Europe’s agri-food sector missing out on digital transformation

Agricultural SMEs, especially in Eastern and Southern Europe, face persistent difficulties accessing reliable broadband, cloud infrastructure, and financing for digital equipment. Without these foundational elements, participation in EDIH programs becomes unlikely, even when hubs offer free advisory services or training.

A new academic study states that Europe’s agri-food sector remains the most underrepresented beneficiary of the continent’s digital transformation programs, despite its central role in food security, rural employment, and climate resilience. The research critically evaluates how the European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) are shaping technological progress across industries, and why agriculture is being left behind.

Published in Agriculture and titled “European Digital Innovation Hubs and the Agri-Food Sector: A Scoping Review of Current Knowledge and Sectoral Gaps,” the study provides the first systematic review of scientific literature, reports, and policy documents on EDIHs’ role in agri-food innovation. Drawing on 84 publications and extensive data from European Commission programs, the authors uncover a significant digital divide between agriculture and other industrial sectors, warning that the imbalance could hinder Europe’s broader green and digital transitions.

Digital innovation hubs: Promise and uneven progress

The study outlines the EDIH initiative, a European Commission-funded program under the Digital Europe Programme (DEP) designed to accelerate digital adoption among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and public organizations. EDIHs act as one-stop support centers, providing access to artificial intelligence, high-performance computing, cybersecurity, and advanced digital training.

However, despite the program’s broad scope, the authors find that agriculture remains marginal in the digital innovation landscape. By September 2024, only 1.7% of EDIH beneficiaries came from the agri-food sector, a strikingly low share compared with manufacturing, health, and energy. The researchers argue that this limited participation reveals structural weaknesses in how digital innovation policies engage rural and agricultural economies.

The analysis covers the two main DEP calls that established 168 EDIHs in the first selection phase, later expanded by 86 Seal of Excellence hubs. Together, they form a network of 254 operational hubs across Europe, co-financed by the European Commission and national governments. While each member state was encouraged to include at least one hub dedicated to agriculture, the reality shows uneven coverage and limited specialization in agri-food innovation.

The study attributes this gap to several intertwined causes: weak institutional capacity in rural areas, fragmented research efforts, and a lack of consistent data on digital adoption in farming. Many hubs, the authors note, are located in urban innovation clusters, making them geographically and economically inaccessible to agricultural SMEs and farmers.

Mapping the research: What we know and what’s missing

To assess the state of knowledge, Toma-Constantin and her co-authors conducted a scoping review guided by the PRISMA-ScR framework. They analyzed peer-reviewed literature, EU project reports, and official databases between January and May 2025, identifying 84 relevant publications. The review categorized studies by geographic focus, analytical level, and thematic scope, revealing major imbalances in coverage.

Most existing research, the authors found, concentrates on ecosystem-level analysis, examining EDIHs as part of broader innovation networks. Few studies investigate how individual hubs function internally, interact with local farmers, or measure the impact of their services. Empirical research is scarce, with many papers offering conceptual frameworks rather than data-driven evaluations.

The review also highlights methodological fragmentation. Terminology varies across studies, and many publications predate the establishment of the EDIH program in 2021, referring instead to earlier Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs). This makes it difficult to track continuity or measure progress in the agri-food domain.

The authors observe that while manufacturing sectors benefit from detailed impact studies and digital maturity assessments, agriculture lacks equivalent analytical depth. As a result, policymakers and researchers still lack reliable evidence on how EDIHs influence productivity, sustainability, or digital readiness within farms and food supply chains.

Another recurring theme is the policy–practice gap. Many EDIH initiatives are designed from the top down, focusing on technology transfer rather than co-creation with farmers or rural enterprises. The study suggests that this approach limits adoption, especially in marginal and low-innovation regions where digital literacy and infrastructure remain limited.

Why agriculture is falling behind in Europe’s digital transition

The research attributes agriculture’s low participation in EDIH activities to systemic barriers that extend beyond technology itself. Among the most critical challenges are limited connectivity, high costs of digital adoption, and fragmented data ecosystems.

Agricultural SMEs, especially in Eastern and Southern Europe, face persistent difficulties accessing reliable broadband, cloud infrastructure, and financing for digital equipment. Without these foundational elements, participation in EDIH programs becomes unlikely, even when hubs offer free advisory services or training.

The study notes that while agri-tech startups and large agribusinesses are beginning to experiment with artificial intelligence, IoT, and robotics, smallholder farms remain digitally excluded. This inequality risks widening economic divides between advanced and lagging regions, undermining the European Union’s commitment to balanced territorial development under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Furthermore, the authors warn that policy fragmentation weakens coherence between digital and agricultural strategies. While the European Green Deal, Horizon Europe, and the CAP all emphasize digital transformation as a sustainability enabler, coordination across funding instruments and governance levels remains inconsistent.

The research also identifies a lack of cross-sectoral integration. Many EDIHs operate as isolated nodes with limited collaboration across thematic areas such as energy, logistics, or environment, sectors closely linked to agri-food systems. This separation restricts knowledge exchange and slows innovation diffusion.

The road ahead: Building inclusive and data-driven innovation hubs

To close these gaps, the authors propose a reform agenda for EDIHs, highlighting inclusivity, transparency, and empirical evaluation. They call for stronger coordination between national and European agencies to ensure that every region, especially rural ones, benefits from digital transformation.

First, the study recommends embedding agri-food specializations in existing hubs through dedicated service portfolios. These could include digital twins for crop monitoring, AI-based farm management tools, and cybersecurity support for precision agriculture.

Next up, the authors advocate for bottom-up innovation models that engage farmers directly in technology design and validation. Co-creation, they argue, increases trust and ensures that digital tools address real-world challenges such as climate adaptation, labor shortages, and resource efficiency.

Third, the paper stresses the importance of data standardization and interoperability. Many agri-food systems generate valuable information, from satellite imagery to soil and livestock data, but lack unified frameworks for sharing or analyzing it. Establishing open data platforms and common metadata standards could significantly enhance collaboration between EDIHs, research institutions, and SMEs.

Furthermore, the authors underline the need for impact measurement frameworks. While EDIHs are well-funded, their long-term contribution to digital maturity, sustainability, and competitiveness remains poorly documented. Transparent reporting and continuous monitoring would allow policymakers to adjust strategies and ensure public investments yield tangible outcomes.