The Entrepreneurial Environment of Agribusiness Entities in the Context of Ukraine's Economic Recovery: An Organizational and Economic Dimension

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the organizational and economic dimension of the entrepreneurial environment of agribusiness entities in the context of Ukraine's economic recovery and to determine its impact on the adaptability, resilience, and competitiveness of agricultural enterprises. Methods. The methodological framework is based on systemic, structural-functional, analytical-generalizing, comparative, and typological approaches, which made it possible to consider the entrepreneurial environment of agribusiness as a multilevel system of interaction among institutional, financial-investment, innovation-technological, market-logistics, managerial-organizational, and socio-territorial factors. The empirical basis is formed through secondary analysis of data from the World Bank, FAO, OECD, and recent scientific studies. Results. The article clarifies the essence of the entrepreneurial environment of agribusiness entities as an adaptive organizational and economic system of the recovery type, combining business conditions, resource provision, institutional support, technological modernization, market integration, and the social resilience of rural areas. A structural-logical model of the components of the entrepreneurial environment and an analytical typology of recovery conditions are proposed according to territorial, enterprise-size, functional, socio-demographic, and innovation dimensions. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty lies in the applied adaptation of entrepreneurial ecosystem theory to the functioning of Ukraine's agribusiness during war and recovery. The entrepreneurial environment of agribusiness entities is interpreted as an adaptive organizational and economic system of the recovery type that takes into account security risks, regional asymmetry of losses, logistics constraints, human capital challenges, and the need for differentiated support for agricultural entrepreneurship. Conclusions. It is substantiated that effective agribusiness recovery depends not on isolated support measures but on the systemic coherence of public policy, financial provision, logistics restoration, digitalization, managerial adaptability, and human capital development. The practical value of the results lies in their use for designing differentiated support instruments for agricultural entrepreneurship depending on region type, enterprise scale, risk level, and innovation potential.