years (Bocken et al., 2013, 2014b; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken and Short, 2016; Schaltegger et al., 2016a,b; Evans et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017), there is still a dearth of studies identifying gaps in current industry practices for slowing and closing material cycles. Additionally, the adoption of novel circular business models involves the establishment of robust networks that are formed by interdependent but autonomous stakeholder cooperation, communication, and coordination (Antikainen and Valkokari, 2016; Oghazi and Mostaghel, 2018). Indeed, developing innovative sustainable business models requires the involvement of inter-organizational networks, which include not only enterprises but also broader social systems, to establish mutually reinforcing dynamics among firms that promote novel value creation methodologies and the ability to overcome significant barriers (Lovins et al., 2007; Johnson and Lafley, 2010; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2010; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013).

The development of innovations that combine agriculture with biotechnology enables the production of high potential bioproducts such as enzymes, organic acids, bioethanol, and biopesticides, as well as energy generation. Indeed, the management of agroindustrial waste and its practical application are critical to the circular economy's development (Leong et al., 2021; Lachos-Perez et al., 2022; Yaashikaa et al., 2022).

However, to determine the process's overall commercial feasibility, it is necessary to undertake a techno-economic factor analysis (Chilakamarry et al., 2022).

Science and technology research serves as the impetus for radical eco-innovations, and thus encouraging science and technology research in universities and public research centers, as well as facilitating science and technology exchanges through public-private partnerships, would aid in the promotion of these eco-innovations.

To accomplish this, it is necessary to expand academic capacity, technological and manufacturing capabilities, and to implement public policies that promote these activities, as well as to increase public and private funding that will enable the development of this significant biotechnological and economic potential, which will contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals' achievement.

Economic and regulatory policymakers must ensure that these businesses receive additional support. In terms of business recommendations, including end users in the co-creation process might be seen as a necessary component of producing a product that fulfills consumer expectations. Their interest in organizational and marketing innovations is critical when introducing new goods, as it enables them to develop a successful and efficient product.

Transitioning to CE will require overcoming insurmountable hurdles to innovation that would exist in the absence of system-wide innovation. This demonstrates that businesses have had to acquire knowledge and amass data to enhance their operations, obtain a better understanding of the manufacturing process, and identify growth prospects, eventually leading in more circular, sustainable, and efficient processes.

The article's objective was to demonstrate how a lack of financial and political backing has hampered the adoption of new products and processes.

Economic and regulatory considerations are prioritized. Indeed, the high costs of establishing a new technique or product, as well as regulatory constraints, are substantial hurdles.

Additionally, the investigation demonstrates how enterprises and end users interpret the effect of various forms of innovation differently. End users' increased focus on organizational and marketing innovations enables enterprises to use them when including customers in the creation of new products and services. Indeed, the food market's potential forces businesses to adapt scientific findings to satisfy consumer wants, and in many cases, food firms must collaborate with research institutes to make these discoveries a reality. Collaboration between academia and industry significantly boosts the possibility of product innovation and success in the food sector (Cabral and Traill, 2001; Steward-Knox and Mitchell, 2003; D'Alessio and Maietta, 2008).

Constraints include the fact that the data used in this study are out of date. Therefore, it is believed that progress in enhancing food sector innovations has occurred in the years after data gathering began. As a result, the study should be updated with current data to appropriately analyze and compare enterprises' innovation across time. Additionally, it would be interesting to repeat the research by nation and evaluate the creative progress and challenges specific to that country.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

MH: conceptualization, data curation, writing-original draft preparation, and writing-review and editing. MD'A: writing-review and editing, supervision, and project administration and funding acquisition. CZ: writing-original draft preparation and writing-review and editing. GC: writing-original draft preparation, writing-review and editing, and supervision. JT: conceptualization and designed of the study, carried out the modeling, writing-review and editing, and supervision and funding acquisition. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research received a grant from the Project PRIN DRASTIC Driving The Italian Agri-Food System Into a Circular Economy Model, PRIN-MIUR (2017 JYRZFF), funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), and the project Sostenibilità economica, ambientale e sociale del sistema agroalimentare del mediterraneo, funded by PIAno di inCEntivi per la RIcerca di Ateneo (PIACERI) UNICT 2020/22 line 2, UPB: 5A722192154, University of Catania. This research was also funded by National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFI), Hungary, Grant Number OTKA-120563.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.