Sustainable bioeconomy and circular economy are more and more connected to sustainable development goals. This requires engaging all the different stakeholders to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development. Therefore, information access is a key challenge related to all the sustainable development goals. This article considers ideas, approaches and concepts related to sharing knowledge on Bioeconomy and collaborative ecosystems based on an ontology, aiming to facilitate information and services access. This ontology has been defined starting from the experience of the BIOVOICES project and from the need to establish a common terminology shared among scientists, enterprises, policymakers and civil society organisations on the bioeconomy. Indeed, the ontology provides a structured information of the BIOVOICES multi-stakeholders social platform’s content, facilitating accessing and sharing it. The building process and the validation of the ontology have been described.

Adopting a circular economy approach requires new business models, multi-stakeholder engagement, and tailored financial models and mechanisms as core pillars. This paper examines the conditions needed to scale circular economy initiatives in Europe by analysing insights collected from the DECISO project and conducting a comparative analysis of 38 European projects. The study adopts a mixed methods approach that integrates an online stakeholder survey with inputs generated through participatory workshops and discussions of selected use cases. This combined approach is used to identify the main structural barriers limiting the maturity and investment readiness of circular economy projects, such as regulatory complexity, difficulties in accessing funding, and weak stakeholder dialogue mechanisms. The approach was also used for enabling factors that can support development of circular economy. Particular attention is given to the role of project development assistance, modular financing strategies, and de-risking tools, which are highlighted as crucial elements for supporting the technical and economic credibility of projects and attracting public and private investors. The article also identifies and addresses seven unresolved research gaps in the literature, including the lack of interoperable policy instruments, the absence of business models capable of integrating investor expectations, the paucity of integrated methodologies for assessing technical and economic regulatory feasibility, and the need for trust-building procedures. The findings suggest that the transition to a regenerative economy requires a systemic approach based on coherent policies, de-risking financial instruments, collaborative governance, and strategic technical support throughout the project development cycle.

The growing complexity of public policies and socio-ecological transitions demands evaluation tools that integrate environmental, economic, and social dimensions across multiple governance contexts. However, the main evaluation impact methods are fragmented and sector-specific, limiting their ability to capture cross-scale interdependencies and sustainability of trade-offs. While existing reviews address methods in isolation, no updated systematic framework is built upon joint epistemological and participatory dimensions, proposing an integrated and transformative framework. Through a common analytical framework—encompassing the type of impact assessed, territorial scale, methodological approach, degree of stakeholder participation, and operational complexity—the paper presents a systematic comparative review of eleven widely used evaluation methods, covering the environmental, economic, social, and multidimensional dimensions. These methods are selected through screening of peer-reviewed literature published between 2022 and 2025 using an AI-assisted text-mining protocol to support keyword extraction, methodological classification, and manual validation. Its focus is on the analysis and critique of their characteristics, complexity, and epistemological limitations, particularly focusing on measurability and participation. The comparative analysis reveals a structural epistemological gap between qualitative bottom-up perspectives and quantitative, top-down approaches, as well as structural fragmentation across evaluative dimensions. They also draw attention to the approaches’ inadequate ability to manage non-linear dynamics, uncertainty, and transformative scenarios, which affects the legitimacy, comparability, and general efficacy of decision-making processes. Building on these, the paper advances a paradigmatic shift toward three systemic integrated principles: (i) systemic evaluation grounded in methodological and epistemological integration; (ii) transformative evaluation oriented toward collective learning and the redefinition of development trajectories; and (iii) co-produced evaluation based on the active engagement of territorial actors.