Sustainable Competitiveness and Applicative Comparative Analysis of Wine Production Through the Lens of Triple Bottom Line, Robotics, and Industry 5.0 Strategies

Abstract

This study investigates sustainable competitiveness in the wine industry using Romania and Portugal as comparative case studies within the conceptual frameworks of Industry 5.0 and the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). While sustainability, robotics, and performance indicators are explored directionally, the core empirical contribution focuses on evaluating key wine industry metrics and their impact on export value. Using data from the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) and the World Trade Map, we perform a one-way ANOVA to examine differences between the two countries across five variables: vineyard area, wine production volume, grape production, consumption, and export value. The results reveal statistically significant differences in all indicators except vineyard area, with Portugal significantly outperforming Romania in production, consumption, and exports (p < 0.001). To assess the drivers of export performance, we construct a Structural Equation Model (SEM) using SmartPLS. The model confirms that wine production volume and domestic consumption are the strongest positive predictors of export value (loading factors 1.003 and 0.909, respectively), while vineyard area has minimal influence. The model exhibits strong fit indices (e.g., SRMR = 0.009; NFI = 0.971), supporting the robustness of the results. The findings suggest that internal market strength and production efficiency, rather than land size, are critical for export competitiveness. Romania can enhance its performance by aligning production strategies with TBL principles and selectively adopting Industry 5.0 technologies in viticulture.

1. Introduction

The evolving paradigm of Industry 5.0 introduces a human-centric approach to technological innovation, emphasizing sustainable development through the integration of advanced technologies—such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and smart systems—into industrial ecosystems [1]. An important method to evaluate the performance of complex industry developments is based on the definition and calculus of specific key performance indicators [2,3]. Conceptually, this framework fosters not only economic efficiency but also environmental responsibility and social cohesion, aligning with models such as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) that highlight the interconnected value of people, the planet, and profit [4]. Industry 5.0 prioritizes sustainability, integrating social and economic aspects, and optimizing resource efficiency, circularity, and social responsibility through ethical labor practices and community involvement [5,6,7,8]. Sustainable supply chains prioritize local sourcing, emissions reduction, renewable resources, and smart energy management. They use robotics, AI, and digital twins for waste management and environmental impact monitoring [9,10,11,12].

This paper explores these concepts within the context of the wine industry, particularly in Romania and Portugal. Industry 5.0 and sustainability models are discussed as directional and applicative elements shaping the future of viticulture. However, the primary empirical contribution of this study is focused on a quantitative evaluation of key wine production and trade indicators. By applying statistical techniques such as ANOVA and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), we analyze the factors influencing the export value of wines from Romania and Portugal.

The study compares Romania and Portugal in the European wine industry, focusing on sustainability, Industry 5.0, and export competitiveness. Portugal is a mature wine exporter with a robust brand identity and extensive organic and biodynamic practices, while Romania lags in production efficiency, export value, and technological integration. The study uses data-driven comparison to highlight the differences in key indicators, such as export value, wine production volume, domestic consumption, grape production, and vineyard area. Both countries are engaged in implementing the Triple Bottom Line framework, with Portugal offering a model for TBL application in a wine-exporting context. Romania, as an emerging wine producer, represents a dynamic test case for sustainability education, organic agriculture standards, and robotics. The research offers actionable lessons for other wine-producing countries navigating similar transitions.

The study does not aim to measure the direct effects of robotics or sustainability certifications on performance, but rather to contextualize how these emerging concepts may support competitiveness in the long term. The findings offer comparative insights and policy recommendations for improving Romania’s export performance by drawing lessons from Portugal’s more mature wine sector.

Robotics in Industry 5.0 focuses on collaborative automation, enhancing capabilities, safety, and productivity without replacing the human workforce. Robots are designed to assist humans in challenging tasks, fostering a more skilled workforce. They are versatile and adaptable, capable of performing customized production tasks with minimal downtime [13]. Cobots are designed to work closely with humans in manufacturing, reduce ergonomic strain, and increase output without extensive safety barriers [14]. Autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) assist with internal logistics and robotic quality control, using AI-driven machine vision systems to inspect products in real time [15]. Industry 5.0 also focuses on performance indicators (KPIs) that capture social, environmental, and human-centric performance alongside traditional productivity measures. These include evaluating the Triple Bottom Line, tracking employee well-being, and assessing adaptability and resilience [16,17].

Technological advances in robotics, within the framework of Industry 4.0, are transforming agriculture by streamlining processes and enhancing sustainability in agriculture [18,19,20]. However, this transition faces economic, climatic, and social challenges that require innovative solutions to ensure community acceptance and integration [21,22,23,24].

Romania and Portugal’s wine industry can benefit from integrating organic agriculture standards and robotics to improve production quality, sustainability, and efficiency. This will meet consumer demand for organic and environmentally responsible products. The European Green Deal and Farm2Fork strategy aim to develop ecological agriculture, focusing on environmental performance, water quality, and emissions reduction. Development of a larger database [25,26,27] dedicated to the wine industry which includes specific taxonomy, production volume, markets, etc., could provide extremely useful information for wine-producing companies, customers, students, or professionals in the field, institutions, etc.

Sustainability models provide a strategic vision for sustainability practices, guiding the development of standards, guidelines, and indicators. Holistic approaches, such as the Triple Bottom Line and Doughnut Economics, encourage a holistic approach to sustainability, driving innovation and leadership (Figure 1).

Sustainability models guide the creation of standards, guidelines, and indicators for sustainable practices. Holistic approaches like the Triple Bottom Line and Doughnut Economics encourage innovation. ISO 14000 Environmental ManagementSeries and ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Series [28] are essential standards for organizations, while ISO 26000:2010 and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards help report impacts. Sustainability certifications build trust and provide practical advice. Sustainability indicators measure performance, and different models may be relevant to specific sectors. For example, a wine company can adopt a sustainability model like ISO 14001:2015 (Environmental management systems), ISO 26000, or GRI to address environmental management issues, human rights, labor standards, community engagement, diversity and inclusion, sustainability reporting, sustainable leadership, and risk management (Figure 2).

For our research, we chose Triple Bottom Line (TBL), which refers to the idea that businesses should focus on three key areas: profit (economic), people (social), and the planet (environmental). It emphasizes that companies should not only aim for financial success but also consider their social and environmental impact.

The literature highlights the connection between business sustainability, the Triple Bottom Line, and responsible leadership. These structures emphasize the three characteristics of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Responsible leadership influences stakeholders to create beneficial outcomes for the organization and society [29]. The Triple Bottom Line emphasizes a company’s value creation for all stakeholders affected by business actions, emphasizing the company’s commitment to people [30]. Purpose-driven leaders are needed to lead programs that encourage good change and make a genuine, quantifiable difference. Institutional incentives for sustainability contribute to organizations’ engagement with economic, social, and environmental issues [31]. However, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) philosophy is criticized for its practicality and validity. Achieving sustainable development goals by 2030 requires significant efforts from the public, corporate, and social sectors. Education is crucial for enabling the private sector to successfully implement SDGs, providing students with the skills and knowledge needed to identify sustainable development prospects [32,33,34].

The social component of the model will be achieved through Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education (SEE). SEE is a model that aims to improve entrepreneurial knowledge, capacities, attitudes, outcomes, and performance in developed contexts. However, providing EE alone is insufficient to achieve its objectives. To effectively provide SEE, current educational approaches must be modified. Research on sustainable entrepreneurship can provide insights into developing competencies and skills essential for sustainable entrepreneurship [35,36]. Co-creation is an approach that fosters creative solutions through stakeholder involvement. Teachers play a crucial role in promoting cooperation and supporting co-creation initiatives. The SEE program aims for participants, including young college students and senior adults, to co-create knowledge [37,38,39,40].

Industry 4.0, the fourth smart industry revolution, is transforming agriculture by focusing on intelligence, cloud communication, and autonomous decision-making [18]. This advancement is facilitated by technologies like the Internet of Things, AI, robotics, and Big Data Analytics. The next level of the industrial revolution, Industry 5.0, combines these technologies to improve farming efficiency and sustainability. The focus is on higher yields, environmental conservation, and automation. Robots in agriculture are classified based on locomotion and control methods and can be stationary, mobile, land based, flying, or aquatic. Land-based robots can use various wheels or tracks for hard and uneven surfaces, while legged robots have articulated and orientable legs for animal and insect locomotion. The legged design, even if more challenging and difficult in terms of design and control [20], could facilitate access to more complex agricultural lands [19].

Robots and advanced tractors are revolutionizing autonomous farming and agricultural output [21], with research and commercial projects focusing on harvesting, weeding, spraying cultivation areas, pruning, yield estimation, and disease identification. Robots must generate efficient movements and navigate around barriers, prioritizing crop safety and farm safety [22]. Autonomous navigation requires perception of the environment and algorithms using sensors like computer vision, LiDAR, GPS, and IMU. Prioritizing crop safety and avoiding crop damage are crucial for successful robotic systems [23].

Despite the increasing integration of Industry 5.0 principles, sustainability models, and robotics in various industrial sectors, their specific application in the wine industry remains underexplored. The existing literature has extensively discussed the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) model, sustainable agriculture, and technological advancements in viticulture, but few studies have investigated how these elements interact to influence the economic competitiveness of wine-exporting countries.

Additionally, comparative studies on the wine industry in Romania and Portugal have primarily focused on production metrics and trade performance, without thoroughly analyzing the role of sustainability standards, organic agriculture, and advanced robotics in shaping market outcomes. While Portugal has successfully positioned itself as a leading wine exporter, Romania’s wine industry lags despite similar climatic conditions and EU support mechanisms. The reasons behind this disparity remain unclear.

Furthermore, while previous research has explored the role of key performance indicators (KPIs), sustainability certifications, and government incentives in agricultural sectors, there is a lack of empirical evidence on how these factors influence the export value of wine. Existing studies do not adequately address the extent to which robotic automation and sustainable practices contribute to enhancing wine industry competitiveness in emerging wine-producing nations.

Research Contribution: This study fills the gap by (1) analyzing the role of sustainability models (TBL, organic farming) and robotics in the wine industry, with a focus on economic outcomes; (2) comparing Romania and Portugal to identify key factors driving competitiveness in the wine export market; (3) using advanced statistical methods (ANOVA, SEM analysis) to quantify the impact of cultivated area, wine production volume, and sustainability initiatives on export value; and (4) providing policy recommendations for improving Romania’s wine industry based on Portugal’s successful strategies.

Considering all this context, we have to offer sustainable entrepreneurial education, to meet sustainable standards, and obtain adequate values for specific indicators. In this regard, we intend to study whether SEE offered by us within different hubs has a positive impact on the implementation of TBL and agroecology standards and the impact on Romania’s economy.

1.1. Romania, a Profile of the Country and Its Wine Industry

Romania, a member of the European Union since 2007, has seen improved social and economic conditions, with GDP per capita increasing from 43% to 64% between 2007 and 2019. However, progress in the agricultural sector is less visible, with agriculture employing 22.3% of the active population and accounting for almost 4.4% of GDP. Romania’s winemaking revival has been largely due to its natural conditions and diverse actors, preserving traditions and keeping wines competitive in international competitions. The wine market in Romania is worth around EUR 500 million, with over 1300 companies growing grapes and producing wine. The industry is primarily dominated by medium-sized companies, with 61% of the market generated by these companies. EU financial support has been instrumental in the sector, with around EUR 450 million allocated between 2002 and 2018.

1.2. Portugal, Conditions and Development of the Wine Industry

Portugal’s wine industry has been underdeveloped since the eighth century, with viticulture and winemaking being underdeveloped in the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1992, Harvard Business School Professor Michael E. Porter identified the wine industry as a strategic group to increase competitiveness in the Portuguese economy. In 1984, an enology course was created at UTAD to help young people understand technical problems and make the transition between ideas and innovation efficiently. Private research institutions like ADVID focus on promoting the Wines of Portugal brand and investments in research and development. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Portugal remains a net exporter of wine, with 14 main wine regions producing high-quality wines.

The research questions are as follows: What is the European wine context/current state of the art? What are the main factors that affect the economic value collected from wine production? How can countries benefit from the sustainable TBL model, as well as the current and future standards, guidelines, and indicators? Do robots facilitate agroecology?

2. Materials and Methods

Data on the area under vine, consumption, and production for Romania and Portugal were sourced from the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). Additionally, data on wine exports, including the value of these exports, were extracted from the World Trade Map. These export data are particularly significant in a benchmark analysis, as they reflect the external demand for Romanian and Portuguese wines and offer insights into their market performance on a global scale. The integration of these datasets serves multiple purposes: It allows for a comparative evaluation of production capabilities, domestic consumption dynamics, and export competitiveness between Romania and Portugal. Furthermore, by analyzing these variables over time, this study can identify trends and shifts in the wine industry, offering a more nuanced understanding of how both countries perform.

The data collected were analyzed with descriptive (graphs and mean) and inferential statistics (ANOVA—variance analysis) realized with IBM SPSS version 22. We also considered it important to forecast values for all variables analyzed to be able to propose possible strategies to meet sustainable goals, integrated into the TBL model. Our variables are consumption, representing wine consumption in both countries, area, representing the area under vine, volume, representing wine production, and export value, representing the value collected from export. In the second phase of the research, we designed a factor analysis using SmartPLS version 3.2.9. Our Structured Equation Model (SEM) is intended to measure the weight of each factor that influences the export value.

We also carried out literature research regarding the TBL model of suitability and how it is applied in Romania and Portugal and the standards, certifications, indicators, and guidelines available in the field of agroecology.

The research hypotheses resulting from the context analysis are as follows:

H1. 

There is a significant difference between Romania and Portugal regarding wine consumption, cultivated vineyard area, grape production, the volume of wine produced, and the value collected from wine export.

H2. 

The main factors that influence the value collected from wine export are consumption, volume of wine produced, and vineyard area.

3. Results

To make a statistical comparison between Romania and Portugal, we applied a one-way ANOVA, the Welch’s test, assuming unequal variances. In our analysis, we included five variables: consumption (wine consumption), area (cultivated vineyard area), production (grape production), volume (wine production), and export value (the value collected from export). The high F values prove that there is a statistically significant difference between the two countries regarding the consumption (µP = 5366, µRo = 3122), production (µP = 6951, µRo = 4227), volume (µP = 3168, µRo = 184), and export value (µP = 1,000,000, µRo = 37,211) with a very high significance level (p-value < 0.001). Hence, regarding the cultivated vineyard area (µP = 191, µRo = 189), the difference is not statistically significant as the F value is even lower at 1.96, at a very low significance level (p-value = 0.197, higher than the 0.05 threshold), as might be observed in

Table 1. Variance analysis of Portugal vs. Romania for 5 wine indicators.

One-Way ANOVA (Welch’s)	F	df1	df2	p
Consumption	78.41	1	18.8	<0.001
Area	1.83	1	13.8	0.197
Production	119.96	1	18.8	<0.001
Volume	1911.25	1	10.3	<0.001
Export value	937.2	1	10.1	<0.001

Source: SmartPLS analysis (reprinted from SmartPLS software, version 3.3.9, created on 1 December 2024).

, Annex 1 (Appendix A), and Figure 3.

The study compares vineyard areas in Portugal and Romania, revealing Romania’s smaller area for vine cultivation. In 2020, Portugal’s vineyard area decreased by −0.4% compared to 2019, while Romania’s decreased by −0.2%. Portugal’s cultivated area represented 2.7% of the global total, while Romania’s represented 2.6% (Figure 3a,b). From Figure 3b above, we can identify that the largest area is cultivated with the Fetească Regală variety, 13.634 ha with a share of 15.52%, followed by Merlot with 12.010 ha and a 13.68% share, Fetească Albă with 9.241 ha and a 10.52% share, Italian Riesling with 6.488 ha and a 7.39% share, and Sauvignon with 5.478 ha and a 6.24% share.

Portugal exhibited a slight reduction in wine production in 2020 compared to 2019, but a larger quantity in 2020 (Figure 3c). Romania’s wine consumption remained steady in 2020, while, in 2021, Portugal maintained its consumption, while Romania’s increased. The study highlights the differences in wine production and consumption between the two countries (Figure 3d).

Romania has exported wine in the last six years, with the smallest amount being 12,890 tons, worth USD 22,716 million, in 2016. The quantity increased until 2019, when it exported 21,820 tons, worth USD 34,531 million. However, the quantity then began to decrease, to 17,282 tons in 2021, worth USD 40,405 million. Portugal exported 328,963 tons worth USD 1,094,800 million in 2021 (Figure 3e,f).

Germany is the partner to which Romania exports the largest amount of wine, importing wine worth USD 9.482 million in 2021. The Netherlands followed, with 4361 tons in 2021, followed by the United Kingdom with 4439 tons in 2018. The United States imported 810 tons from Romania in 2019, and Belgium imported 348 tons in 2021 (Figure 4).

Portugal’s main partners to which it exported the largest quantity of wine are France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, and Germany. France imported the largest quantity to France in 2018, followed by the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, and Germany. Portugal’s main partners to which it exported the largest amount of wine are France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Germany (Appendix A.2, Appendix A).

Romania’s wine production in 2021 increased to 173.7 thousand hectares, but production decreased to 3.959.7 thousand hl compared to 2017 and 2018. White wine accounted for 1385.89 thousand hl, followed by red wine at 751.10 thousand hl and rosé wine at 245.04 thousand hl. The largest area cultivated was for Fetească Regală, with 13.634 ha and a 15.52% share. Romania’s wine sector development differs from that of countries like Italy and Spain, but Portugal’s example is easier to follow. A realistic assessment of the sector and implementing a strategy for the sector can help develop competitiveness (Appendix A.3, Appendix A).

We can say that Romania has distanced itself quite a lot from countries like Italy and Spain in terms of the development of the wine sector, given that the two countries recognized the importance of the sector and took steps in this regard many years ago, but Portugal’s example seems to be easier to follow. The key to success seems to start from a realistic assessment of the sector and its recognition as an essential part of the development of the agricultural sector and the country’s economy. Building a strategy for the wine sector, which includes key points of action and is meant to be put into practice by industry players capable of understanding their importance, seems to be a successful way of developing competitiveness and, implicitly, the sector.

3.1. TBL—Romanian Wine Industry

Romanian wine producers are implementing the Triple Bottom Line strategy, integrating economic, social, and environmental performance, to ensure the industry’s long-term sustainability and balance financial objectives with environmental protection and social responsibility requirements while integrating into European and international markets.

• The TBL strategy focuses on enhancing competitiveness and operational efficiency in Romanian wine production. European funds have been used to modernize infrastructure and improve product quality, enhancing Romanian wines’ global presence. Special attention is given to promoting indigenous grape varieties like Fetească Neagră and Fetească Albă, thereby enhancing the value added of Romanian wines [41].
• Romanian wine producers face environmental sustainability challenges, especially in climate change and natural resource management. They are adopting sustainable practices like reducing pesticide use, water conservation, and organic agriculture. Organic viticulture is gaining popularity, preserving biodiversity and soil health. Renewable energy sources and innovative waste management practices are also being adopted [42]. Organic wine production in Romania is regulated by European Union legislation and national standards, ensuring strict sustainability practices. Organic wine production in Romania is aligned with EU organic farming legislation, particularly Regulation (EU) No. 2018/848, which sets out the criteria for organic agricultural practices. Key components of this framework include the following:

  -

  Accredited bodies like ECOCERT or Austria Bio Garantie certify vineyards to EU organic standards. A three-year conversion period prohibits synthetic chemicals and replaces them with natural alternatives, ensuring full organic certification.

  -

  Organic viticulture in Romania prioritizes soil health, enhancing biodiversity, and maintaining fertility. Vineyards use natural composts, organic fertilizers, and cover crops, prohibiting synthetic chemical inputs. Natural pest control methods, including natural predators and plant-based treatments, prevent vine diseases.

  -

  Organic winemaking strictly regulates additive use, minimizes sulfur dioxide, and avoids enzymes and flavor enhancers. Fermentation with natural yeasts enhances wine’s authenticity, and filtration and clarification use natural materials [43].

  -

  Romania’s organic wine production prioritizes water conservation, energy reduction, and carbon footprint reduction. Some producers use biodynamic practices, following natural cycles, to optimize vine growth and wine quality [44].

  -

  Romania’s organic wine production prioritizes sustainability and eco-friendliness, using organic certifications and biodynamic labels as marketing tools to gain a competitive edge in the international market.

Romanian organic wines are competitive in the international market due to European regulations and consumer interest in sustainability. ECOCERT certification, which guarantees adherence to organic farming principles, is widely recognized in the Romanian wine industry, particularly among premium producers. Key players like Domeniul Bogdan, Crama Delta Dunării—La Săpata, and Domeniile Franco-Române are among the notable wineries with ECOCERT certification [45].

c.

The TBL strategy emphasizes social responsibility and preserving viticultural traditions in Romania. The wine industry, particularly in rural areas, provides jobs and contributes to economic development. Producers invest in improving working conditions and training, ensuring social sustainability. Wine tourism attracts international visitors and promotes wine regions like Dealu Mare and Murfatlar as tourist destinations, contributing to economic growth and cultural preservation.

In a nutshell, the adoption of the Triple Bottom Line strategy by Romanian wine producers represents an integrated approach that supports not only economic development but also environmental protection and the well-being of local communities. By implementing sustainable practices, Romanian producers are enhancing their international competitiveness and contributing to the preservation of the country’s viticultural traditions while simultaneously meeting the increasingly strict global sustainability requirements. Furthermore, the development of wine tourism has become an important part of their strategy, attracting visitors from around the world and promoting traditional wine regions, such as Dealu Mare and Murfatlar, as renowned tourist destinations.

3.2. TBL—Portugal Wine Industry

The adoption of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) strategy in the Portuguese wine industry is crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability of this key economic sector. The TBL emphasizes the need for wine producers to balance economic growth, environmental responsibility, and social impact, positioning Portugal as a competitive and sustainable player in the global wine market.

• The economic sustainability of the Portuguese wine industry is driven by its contribution to the country’s GDP and its robust export market. Wine exports, particularly from regions like the Douro Valley, Alentejo, and Vinho Verde, have been steadily growing, reaching EUR 925 million in 2021 [46]. To maintain this momentum, Portuguese wineries are focusing on producing high-quality wines, diversifying into organic and premium wine markets, and increasing value added through branding and international market access. Additionally, the Portuguese wine sector benefits from EU funds, which support the modernization of winemaking processes and infrastructure, ensuring that wineries can continue to meet global demand while maintaining efficiency [47].
• Sustainability in the Portuguese wine industry is closely tied to environmental practices that preserve the natural resources vital to viticulture. Key environmental strategies include the following:

  -

  Many wineries, such as those in Alentejo and Douro, have embraced organic and biodynamic farming practices. These approaches reduce the use of synthetic chemicals, improve soil health, and promote biodiversity.

  -

  Efficient water usage is critical in regions affected by climate change, particularly in the hotter areas of Alentejo. Vineyards are employing water conservation techniques like drip irrigation and rainwater harvesting to reduce their environmental impact [48].

  -

  Several wineries have integrated solar panels and other renewable energy sources to lower their carbon footprint while also adopting sustainable packaging to further reduce environmental impact.

  -

  In regions like Alentejo, biodynamic viticulture goes beyond organic farming by aligning vineyard activities with lunar cycles and natural ecosystems to enhance both the environmental and qualitative aspects of wine production [49].

Approximately 2.2% of Portuguese vineyards are certified organic, with the Douro and Alentejo regions being major contributors to organic wine production. The northern region of Trás-os-Montes leads, with 36% of total organic wine production in the country, followed by Alentejo with 28%. Despite this, in terms of planted acreage, Alentejo has a larger area dedicated to organic viticulture, although its yields are typically lower due to the challenging soil conditions [50].

Portugal has a growing number of organic wineries, with organic wine becoming an increasingly important sector within the Portuguese wine industry, supported by both regional practices and EU regulations that ensure organic certification. However, organic wine still represents a relatively small but expanding portion of the market, driven by both domestic and international demand for sustainably produced wines [51].

c.

The social impact of the Portuguese wine industry is rooted in its role as a key contributor to rural development and employment. The sector provides jobs for thousands of people, particularly in rural regions where other economic opportunities may be limited. Key social sustainability initiatives include the following:

-

Fair labor practices: Many wineries are committed to ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions, and long-term employment for vineyard workers, particularly during the grape harvest season [52].

-

Cultural preservation: The Portuguese wine industry plays a critical role in preserving traditional winemaking practices and protecting indigenous grape varieties, such as Touriga Nacional and Arinto, which contribute to the country’s unique wine identity. Wine tourism has become a significant factor in sustaining local communities, attracting visitors to experience Portuguese wine culture in regions like Douro and Alentejo [53].

In addition to boosting local economies, wine tourism in Portugal preserves the cultural and historical significance of wine regions by promoting their heritage. It also generates additional revenue streams for winemakers and supports the local hospitality industry [54].

In a nutshell, the adoption of the Triple Bottom Line strategy in the Portuguese wine industry enhances its resilience and global competitiveness. By focusing on the economic, environmental, and social pillars, Portuguese wineries are positioning themselves not only as major players in the global wine market but also as leaders in sustainable and responsible wine production. This integrated approach ensures that the industry contributes to the country’s economic growth, protects its environmental resources, and supports the well-being of local communities.

To verify the importance of each factor that influences the export value, we designed an SEM in SmartPLS. SmartPLS provides a range of tests to guarantee the correctness and dependability of data.

Table 2. SEM validation steps.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	rho_A	Composite Reliability	AVE	R Square	F Square
Threshold	CA > 0.7	r > 0.5	CR > 0.7	AVE > 0.5	Max 1	F > 1.96
Factors	0.709	0.951	0.801	0.625		85.69
Export	1.000	1.000	1.000	1	0.988

Source: SmartPLS analysis (reprinted from SmartPLS software, version 3.3.9, created on 1 December 2024).

and Figure 5 present the validation protocols that were employed in this investigation according to Vinzi et al.’s guidelines. Excellent composite reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), rho_A (>0.7), and Average Variance Extracted (>0.5) values were shown by all variables, indicating that the model was consistent. This model proves that the factors that positively influence the export value are area, consumption, and volume (Figure 4). These three factors form a consistent variable, Factors, with CA = 0.709 > 0.7. Between variables Factors and export, there is a very strong positive correlation, as the Spearman coefficient rho_A (0.951) shows, meaning that an increased value of Factors will be associated with an increased value for export. The model presents a very high composite reliability (CR = 0.801 > 0.7) and the variance meets the criterion of being higher than 0.5 (AVE = 0.625). The huge value of the R square and F Square prove that almost 100% of the variance of the independent variables (area, consumption, and volume) explains the variance of the dependent variable export (Table 2, Figure 5). The loading factors show that the most important factors that influence the export value are volume (LF = 1.003) and consumption (LF = 0.909). We can affirm that a higher level of consumption will require more exports and a high volume of wine obtained is associated with higher export values. These two factors present an acceptable grade of multicollinearity as their VIF is 5. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) has a threshold of 5. The cultivated area has a low LF, 0.212, meaning that, with a small surface cultivated area, as in Portugal, the grape production and wine volume can reach very high values if adequate methods are implemented.

The SEM is statistically solid and robust.

The constructs are reliable and valid.

The model shows excellent predictive power; almost 99% of export value variance is explained by wine production volume, consumption, and area.

The Factors variable (consumption, volume, area) is especially powerful, and, among its components, volume and consumption contribute the most (as per loadings shown elsewhere).

Vineyard area, although part of the Factors construct, shows limited explanatory value compared to volume and consumption.

With an SRMR of 0.009, which indicates good model fit, the estimated model outfits the saturated model. The substantially smaller Chi-Square for the estimated model (our model) is equal to the saturated model. The estimated value should be greater than or equal to the saturated value. Additionally, an NFI of 0.971, very close to the maximum value of 1, indicates an excellent overall model fit (

Table 3. Model fit summary.

	Saturated Model	Estimated Model
SRMR	0.009	0.009
d_ULS	0.001	0.001
d_G	0.040	0.040
Chi-Square	4.421	4.421
NFI	0.971	0.971

Source: SmartPLS analysis (reprinted from SmartPLS software, version 3.3.9, created on 1 December 2024).

).

Construct Reliability and Validity

The SEM has an excellent fit: the residuals are very low and predicted relationships match the observed ones closely. All discrepancies (SRMR, d_ULS, d_G) are tiny, suggesting that the model describes the data structure accurately. NFI is very high, meaning that the model significantly improves on a “no relationship” baseline. The equality between the saturated and estimated models implies there is no overfitting or underfitting.

4. Discussion

Our results justify the hypotheses studied (

Table 4. Research results.

Variable/Factor	Portugal	Romania	Statistical Insight
Vineyard Area	Similar to Romania (~194 k ha), slight annual decline	Similar to Portugal (~189 k ha), minor decrease	No (p = 0.197)
Wine Production Volume	High and stable (e.g., 7359 k hl in 2021)	Lower (e.g., 4451 k hl in 2021)	Yes (p < 0.001), strong export predictor
Grape Production	High (e.g., ~6951 k tons)	Lower (e.g., ~4227 k tons)	Yes (p < 0.001)
Domestic Consumption	High (e.g., ~5269 k hl in 2021)	Lower (e.g., ~3709 k hl in 2021)	Yes (p < 0.001), strong export predictor
Export Value	Very high (e.g., USD 1.09 B in 2021)	Low (e.g., ~USD 40 M in 2021)	Yes (p < 0.001), key outcome variable
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Adoption	Mature, widespread across regions, strong organic and biodynamic focus	Developing, fragmented adoption, growth in organic certifications	Strategic alignment with export competitiveness
Industry 5.0 Integration	Advanced (robotics, precision viticulture, sustainability reporting)	Emerging stage, high potential, early-stage robotics	Influences sustainability and efficiency
Main Export Markets (Romania)	France, UK, USA, Brazil, Germany	Germany, Netherlands, UK, USA, Belgium	Export volume and value are modest
Main Export Markets (Portugal)	France, UK, USA, Brazil, Germany		High global presence, strong brand perception

).

H1. Portugal, a globally recognized wine exporter, has established brands like Porto and Vinho Verde, while Romania’s wine industry is still developing. Portugal’s wine industry benefits from strong marketing strategies, trade agreements, and premium wines, leading to higher export values. Despite similar vineyard areas, Portugal produces and exports larger quantities of wine due to its focus on high-yield grape varieties, targeted government support, and modern winemaking technology. Romania’s wine consumption rates are relatively low due to cultural preferences, disposable income, and local wine traditions. Previous studies have shown significant differences in wine production and export performance across EU wine-producing nations.

H2. Higher domestic wine consumption indicates a well-developed wine culture, which indirectly supports export performance by building brand reputation and quality perception. Countries with a strong wine-drinking culture, such as France, Italy, and Portugal, tend to perform better in global wine exports. A higher volume of wine production increases the availability of surplus wine for export. Efficient production systems, vineyard management, and processing technologies maintain consistent supply chains and competitive export pricing. However, the vineyard area is not directly determined by export success as Portugal, with a smaller vineyard area, still produces and exports more due to higher efficiency, technology utilization, and stronger marketing and international distribution networks.

These hypotheses are grounded in economic theory, industry trends, and empirical analysis. By testing them using ANOVA and SEM, our study provides valuable insights into the competitive landscape of the Romanian and Portuguese wine industries.

4.1. Economic Impact

Romania, an EU member since 2007, has seen improvements in social and economic conditions, with GDP per capita increasing from 43% to 64% between 2007 and 2019. However, progress in the agricultural sector is less visible, with agriculture employing 22.3% of the active population and accounting for almost 4.4% of GDP. Romania’s wine industry is dominated by medium-sized companies, with 61% of the market generated by these companies. Despite phylloxera, short-lived vineyards, nurseries, and research stations have emerged to save vineyards and introduce new varieties. Portugal, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, remains a net exporter of wine, with 14 main wine regions producing high-quality wines [55].

The study compares vineyard areas in Portugal and Romania, revealing Romania’s smaller area for vine cultivation. In 2020, Portugal’s vineyard area decreased by −0.4% compared to 2019, while Romania’s decreased by −0.2%. Portugal exhibited a slight reduction in wine production in 2020 but a larger quantity in 2020. Romania’s wine consumption remained steady in 2020, while Portugal maintained its consumption in 2021. Romania has exported wine in the last six years, with Germany being the first partner. Portugal’s main partners are France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, and Germany. Romania’s wine production area in 2021 increased to 173.7 thousand hectares, but production decreased to 3.959.7 thousand hl compared to 2017 and 2018 [56].

The significant differences in the value of exports and in wine production between Romania and Portugal are influenced by factors such as the perceived quality of wine, international marketing strategies, processing infrastructure, and access to foreign markets. Portugal has a competitive advantage in these areas, which adds a higher added value to exported wines.

The substantial differences in the value of exports and in wine production between Romania and Portugal can be explained by factors such as the superior perception of the quality of Portuguese wine, the use of more effective international marketing strategies, a better-developed processing infrastructure, and easier access to external markets, which give Portugal a competitive advantage and a higher added value of exported wines.

• Lack of strong associations to negotiate serious contracts and enter the external value chain (supermarkets, specialized stores);
• The lack of wines (country brand) such as Bordeaux, Chianti, Portuguese Porto, and, more recently, Mateus, which attract buyers to other products of the country;
• Non-synchronization of producers in promoting themselves properly. I perform different campaigns, and the messages are often different. They are not united on a country brand;
• Lack of export strategy at the level of authorities.

Thus, the answer to our research question is that wine has been a part of the European way of life for centuries. The European Union is the world’s largest producer, consumer, and exporter of wine. According to Eurostat, in 2020, the total area under vines in the EU was 3.2 million hectares, accounting for 2% of the utilized agricultural area in the EU and 45% of all vine-growing areas in the world [57]. Most EU production takes place in Spain, France, and Italy, which together account for three-quarters of the EU area planted with vines. The EU had 2.2 million vineyard holdings in 2020, varying in size from an average of 0.2 hectares in Romania to 10.5 hectares in France. The EU also accounted for 48% of global wine consumption in 2021, with the largest overall consumption recorded in France, Italy, and Germany. Globally, only the United States consumed more wine than any of these three countries. Nevertheless, the industry is currently experiencing some distress, facing headwinds from rising costs and changes in the drinking habits of consumers at home and abroad. The leading countries in Europe for wine are also some of the leaders in global production so their status affects the market as a whole. In 2023, the size of the European wine market reached nearly USD 75 billion and is expected to remain largely flat in the coming years [58]. To face the challenges ahead, there is also a growing emphasis on sustainable viticulture in the European Union, with many producers adopting organic and biodynamic farming practices to meet consumer demand for environmentally friendly products. Also, innovations in viticulture and vinification, such as precision agriculture and advanced fermentation techniques, are enhancing quality and efficiency in production.

For both Romania and Portugal, the implementation of the TBL strategy in the wine sector could contribute to increasing market competitiveness by offering high-quality products and services that meet customers’ requirements. Adopting sustainable practices and reducing environmental impact will have the medium- and long-term effects of protecting natural resources and improving quality of life. The TBL also supports the development of a culture of social responsibility and can contribute to increased international cooperation by promoting the exchange of experience and knowledge between countries and organizations. The implementation of the model will lead to increased confidence in the two countries as producers and exporters by demonstrating commitment to sustainable development and social responsibility.

Recommendations: SEM analysis shows that wine production volume (LF = 1.003) and consumption (LF = 0.909) have the strongest positive correlation with export value. To argue for causation, we have to consider the following:

-

Supply-Side Factors: Higher production volume leads to increased availability of surplus wine, which must be sold in foreign markets if domestic consumption is saturated. Portugal’s higher export value is not solely due to vineyard area but rather its efficient production systems, branding, and international demand.

-

Demand-Side Factors: A strong domestic consumption culture increases international recognition of a country’s wines. Countries like France, Italy, and Portugal have strong domestic markets, reinforcing brand reputation abroad.

This explains why Portugal, despite having a similar vineyard area to Romania, exports significantly more wine—the perception of quality increases international demand. Thus, the causal relationship suggested is as follows: higher production volume and domestic demand → increased surplus and stronger brand recognition → higher export performance.

In terms of current and future standards, guidelines, and indicators, countries can draw on a number of resources, including the European Code of Environmental and Social Responsibility (CSR), a common basis for reporting on corporate and country environmental and social responsibility, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), an international standard for environmental and social responsibility reporting, which provides a structure and set of indicators for reporting performance. In Romania, there is a centralized national set of SDG indicators for public authorities involved in the monitoring and reporting processes of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development of Romania 2030, for which the National Institute of Statistics has developed a guide describing what needs to be carried out, who the main actors are, their roles in monitoring the SDGs, and opportunities for cooperation. This guide includes concrete actions, priorities, and recommendations. It also helps stakeholders understand their role in achieving the SDGs.

In conclusion, these standards and certifications provide a reference framework for organizations that want to develop business strategies that take into account financial, environmental, and social aspects. A vision for human-centered, flexible, and sustainable production systems is provided by directional elements in Industry 5.0. In the meantime, applicative components offer tangible, quantifiable means of accomplishing these objectives by utilizing data-driven performance indicators and robotics improvements. By combining these components, a manufacturing ecosystem is created that is not only adaptable and efficient but also socially and environmentally conscious. In this regard, we contribute to the design of the Romanian Standard for Organic Agriculture and assumptions in robotics innovation in the wine industry.

4.2. Environmental Issues—Personal Contribution

The standard designed by us outlines criteria and recommendations for sustainable ecological products, including documentation, good practices, transparency, and sustainability.

The Romanian Standard for Organic Agriculture—SR 13595:2022 Ecological Farming includes requirements and recommendations for sustainable ecological products and specifies requirements and recommendations for sustainable organic products considering the importance of increasing efficiency and transparency in agriculture. The standard is intended for certified organic organizations that want to apply the principles of agroecology and obtain certification according to this standard. It includes a normative annex with forms and indicators for recording evidence of compliance with the requirements, which simplifies the implementation work and establishes a minimum level of evidence necessary to meet the requirements. The standard includes a number of requirements and recommendations [59].

Certified organic organizations must

-

Adhere to the principles of agroecology, including basic principles, objectives, and recommendations;

-

Document and implement good practices in agriculture, including soil, water, and biodiversity conservation practices;

-

Ensure transparency and traceability in the production, processing, and marketing of products;

-

Obtain organic certification before applying the standard.

Our standard is a step forward in national standardization for organic farming because it supports the European Union in achieving the objectives contained in the European Green Deal. Given that the European Green Deal has as its main objective the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, as well as the promotion of a green and sustainable economy, the SR 13595:2022 Standard contributes directly to these objectives by specifying requirements and recommendations for sustainable organic products. This standard is also a concrete achievement of the standardization community and is in line with the London Declaration, which has undertaken to develop standards to support the fight against climate change. SR 13595:2022 is a concrete example of this commitment, providing a solid basis for the production and marketing of sustainable organic products.

The SR 13595:2022 standard offers the following benefits:

-

It simplifies the implementation work and establishes a minimum level of evidence necessary to meet the requirements;

-

It ensures transparency and traceability in the production, processing, and marketing of products;

-

It provides a guarantee that the products are produced in accordance with the principles of agroecology and the requirements of the standard.

4.3. Techno-Social Implications

Industry 4.0 is revolutionizing agriculture by focusing on intelligence, cloud communication, and autonomous decision-making. This is facilitated by technologies like the Internet of Things, AI, robotics, and Big Data Analytics. Industry 5.0 combines these technologies to improve farming efficiency and sustainability, focusing on higher yields, environmental conservation, and automation. Robots in agriculture can be stationary, mobile, land based, flying, or aquatic, and can be classified based on locomotion and control methods. Research and commercial projects focus on harvesting, weeding, spraying cultivation areas, pruning, yield estimation, and disease identification [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. The EU has funded several research projects to improve automated agricultural technologies in vineyards, despite challenges such as orchard types, soil, and terrain morphology. Romania’s organic agriculture standards emphasize sustainable farming methods, leading to chemical-free farming, sustainable soil management, and organic certification. Robotic development in the wine industry can improve vineyard management, soil monitoring, pest detection, and harvest efficiency, promoting sustainability and reducing environmental impact. Cost effectiveness and profitability offset initial investments in robotics, with long-term benefits in labor savings, improved grape yield, and reduced manual intervention.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to explore the dynamics of the wine industry in Romania and Portugal through the lens of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) model and emerging Industry 5.0 principles. While sustainability, robotics, and advanced production technologies were examined conceptually, the empirical core of the study was rooted in a comparative analysis of wine industry indicators and export performance.

In addressing the first research question—What is the current European wine context?—we confirm that Europe remains the world’s leader in wine production and consumption. However, Romania and Portugal show contrasting levels of maturity and competitiveness. Portugal has successfully positioned itself in international markets, while Romania, despite comparable vineyard areas, lags behind due to structural, marketing, and strategic gaps.

Concerning the second research question—What are the main factors that affect the economic value collected from wine production?—the ANOVA and SEM analyses validate that wine production volume and domestic consumption are the most significant predictors of export value. Contrary to intuitive assumptions, vineyard area alone does not significantly predict export success. Instead, production efficiency and internal market strength (which boosts reputation and brand) play a greater role.

The third research question—How can countries benefit from the TBL model and relevant standards and indicators?—is answered through the documented adoption of sustainability strategies in both countries. Portugal’s leadership in implementing organic and biodynamic farming, combined with export-focused branding, demonstrates how the TBL enhances competitiveness. In Romania, while TBL and organic practices are being adopted, there remains significant potential for scaling these strategies through national coordination, certification efforts (e.g., the proposed SR 13595:2022), and education programs.

Finally, the fourth research question—Do robots facilitate agroecology?—is answered conceptually rather than empirically. Robotics and automation, as part of Industry 5.0, offer promising tools for achieving agroecological goals such as efficiency, reduced chemical input, and labor support. Although these tools are not yet widespread in Romanian viticulture, their potential role in advancing sustainable, high-quality wine production should be a priority for future policy and research.

Romania’s wine sector must pursue a dual strategy: strengthening internal wine culture and modernizing production through sustainability standards while embracing Industry 5.0 innovations where feasible. Investment in technology, standardization, and marketing—modeled after Portugal’s successful approach—could reposition Romania competitively on the global wine map.

This study contributes not only to empirical understanding but also to strategic planning by showing how production indicators, sustainability practices, and conceptual innovation must converge to build a competitive, future-proof wine industry.