LIKE-A-PRO_Task 7.2_Enabling the sustainable protein transition: Alternative protein companies' perspective on key factors influencing companies' performance in Europe

Enabling the sustainable protein transition: Alternative protein companies’ perspective on key factors influencing companies’ performance in Europe Chiara Benussi a,* , Antonella Samoggia a,b a University of Bologna, Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Bologna, Italy b Interdepartmental Centre for Industrial Agri-food Research (CIRI-AGRO), Alma Mater Studiorum, Universit` a di Bologna, via Quinto Bucci 336, Cesena, 47521, Italy ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Plant-based Meat analogues Novel food Sustainable food Insect Algae ABSTRACT Alternative proteins (AP) products can contribute to a sustainability-oriented agri-food system, by creating significantly lower carbon emissions, and reduced land and water use compared to animal products. AP companies are key actors in shaping the transition toward sustainable agri-food systems. To further enhance the AP companies’ impact, it is essential to understand their performance in this competitive and fast-evolving market. This research explores the companies’ perspective on factors influencing the performance of European AP ingredients and food processing companies. The study adopts a theoretical approach based on sustainability transition to analyze factors at three levels of action: company, market and external environment. Based on semistructured face-to-face in person or online interviews with 37 company representatives throughout Europe, the study identifies limiting and enabling factors shaping company performance. Findings reveal that product characteristics are among the most significant determinants of success. Companies prioritize developing products that are tasty, nutritionally balanced, and affordable to meet consumer expectations. Performance is further enhanced by highly skilled team; investment in R&D to improve products characteristics; partnerships with comanufacturers; and increased retailer commercialization of AP products. Limiting factors include low consumer acceptance; financial and technological constraints to scalability; uncertainties regarding market growth; and regulation hurdles. The findings highlight key issues of the European AP market and offer valuable insights to support its continued growth and contribution to agri-food system sustainability. 1. Introduction Growing awareness on environmental and climate issues has brought increased attention to the negative externalities of livestock production, positioning it as a key concern of the current food system [1,2]. In response, food companies are increasingly turning to new food ingredients, the so-called “alternative proteins”, to meet the demand for sustainable substitutes to conventional animal-based proteins [3,4] . Alternative proteins (APs) are those obtained from sources that are plant-based, insects, fermented-based, cellular agriculture, or algae. The interest in APs surged in the 2010s, with the foundation of many startups, and in the period during and immediately after COVID19, when investments in AP companies and research boomed [5,6]. Numerous factors contributed to the growth of this market, including the discourse of environmental sustainability and climate change, healthy diets, animal welfare, and global population growth [5]. The global AP market was estimated at USD 20.36 billion in 2024 [7]. Growth projections for AP market are positive, especially in the medium-to-long run [7,8]. The plant-based (PB) segment holds the primacy in the AP market for volume of sales and revenues with a total US retail sales at $8.1 billion in 2023 and is particularly driven by the milk and meat analogues categories [3, 9]. PB products benefit from lower technological barriers, higher availability in retailers and food services and lower price compared to other AP products [3,10]. In the AP market, food producers and ingredient companies serve as pivotal players by launching novel products, advancing production technologies, and expanding consumers’ options. AP companies promote AP production and consumption as a sustainable solution thanks to lower carbon emission and lower water and land use. According to a recent study, replacing all animal-based foods with AP by 2050 could cut food system emissions by 202 Gt CO₂e—far more than reductions achievable by food waste cuts, yield gains, or shifts to plant-rich diets [11]. Thus, market success of APs brings additional social value by contributing to the sustainable transition of the current food system [4]. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Benussi). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Sustainable Futures journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-futures https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.101563 Received 3 June 2025; Received in revised form 4 November 2025; Accepted 26 November 2025 Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 Available online 1 December 2025 2666-1888/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/4.0/ ). Yet, according to previous studies, AP companies are far to reach the full stage of growth and remains a niche in the food market [3,12–14]. Previous studies have recognized as major market growth barriers price, technology, nutritional profile and the regulatory framework [13,15]. As the food system remains largely based on animal-based products, experts call for measures to weaken the regime and strengthen the shift of alternative proteins from niche to regime [11,16]. In order to understand and promote the success of AP companies, it is essential to examine the factors supporting AP companies’ performance. Company performance is the achievement of “goals related to profitability and growth in sales and markets share” [17]. Multiple factors impact on company performance and simultaneously affect the overall market prosperity of the industry. Academic literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of factors influencing AP companies’ performance. Previous studies have discussed AP companies’ performance through homogenous samples of companies, mainly plant-based, or non-European geographical areas, such as Brazil, highlighting only a few of the influential factors affecting AP companies. The present study aims to fill these research gaps by exploring the perception of AP companies on factors influencing company performance. This analysis can inform industry practice, stakeholders, policymakers and future research in this expanding industry. The novelty of this study stands in three aspects. First, the present study focuses on influential factors acting at different levels, namely company, market, and external environment, providing a multi-level analysis. Second, Europe position in the protein transition is pivotal thanks to the growing consumer acceptance, an entrepreneurial ecosystem able to support AP start-ups, and the need to strength European protein production. In fact, the EU is a net importer of both plant and animal proteins, positioning AP European companies as key players in expanding domestically produced protein products [18]. Finally, the present study includes both ingredient and processing companies, highlighting how both types of companies may contribute to the protein transition. 2. Literature review Past literature limitedly explores the influential factors to company performance of AP companies. A previous study examined the barriers and enablers influencing AP companies’ performance focusing on the specific context of Brazilian companies [13]. Another study explored factors affecting the expansion of AP companies, highlighting various factors related to AP companies’ performance [19]. Additionally, two studies analyzed influential factors, though limited to PB companies [20, 21]. The following elements emerge from these studies. Limited financial resources and limited scaling up capabilities challenge the AP companies’ performance by limiting their competitiveness [13,19]. AP companies, particularly start-ups and smaller enterprises, often face difficulties in establishing partnerships with retailers, limiting their access to consumers [13]. From a favorable perspective, start-ups and SMEs evaluate human capital as an enabler and invest in highly trained and motivated people [13]. Many studies have highlighted how AP companies benefit from the use of green marketing to engage with consumers and legitimize the shift to AP products [4,21]. Consumer acceptance is discussed in two ways. On the one hand, previous studies have highlighted that consumers’ reluctance to embrace AP products is a major challenge for companies aiming to enhance their performance [13,21]. Unsatisfactory taste and texture and premium price contribute to limiting a wide consumption of AP product [21]. On the other hand, a study acknowledged a growing rate of consumer acceptance, which is mostly influenced by increasing awareness around their sustainability and healthy food products [21]. In fact, the market growth has played a role in boosting the AP companies’ performance by boosting sales of volumes and creating momentum for AP proteins, especially plant-based [20]. Furthermore, a study mentioned that increasing competition has positively influenced AP companies’ performance by boosting product innovation and opening new commercial opportunities [20]. Finally, the literature acknowledges the active role of NGOs and research institute in supporting AP companies through knowledge development and consumers behavior changes [13]. 3. Theoretical approach Over the past few decades, increasing sustainability concerns have stimulated research and policy debates on how socio-technical systems can be transformed to contribute to a more sustainable society. The concept of “sustainability transition” has emerged to conceptualise the “transformation processes through which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes of production and consumption” [22]. Sustainability transitions are uncertain, multi-dimensional and longterm process which involve multi-actor engagement and a dialectic relationship between stability and change [23,24]. Sustainability transition has been largely used in field such as the energy and transportation sectors. In the agrifood economics literature, sustainable transition has been a useful approach to discuss the adoption of sustainable innovation such as AP in bringing transformation inside the food system. So far the AP sustainability transition literature has discussed strategic niche management and niche-regime interactions mainly by focusing on the roles of consumers, policymakers or stakeholders [16,20]. In contrast, the corporate dimension has received limited attention, and a deeper understanding of companies’ influence on the sustainability transition is still needed [20]. AP companies can actively support sustainability transition by fostering innovation, increasing alternative product availability, and expanding consumer choice. Nonetheless, the potential of companies to actively shape the food system is highly connected to their performance and their market success. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the multidimensional nature of sustainability transition calls for a multi-level analysis of company performance, which is conceptualized as being shaped not only by micro-level factors but also by determinants operating at the meso and macro levels. Understanding companies’ perspective on company performance helps clarify their contribution to the sustainability transition. The analysis supports strengthening the role of companies in niche expansion and regime destabilization. Drawing on the sustainability transition approach, the present research employs the two key concepts of company performance and influential factors to analyse the AP industry. First, company performance is a multi-faced concept and refers to reaching goals on profitability and sales [25,26]. This concept has been widely studied by previous literature, particularly in the contexts of increasing competition and technological innovation [25]. The significance of studying on company performance lies in understanding a firm’s ability to adapt its business strategy to meet its success goals. Second, influential factors are the qualities, competencies and conditions that can influence both positively (enabler) and negatively (barrier) the performance of a company [26–29]. Factors act as determinants of company performance by impacting on companies’ competitive advantage [30]. The influential factors identified stem from previous studies and are classified into three levels of action, company, market, external environment, as conceptualised by Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2017 [31] (Fig. 1). At the company level, factors are firm-specific determinants that operate at internal level affecting the performance of individual companies. This group encompasses factors such as marketing capabilities, managerial capabilities and human resources, all of which are determined by the company. At the market level, factors may pertain to the micro-environment surrounding the company, including consumer acceptance, collaboration with other actors, and access to funding. At the external level, environment factors include the macro-environment external pressures. Companies cannot directly control them but have to address them, such as political and legal aspects. The three levels C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 2 represent how companies interact with the industrial ecosystem they are part of, highlighting how both external and internal forces influence companies. 4. Methodology 4.1. Data collection and analysis The present study develops semi-structured interviews to investigate the influential factors of AP company performance. The study adopts a qualitative approach that allows the researchers to investigate the unique characteristics of each company, develop a nuanced understanding, and deepen the point of view of companies on performance. The interviews included a set of open-ended questions to explore the factors influencing company performance. First, interviewees were asked to briefly present their company, value proposition, and consumer targets thus providing a clear picture of the commercialised products and positioning in the AP industry. Second, the interview explored the interviewees’ perspective on the factors influencing their AP company performance. The list of influential factors identified in Fig. 1 guided the discussion with interviewees. The influential factors were discussed both in terms of positive and negative impact across the three levels. The interviewers additionally employed follow up questions to elicit explanations and additional comments. AP companies were identified through a comprehensive search of companies listed in two online databases [32,33]. Companies were contacted by email to present the study and arrange an interview. They were selected through a purposive sampling to identify companies in the scope of the study. Selection criteria are the following: i) companies producing AP ingredients then used in food processing, or AP food products then sold to food service companies or retailers; ii) companies with alternative protein in their portfolio, including both specialized in AP and with a diversified portfolio; iii) companies working with plant-based, microbial, algae, insects and krill protein. The research includes AP products for human consumption, thus excluding feeding, unless the same company produces ingredients for both food and feed. Cultivated and precision fermentation products are excluded due to the novelty of these production methods and the limited number of products which have received pre-market approval worldwide. More than 150 companies were contacted and 37 companies agreed to be interviewed. The face-to-face interviews were carried out between December 2024 and May 2025, on-line or in person, and lasted around 40 min. The interviews were carried out in English or Italian, recorded and then fully transcribed to ensure accurate and complete data capture. The study received approval from the University Ethics Committee on May 8th, 2025, under protocol number 0127,882. Recording was only conducted with prior consent from the interviewees. Participation in the research study was contingent upon reading the participation information sheet and the personal data processing information sheet and signing the corresponding consent form. The researchers employed the software NVivo 12 to code the transcript of the interviews and perform a content analysis. Code generation was deductively informed by the theoretical approach: each interview transcript was coded using influential factors identified in Fig. 1 as a code, maintaining the multi-level structure and the distinction between positive and negative factors. The coded information is summarized and elaborated as results. 4.2. Sample overview The sample includes 37 companies, in particular 20 AP food processing and 17 AP ingredient companies (Table 1). The companies are heterogeneous in terms of degree of specialization in alternative protein, core alternative protein used, country of headquarter, founding year, and organizational size. The sample offers a comprehensive perspective of the variety of company types active in the AP European market. In particular, the sample includes mostly companies specialized in AP, and plant-based proteins are the most frequently used. The majority of companies interviewed were funded after 2000, with a peak in the Fig. 1. Sustainable transition multi-level approach of influential factors to company performance. influential factors are classified in three levels of action (company, market, external environment) with the associated references. Source: Adapted from Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 3 period 2010–2019, highlighting the novelty of the AP industry. The companies funded before 2000 were diversified companies. The size of AP companies varies, mostly encompassing start-ups and SMEs. Four additional interviews with experts from NGO and academia were held to consolidate the results, covering AP regulatory issues, influential factors, and ingredients sourcing. 5. Results The results support that companies’ perspective on performance is heterogeneous (Fig. 2). Companies commonly converge on a set of factors that are widely discussed as key barriers. These are product characteristics, R&D capabilities, scaling up capabilities, consumers, market growth, and policies and regulations. The most frequently identified enablers are product characteristics, human capital, and external support. The following section reports insights into the levels of action and the discussion. 5.1. Company factors Product characteristics Both ingredients and processing AP companies support the idea that their profitability and growth in sales and market share are highly determined by the products’ characteristics. Successful AP products feature good value for money or low price, good taste, appealing texture, high nutritional value and a short ingredient list. Consumers perceive AP products as more expensive compared to conventional proteins. How this perception affects the marketability of AP products is controversial. While most producing companies consider low affordability as one of the key barriers to purchasing and are working to lower internal costs to decrease the final price, other companies believe that the superior quality of their product justifies the premium price. Taste and texture highly influence AP products’ marketability. In fact, part of the R&D focus is dedicated to improving these product features. Nutritional value, especially the concept of clean labels, is another major focus. A growing number of companies are placing greater emphasis on the development of AP products with shorter ingredient lists enriched with vitamins and fibers, and free from additives. This shift responds to consumers’ growing concern over complex formulation. A controversial product characteristic is the type of protein used. AP proteins perform differently in terms of taste, texture and allergenicity. Thus, companies use the primary AP ingredient as a unique selling point. Companies using rice-, pea-, and bean–based ingredients often emphasize their lack of allergenicity compared to common allergens such as soy and wheat. Companies utilizing algae, insects, and microbial proteins highlight the remarkable versatility of these ingredients, which extend far beyond meat alternatives to include applications in bakery products, blended foods, and pet food. Furthermore, ingredient companies regard the high nutritional value, health benefit and umami flavor of mycelium protein as a key competitive advantage. R&D capabilities A crucial influential factor for both ingredients and processing companies’ profitability is their research and development capability. Developing AP product recipes and processing techniques is often resource-intensive, posing substantial challenges in terms of both time and cost. Algae and insect companies are particularly disadvantaged in product development due to the lack of existing know-how, highlighting a delay in knowledge development compared to well-established plantbased ingredients such as soy. Soy protein is the most used ingredient thanks to a longer history of investments in R&D and greater expertise which now results in higher functionality and availability for food companies. Greater research and development investments should also be directed toward plant-based ingredients such as lupin, lentils, and beans to shorten the gap with the advanced processing methods employed and know-how used for soy. Nonetheless, AP companies prioritize R&D to develop innovative processing techniques, enhance the efficiency of existing processing to reduce the final price, try new AP ingredients in their recipes, expand the product portfolio by creating new products able to meet consumers’ expectations, in particular in product nutritional quality and shorter ingredient list. Human capital Companies perceive human capital as a strong enabler for their performance. AP companies benefit from highly skilled and motivated team members, bringing strong expertise in both technological and managerial areas. R&D teams are an essential part of the companies driving product development innovation. Strong capabilities and expertise in biotechnology or food business management by the top management drives AP companies’ performance. Examples of management strategies employed by AP companies include the pioneering decision to invest in AP products and the emphasis on prioritizing R&D. Furthermore, companies acknowledge their team’s high commitment to sustainability transition. Nonetheless, there is a degree of consent Table 1 Overview of the sample companies interviewed. AP Food processing company n =20 AP Ingredients company n =17 Degree of specialization in AP   Specialized 12 13 Diversified 8 4 Core alternative protein used   Plant-based*18 6 Algae 0 4 Insect 1 2 Microbial 1 4 Krill 0 1 Country of headquarter   Italy 7 3 Germany 3 4 France 2 2 Netherlands 2 1 Belgium 1 2 Spain 1 1 Poland 1 0 Switzerland 1 0 Austria 1 0 United Kingdom 1 0 Norway 0 1 Ireland 0 1 Israel 0 1 USA 0 1 Founding year   Before 1969 2 1 Between 1970 and 1979 1 0 Between 1980 and 1989 0 2 Between 1990 and 1999 3 0 Between 2000 and 2009 1 4 Between 2010 and 2019 7 6 Between 2020 and 2024 6 4 Organizational size**   Start-up 3 5 Micro 3 2 Small 4 6 Medium 5 2 Large 5 2 * Plant-based proteins used: Pea: 16; Soy: 10; Wheat: 10; Chickpea: 9; Bean: 5; Lentil: 5; Fava bean: 4; Rice: 4; Lupin: 2; Hemp: 2. Companies could use more than one plant-based source. ** Start-up: less than 5 years of activities; Micro: 1–10 employees, Small: 11–50, Medium: 50–250, Big: 250+[34]. C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 4 among AP companies that there is a need to increase the expertise in AP production. This gap is largely attributed to the novelty of the AP products and the lack of dedicated academic programs focused on alternative proteins. Scaling up capabilities Scaling up production is a crucial challenge for both ingredient and processing start-ups and SMEs, limiting their competitiveness in the market. The high cost of capex required, combined with the technical complexity of adapting production methods for larger volumes, presents a major barrier to scaling. A key constraint in addressing these constraints is the limited availability of financial resources, which is closely linked to underperformance in the market and insufficient investment. To mitigate the impact of these financial limitations, companies often turn to co-manufacturing partnerships or diversify their product portfolios by exploring a broader range of applications. Further, this challenge is not perceived by large companies or diversified SMEs, which are advantaged in scaling up thanks to higher availability of financial resources. Scaled up companies benefit from lower production costs and higher volume of production. Marketing capabilities AP processing companies support that strong marketing capabilities are an enabler to company performance by increasing the market positioning of AP products and the volume of sales. Companies use ecofriendly and free of allergens claims as part of their marketing strategy. Expanding the consumers’ target from vegans and vegetarians to flexitarians allow AP companies to potentially reach a higher number of consumers and grow their sales. Other marketing strategies include partnership with influencers and high social media presence, and green marketing. However, small companies and start-ups often lack financial resources to invest in marketing, limiting their market penetration. 5.2. Market factors Consumers Consumer acceptance of AP products is among the most influential factors for companies with controversial perspectives. On the one hand, companies acknowledge a growing consumer interest in AP products which have favored growth over the last years. On the other hand, companies perceive that consumers’ interest remains constrained due to the insufficient knowledge of the health benefit and sustainability impacts of AP, negative perception on ultra process foods and vegetarian diets. Furthermore, companies are aware that the eating habits of consumers are slow to change, implying that a wide consumption of AP products is far from reaching European tables. Insects’ companies face significant pressure from low consumer acceptance due to the yuck factor. Companies attempt to reduce the negative feeling associated with eating insects by using snacks product format, such as crackers and energy bars, to offer ready-to-eat and familiar product formats. Market growth The AP market is perceived as a fast-growing and innovative market. although it remains relatively young and has yet to reach its full potential. Companies perceive that the AP market has fallen short of the anticipated growth rates forecasted a couple of years ago, especially for PB and insects, resulting in the shutdown of many companies in the past two years. Companies have different opinions about the future growth of the AP market. On the one hand, some companies, especially fermentedbased companies, are positive about further expansion of the market in the short-middle term, believing that product innovation and technology improvement will increase consumer acceptance. On the other hand, many companies forecast limited growth in the short-middle term, and expect a concentration of the number of AP companies, especially for PB companies. Representatives of insect companies predict that insect products will remain a niche market, as substantial market penetration appears unlikely. The uncertainty around the future market outlook reduces the companies’ propensity to innovate and invest and their ability to reach widespread distribution of their products. Competition As the market for AP products expands, the competition between AP processing companies increases prompting AP companies to diversify from competitors. A few companies have overcome this challenge by investing in cutting-edge technologies, building a strong brand identity, or diversifying their product format and nutritional values. In particular, some AP start-ups and small companies decided to avoid competing with incumbent companies by specializing in market niches or private labels for retailers. However, diversification from competitors requires large investments in R&D and marketing, which not all companies may be able to grant. Relationship capabilities AP processing companies discuss the relationship with retailers as Fig. 2. Frequency of influential factors identified either as barrier or enabler by the interviewees. C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 5 both an enabler and a barrier depending on the protein focus and company’s size. This relationship has grown tight in the last years for PB products, leading to greater availability of products on shelves. Reaching out to retailers and developing an established distribution channel is a challenge for specialized newcomers’ companies or small companies. This challenge is strictly related to the limited space dedicated to AP products in retailer shelves and to the growing product range. The novelty of AP products such as mycelium, insects, and algae further escalates this challenge. Furthermore, the findings underscore that the food service companies represent an underdeveloped market segment for AP products. Food processing companies concur that the limited interest shown by food service providers in incorporating AP into their menus is primarily attributable to the premium price of AP products, lack of knowledge regarding these products, and their appropriate cooking preparation. Ingredients companies acknowledge the collaborative relationship with processing companies as a key enabler, grounded in joint product co-development. The collaborative relationship enables the company performance by creating trust between actors and dependency. Further, product development partnerships specifically with incumbent companies favor AP companies’ performance by incrementing sales forces and technological expertise and reducing distribution challenges. However, this relationship is a barrier for insects’ companies. A lack of information by processing companies on the benefits and functional properties of insect ingredients limits their propensity to try these new ingredients. 5.3. External environment factors Policies & regulations Regulations are both an enabling and a constraint for AP companies. Policies and regulations often cited as a barrier are the following. First, the novel food regulation is criticized by start-ups for its long processing time, the lack of clear information on the documents required, and the significant cost of the application. This restrictive law limits the diversity of products and the propensity of innovation, pushing away investors and entrepreneurs looking into new AP ingredients or innovative technologies. Some companies with ingredients classified as novel foods often exit the EU market or initially target the animal feed or pet food industries. This strategy is adopted because these markets have less stringent safety approval regulations, enabling companies to start cashing in and build capital for later investment in the novel food approval process. Second, in several EU countries, VAT levels for AP products are considerably higher compared to the respective conventional products. Differences in VAT levels reach 22% for products such as plant-based cheese and milk, distorting the price for consumers and putting pressure on AP food processing companies to reduce their costs. Third, agricultural subsidies contribute to the lack of level playing field between AP and conventional protein companies by disproportionately lowering the commodity prices of meat and dairy compared to arable ingredients, especially for the PB protein, creating an artificial market imbalance. Fourth, laws limiting meat sounding labels inhibit consumers’ propensity to try AP products. Fifth, the lower lobbying power of the AP industry compared to the conventional animal protein industry limits their influence over policymakers and public opinion. Finally, the absence of a specific regulation for algae and the classification as aquaculture production negatively impact on the companies’ performance by imposing high quality standards, resulting in higher production costs, and limiting the implementation of laws specific to algae products. Companies mention two regulations as enablers for the company performance. First, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), initiated at EU level, has boosted the participation of retailers and only recently of the food service in the AP market, especially the plant-based one. In fact, the lower carbon footprint of PB products reduces the scope 3 emissions of retailers. Major retailers have committed to increasing their range of PB products to meet plant/animal protein target split and to reduce the AP products price. Lidl has been the first EU retailer to promote a price parity strategy for their brand of PB products. Second, French PB companies mention the positive indirect effect of the EGALIM law. This law promotes the use of local ingredients and the offer of vegetarian and healthy products inside food services. External support Access to funding is another major barrier for AP companies, especially start-ups. Funding is essential to investing in R&D, scaling facilities and improving production efficiency. Companies tend to rely mostly on private investment, especially from venture capitals. The flow of public investment in AP companies is limited and only support startups in the first stages. A new challenge for AP companies has been the decline in investments from 2023–24, which aligns with a reduced propensity to invest, driven by the weak performance of the European economy. Access to funding is also perceived as a costly and timeconsuming process for companies. On a positive note, investors are often actively involved in the company by offering additional support and expertise and investing in multiple series of funding. Furthermore, companies acknowledge the support of entities and organizations outside the supply chain such as universities, NGOs, and governmental entities. The results clearly show a tight relationship between AP companies and universities. The latter supports the company performance by advancing research, investing in teaching programs, and providing lab-scale facilities. Networks, such as the EIT Food, and NGOs, such as the Good Food Institute Europe and national association of PB food producers, support the company performance by strengthening the lobbying power of AP companies, increasing consumer acceptance, and supporting business development and access to grants. Companies perceived limited engagement of governments as a barrier, calling for greater support to entrepreneurship and research activities. A good example of institutional support comes from algae, where the EU promoted the initiative EU4Algae to boost the knowledge and collaboration between research infrastructures and companies. General economic situation A newcome challenge for the company performance has been the low economic performance affecting the European economy. The general economic situation impacts on the company performance by raising input costs and interest rates and limiting the propensity of companies to invest in R&D and scaling up. Furthermore, the high inflation rates and growing financial pressure on households have led some consumers to revert to conventional meat, which is often more affordable than AP products. This shift has also driven increased demand for lower-cost private-label products. 6. Discussion 6.1. Balancing between barriers and enablers The research study discusses which factors European AP companies perceive as influencing their performance. The analysis identifies a group of enablers and barriers for both ingredient and processing AP companies, highlighting how factors can act as opposite force on the company performance and thus on their contribution to sustainability transition. Companies perceive that internal and external factors interact to influence company performance, reflecting the complexity of achieving success in the competitive and rapidly evolving AP market. Product characteristics, identified as the most crucial enabling factor, are closely connected to the companies’ R&D capabilities, human capital, consumer acceptance and external support. This result is broadly in line with previous consumers’ studies identifying price reduction and investment in R&D as key priority actions for AP consumption [21, 35–37]. The strong influence of product characteristics on company performance applies to both ingredients companies and processing C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 6 firms, emphasizing the critical role of innovation in boosting growth in the AP industry. In this context, collaborations with universities and NGOs have a great impact on innovation and product development [13, 37]. The present findings also confirm that coopetition among companies, especially with co-manufacturing and incumbents, is an enabler of performance [38]. Company factors positively influencing companies’ performance also include marketing capabilities for processing companies. Research supports the idea that brand familiarity influences the consumption of AP products, aligning with current findings that AP companies benefit from a strong brand identity, which in turn enhances consumer adoption [21,39,40]. The study confirms that the growing AP market acts as a catalyst for company engagement. The positive market trend has encouraged increased participation in AP production and innovation [3,41]. However, start-ups and small companies face greater difficulties in the AP market and in transforming barriers into enablers. Start-ups and small companies are constrained by limited financial resources and low scaling up capabilities, which in turn diminish their ability to compete on price and invest in research and development activities [13,42]. A novel funding is that some companies are trying to overcome this challenge by specializing in private labels, due to a newfound retailers’ engagement in the AP market and the growing retailer offer of private label products compared to brand-owned products. Finally, this study enrich previous literature by highlighting that companies’ performance is influenced by external factors beyond their control, including policies and regulation and the general economic situation. First, the study highlights a set of policies which directly or indirectly influence companies, especially the CSRD on the plant-based market. This novel finding confirms that sustainability is one of the strongest values associated with AP products and marketing attributes. This is in line with a previous study discussing the capability of AP companies in supporting the sustainability transition [19]. This external environment factors link to the market factor of relationship capabilities by discussing the relationship between processing companies and retailers. In fact, the current study expands previous literature confirming an increase of retailers’ interest in commercializing AP products through an expansion of the retailing shelves space and the retailers’ first concrete effort to reach price parity [5,43,44]. On a negative side, the EU novel food regulation impacts all type of AP companies by limiting innovation, market formation, and resources mobilization [45]. Furthermore, companies are incentivized to switch to different products’ applications or to geographical markets with less limiting regulations [45]. Examples include companies with novel food ingredients producing pet food or shifting to market in Singapore and the US. Second, AP company performance is particularly pressed by macro-level conditions. The broader economic situation seems unfavorable to AP products due to lowering purchasing power for consumers [19] and higher investments costs. 6.2. Prospects for AP companies While the sales of AP products have grown between 2020 and 2023, companies have been facing challenges in the last two years. Nowadays AP companies are coping with low economic performance, unfavourable regulatory environment, unstable market and strong competition with conventional products [19,46]. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial and social hype around AP has decreased, together with a decrease in investments. The study reveals differences in the perceived factors influencing company performance based on the company size and level of specialization, whereas indicating similarities in relation to company’s role within the value chain. In fact, start-ups and small specialized companies report financial constraints due to the lack of other revenues, limited profitability and limited opportunities to scale up and decrease costs [47]. This type of companies may be more vulnerable to market uncertainties, possibly leading to an increase in the concentration of the AP market in the next years through incumbents’ acquisition or bankruptcy of start-ups and small companies [19,48–50]. However, market concentration could limit innovation in the industry and price reduction [46,51]. Therefore, companies are urged to develop competitive advantage to overcome barriers and improve their performance in a more competitive AP market [47]. The present results delineate the principal areas AP companies should address to increase their contribution to sustainability transition by improving their company performance. Strategies include investing in R&D to improve products’ characteristics, switching to private labels to benefit from increased retailers’ commercialization of AP products, collaborating with co-manufacturers to decrease costs, and specializing in niche markets to narrow competition. R&D capabilities, in particular, require increased efforts from companies to bridge the gap between soy, wheat, and pea proteins and other alternative proteins. This finding extends beyond previous studies that have primarily focused on the market gap between alternative proteins – such as insect, algae, and microbial proteins – and plant-based products [3,41]. It confirms that soy, wheat, and pea have, to date, received the majority of investments, enhancing both its availability and functionality [10]. Consequently, companies in the alternative protein sector must address the challenges associated with the novelty of these ingredients by enhancing product characteristics to an unprecedented level, ultimately enabling their transition to regime. AP company performance is shaped by factors defined by other stakeholders, especially policymakers [36,52]. Drawing from the positive example of the CSRD, companies suggest that policymakers could support AP companies by helping transform barriers in enablers at each level and contributing to shifting AP from niche to regime. The keys policy contributions for AP company performance are the following. First, initiatives aimed at reducing price and increasing knowledge on AP products may boost consumption and act on market level factors [46, 53,54]. Fiscal policies supporting AP companies could help narrow the price gap between animal-based and AP products, thereby expanding product offer for European consumers. Second, subsidies for European plant protein production may contribute to lower ingredient price of plant-based products as the most relevant AP segment. The expansion of plant protein production would contribute to the Farm to Fork strategy objective of ensuring sustainable food production and increasing soil health [55]. Third, policy efforts could be directed toward increasing the availability of funding and investment in AP start-ups and research. Such measures would enhance the European expertise on APs and bioeconomy sector in line with the objective of the Food 2030 Initiative and the Bioeconomy Strategy [56]. Finally, previous policy measures discussed among the literature also include strategies to promote sustainable procurement and healthy menus in canteen in Belgium and Denmark [57]. Altogether these policy suggestions could strengthen the European production of protein, contributing to reducing the gap between European production and consumption of both animal and plant protein [18,58]. 6.3. Limitations This study has some limitations. First, while only a subset of companies was reached, the number of interviewees was sufficient to cover all key points, with consistent consolidation of issues across responses. This suggests that, despite companies’ commonly limited willingness to collaborate, the findings reliably reflect broader trends within the AP sector. Second, this study does not capture the experiences of AP companies that have undergone bankruptcy. Thus, it may overlook critical factors that contributed to the exit of these companies from the AP market. Finally, this research did not account for multiple perspectives within the same company. Since only one individual was interviewed per organization, the findings may reflect individual viewpoints and personal biases rather than a comprehensive view of the company or broader industry. C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 7 7. Conclusion The AP market represents a dynamic frontier of innovation and sustainability, where AP companies are not merely commercial entities but pivotal agents of a sustainability-oriented systemic change. Their role transcends traditional market objectives, actively shaping the transition toward more sustainable agri-food systems. The factors influencing their performance must be understood not just as obstacles, but as opportunities to unlock transformative potential. To fully realize this potential, it is imperative to convert existing barriers into enablers through targeted strategies that include scaling up production, accelerating product development, and fostering cross-sector collaboration. Bridging the performance gap between soy-, glutenand pea-based products and newer AP sources requires sustained investment and policy support, ensuring these innovations are not confined to niche markets but become mainstream, affordable, and culturally integrated food choices. By scaling innovation to impact AP companies will fulfill their promise as contributor of a resilient, inclusive, and sustainable agri-food future. Funding Research leading to this publication is funded by NRRP ex M.D. 118/ 2023 resources and the European Union under Grant Agreement No. 101083961, project named Like-a-Pro. Ethics requirements All participants provided written informed consent for the publication of their anonymized answers before starting the survey. Anonymity and confidentiality of the survey data were ensured. The formal ethical consent of the research was taken from the Ethical Committee of the University of Bologna on 29th April 2024, Prot. N. 0127882 of 8th May 2024. CRediT authorship contribution statement Chiara Benussi: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Antonella Samoggia: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements The authors thank the Food, Agriculture, and Resource Economics Laboratory (FARE-Lab), Alma Mater Studiorum - Universit` a di Bologna, Italy, for the technical support in performing the research. Data availability Data will be made available on request. References [1] H. Aiking, J. De Boer, The next protein transition, Trends. Food Sci. Technol. 105 (2020) 515–522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.07.008. [2] E. Dickson, N. Clay, Eat up. save earth.” alternative proteins and the myth of inevitable sustainability, J. Rural. Stud. 112 (2024) 103447, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103447. [3] F. Medeiros, R.S. Aleman, L. Gabríny, S.W. You, R.T. Hoskin, M. Moncada, Current status and economic prospects of alternative protein sources for the food industry, Appl. Sci. 14 (2024) 3733, https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093733. [4] A. Schwarz, P. Fischer, R. Weinrich, Unlocking the value and transitional purpose of plant-based meat alternative companies in the German market, Sustain. Futures 7 (2024) 100183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100183. [5] J. Mylan, J. Andrews, D. Maye, The big business of sustainable food production and consumption: exploring the transition to alternative proteins, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. u S. a 120 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207782120. [6] Money A., Srivastav S., Collett K.A. The new protein economy: policy directions. 2022. [7] Maximize Market Research, Alternative Protein Market: Global Industry Analysis and Forecast (2025-2032), Maximize Market Research, 2025. https://www.ma ximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/global-alternative-protein-marke t/52719/. [8] Good Food Institute, Challenges and breakthroughs: contextualizing alternative protein progress. https://gfi.org/blog/contextualizing-alternative-proteinprogress/, 2024 accessed April 30, 2025. [9] Good Food Institute. State of the Industry Report: plant-based meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy. 2024. [10] S. Due˜ nas-Ocampo, W. Eichhorst, P. Newton, Plant-based and cultivated meat in the United States: a review and research agenda through the lens of socio-technical transitions, J. Clean. Prod. 405 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2023.136999. [11] G. Hale, V. Oncescu, R. Bhangale, Pace of adoption of alternatives to animal-source foods is an important factor in reaching climate goals, Sci. Rep. 15 (2025) 22643, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07866-x. [12] V. Caputo, J. Sun, A.J. Staples, H. Taylor, Market outlook for meat alternatives: challenges, opportunities, and new developments, Trends. Food Sci. Technol. 148 (2024) 104474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104474. [13] C.C. de Moraes, P. Borin Claro, V. Picanço Rodrigues, Why can’t the alternative become mainstream? Unpacking the barriers and enablers of sustainable protein innovation in Brazil, Sustain. Prod. Consum. 35 (2023) 313–324, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.008. [14] S. Gerber, S.R. Dix, S.B. Cash, Marketing plant-based versus animal-sourced foods in online grocery stores: a comparative content analysis of sustainability and other product claims in the United States, Bus. Strat. Env. 33 (2024) 4958–4973, https:// doi.org/10.1002/bse.3717. [15] Y. Malila, I.O. Owolabi, T. Chotanaphuti, N. Sakdibhornssup, C.T. Elliott, W. Visessanguan, et al., Current challenges of alternative proteins as future foods, NPJ. Sci. Food 8 (2024) 53, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00291-w. [16] L. Hundscheid, C. Voigt, D. Bergthaler, C. Plank, M. Wurzinger, A.H. Melcher, Policy mix for the sustainable protein transition in Austria - addressing repercussions of regime shifts as a prerequisite for acceleration, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 51 (2024) 100819, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100819. [17] G.T.M. Hult, R.F. Hurley, G.A. Knight, Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on business performance, Ind. Mark. Manag. 33 (2004) 429–438, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015. [18] European Commission. Agriculture and Rural Development. Protein supply and demand. 2024. [19] L. Johansson, I. Jonasson, W. Reim, Sustainable expansion: capabilities for “new food source, Co Future Foods 8 (2023) 100259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fufo.2023.100259. [20] J. Aschemann-Witzel, M.D.G.H. Mulders, S.L.T. Mouritzen, Outside-in and bottomup: using sustainability transitions to understand the development phases of mainstreaming plant-based in the food sector in a meat and dairy focused economy, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 197 (2023) 122906, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122906. [21] L. Rini, J.J. Schouteten, I. Faber, K.-B. Bechtold, F.J.A. Perez-Cueto, X. Gellynck, et al., Identifying the key success factors of plant-based food brands in Europe, Sustainability 15 (2022) 306, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010306. [22] J. Markard, R. Raven, B. Truffer, Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects, Res. Policy 41 (2012) 955–967, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013. [23] J. K¨ ohler, F.W. Geels, F. Kern, J. Markard, E. Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, et al., An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31 (2019) 1–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eist.2019.01.004. [24] H. El Bilali, Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions, Env. Dev. Sustain. 22 (2020) 1693–1728, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10668-018-0290-0. [25] A. Neely, The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 19 (1999) 205–228, https://doi.org/10.1108/ 01443579910247437. [26] V.T.T. Thuy, D.N. Hung, L.T.T. Oanh, V.T.A. Tuyet, B.T. Thu, Factors impact on business performance of enterprises: the case of Vietnam, J. Organ. Behav. Res. 8 (2023) 27–39, https://doi.org/10.51847/2itmiM3CoE. [27] N. Boonklum, Key success factors and competitiveness of the food processing industry: insights from a qualitative study, CBSR 4 (2023) 359–368, https://doi. org/10.22495/cbsrv4i4siart16. [28] S. Sumaedi, T. Rakhmawati, N.J. Astrini, M. Yarmen, I.G.M.Y. Bakti, S. Damayanti, Key company success factors in creating high-quality innovative food products, Sage Open. 13 (2023) 21582440221148145, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 21582440221148145. C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 8 [29] H.D. Yahaya, G. Nadarajah, Determining key factors influencing SMEs’ performance: a systematic literature review and experts’ verification, Cogent. Bus. Manag. 10 (2023) 2251195, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2251195. [30] V. Cataltepe, R. Kamasak, F. Bulutlar, D. Palalar Alkan, Dynamic and marketing capabilities as determinants of firm performance: evidence from automotive industry, JABS 17 (2023) 617–638, https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-11-2021-0475. [31] J. Aschemann-Witzel, I.E. De Hooge, H. Rohm, A. Normann, M.B. Bossle, A. Grønhøj, et al., Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – a multiple case study, J. Clean. Prod. 155 (2017) 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.173. [32] Alternative protein company database, GFI n.d, ) (2025). |, https://gfi.org/resourc e/alternative-protein-company-database/. accessed September 262025. [33] Protein Directory - The largest alt protein database globally n.d, accessed September 26, https://proteindirectory.com/, 2025. accessed September 26. [34] European Commission, User Guide to the SME Definition, Publications Office, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2873/677467. [35] C. Lee Park, M. Fracarolli Nunes, Vegan luxury for non-vegan consumers: impacts on brand trust and attitude towards the firm, J. Retail Consum. Serv. 77 (2024) 103669, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103669. [36] P. Newton, W. Eichhorst, M. Hegwood, R.L. Morais-da-Silva, M.S. Heidemann, A. Hoffmann, et al., Price above all else: an analysis of expert opinion on the priority actions to scale up production and consumption of plant-based meat in Brazil, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8 (2024) 1303448, https://doi.org/10.3389/ fsufs.2024.1303448. [37] E. Lurie-Luke, Alternative protein sources: science powered startups to fuel food innovation, Nat. Commun. 15 (2024) 4425, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-02447091-0. [38] V. Vu, B. Fath, Friends and foes: embracing coopetition for sustainability in the New Zealand alternative protein industry, Bus. Strat Env. (2024) 3758, https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.3758, bse. [39] A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonen, Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research themes, Agric. Hum. Values 38 (2021) 625–639, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10184-9. [40] A. Mannem, A. Heintz Tangari, M.J Baran, I’ve got the power: encouraging proenvironmental behavior through messaging, J. Bus. Res. 168 (2023) 114228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114228. [41] M. Tziva, S.O. Negro, A. Kalfagianni, M.P. Hekkert, Understanding the protein transition: the rise of plant-based meat substitutes, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 35 (2020) 217–231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.004. [42] G. Reis, E.G. Villar, T. Ryyn¨ anen, P.R.V.D.V. Goliath, The challenges for plantbased meat companies competing with animal-based meat producers, J. Clean. Prod. 423 (2023) 138705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138705. [43] B.M. Bulah, M. Tziva, C. Bidmon, M.P. Hekkert, Incumbent entry modes and entry timing in sustainable niches: the plant-based protein transition in the United States, Netherlands, and United Kingdom, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 48 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100735. [44] L. Strangeway, T. Jones, The role of business in a food system fit for the future. Regenerative Farming and Sustainable Diets, 1st ed., Routledge, London, 2024, pp. 221–228, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032684369-36. [45] T. Reinhardt, A. Monaco, How innovation-friendly is the EU novel food regulation? the case of cellular agriculture, Future Foods 11 (2025) 100574, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100574. [46] M. Amato, R. Riverso, R. Palmieri, F. Verneau, L.B.F. Stakeholder, Beliefs about Alternative Proteins: a Systematic Review, Nutrients 15 (2023), https://doi.org/ 10.3390/nu15040837. [47] X. Islami, N. Mustafa, M. Topuzovska Latkovikj, Linking Porter’s generic strategies to firm performance, Future Bus. J. 6 (2020) 3, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093020-0009-1. [48] I. Baudish, K.R. Sahlin, C. B´ en´ e, P. Oosterveer, H. Prins, L. Pereira, Power & protein—closing the ‘justice gap’ for food system transformation, Env. Res. Lett. 19 (2024) 084058, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad3d6f. [49] D.F. Pais, A.C. Marques, J.A. Fuinhas, The cost of healthier and more sustainable food choices: do plant-based consumers spend more on food? Agric. Food Econ. 10 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9. [50] A.E. Sexton, T. Garnett, J. Lorimer, Vegan food geographies and the rise of big veganism, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 46 (2022) 605–628, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 03091325211051021. [51] C. B´ en´ e, M. Lundy, Political economy of protein transition: battles of power, framings and narratives around a false wicked problem, Front Sustain. 4 (2023), https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1098011. [52] C.V.C. Casnici, G.G. Reis, D. Schulzmann, M. Papanastassiou, J. Clegg, The Role of NGOs in the Transition Towards More Sustainable and Innovative Agri-food GVCs, in: R. Van Tulder, B. Grøgaard, R. Lunnan (Eds.), Progress in International Business Research, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2024, pp. 373–392, https://doi.org/ 10.1108/S1745-886220240000018023. [53] R. Manners, I. Blanco-Guti´ errez, C. Varela-Ortega, A.M. Tarquis, Transitioning European protein-rich food consumption and production towards more sustainable patterns—strategies and policy suggestions, Sustainability 12 (2020) 1962, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051962. [54] F. Verneau, F. La Barbera, S. Kolle, M. Amato, T. Del Giudice, K. Grunert, The effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: an experiment in Denmark and Italy, Appetite 106 (2016) 30–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2016.02.006. [55] European Commission, A Farm to Fork Strategy For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System, Brussels, 2020. [56] European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation. Food 2030: Pathways For Action 2.0 : R&I Policy As a Driver For sustainable, healthy, Climate Resilient and Inclusive Food Systems, LU: Publications Office, 2023. [57] S.K. Djojosoeparto, M.C.D. Verain, H. Schebesta, S. Biesbroek, M.P. Poelman, J.J. L. Candel, Harnessing the potential of public procurement for the protein transition – perceived barriers and facilitators. Agric. Hum. Values, 2024, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10460-024-10610-2. [58] J. Hristov, G. Tassinari, Himics ihaly, C. Beber, A.L. Barbosa, A. Isbasoiu, et al., Closing the EU Protein gap: drivers, Synergies and Trade Offs, LU: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024. C. Benussi and A. Samoggia Sustainable Futures 10 (2025) 101563 9