Abstract
This paper develops scenario-based modelling to quantify how innovation-driven technological modernization of grain production translates into export competitiveness of Ukrainian enterprises. The study operationalizes modernization effects through a net-back model of net export revenue. Five modernization scenarios are specified and calibrated to the 2025/26 marketing year export forecast (Q = 40.6 Mt; benchmark price P = 183 USD/t; baseline LogCost = 50 USD/t; prem = 0.02; disc = 0.03; risk = 0.0075). The scenarios differ in targeted competitive advantage channels: S1 (inertial) maintains basic practices; S2 (technological leadership) reduces unit costs and enhances quality control; S3 (cluster/cooperative) consolidates batches and lowers logistics/transaction costs; S4 (adaptive resilience) minimizes supply disruptions and risk premiums; S5 (premium-standard) focuses on EU compliance, traceability, and certification to capture price premiums. Simulation results demonstrate that modernization packages monetize production-level technological effects into a 13.4–19.0% increase in net export revenue relative to the inertial trajectory – from 5.27 bn USD (S1) to 5.98–6.27 bn USD under active modernization (2026 projection). Sensitivity analysis confirms the dominant role of logistics: a 10 USD/t reduction in LogCost adds +0.406 bn USD; a 1 percentage point improvement in net price correction (premium–discount) adds ≈0.074 bn USD; a 0.5 pp reduction in risk losses adds ≈0.037 bn USD. These effects remain robust under moderate parameter variations. The findings establish an evidence-based policy hierarchy: priority must be given to reducing export‑chain costs and war‑related risks, while quality, traceability and compliance instruments are essential for accessing premium segments and ensuring long‑term export resilience. Further research should focus on micro-level project valuation (NPV, IRR) for typical farm profiles and regionally differentiated risk parameters.
References
1. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (n.d.). Ploshchi, valovi zbori ta urozhainist silskohospodarskykh kultur (zernovi ta zernobobovi) za 1991–2024 roky [Areas, gross harvests and yield of agricultural crops (cereals and legumes) for 1991–2024 years]. https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2006/sg/sg_rik/sg_u/rosl_1991-2020_ue.xls (in Ukrainian)
2. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (2026, February 4). Grain and Feed Quarterly: Ukraine (Report No. UP2026-0002). https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Grain+and+Feed+Quarterly_Kyiv_Ukraine_UP2026-0002.pdf
3. Hrynevych, O., Blanco Canto, M., & Jiménez García, M. (2022). Tendencies of Precision Agriculture in Ukraine: Disruptive Smart Farming Tools as Cooperation Drivers. Agriculture, 12(5), 698. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050698
4. Petrović, D., Bumbálek, R., Zoubek, F., Kuneš, O., & Smutný, J. (2024). Application of precision agriculture technologies in Central Europe–review. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, (15), 101048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101048
5. Sanyaolu, M., & Sadowski, A. (2024). The Role of Precision Agriculture Technologies in Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability, 16(15), 6668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156668
6. Charlebois, S., Latif, N., Ilahi, I., Sarker, B., Music, J., & Vezeau, J. (2024). Digital Traceability in Agri-Food Supply Chains: A Comparative Analysis of OECD Member Countries. Foods, 13(7), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13071075
7. Pakseresht, A., Ahmadi Kaliji, S., & Hakelius, K. (2024). Blockchain technology characteristics essential for the agri-food sector: A systematic review. Food Control, (165), 110661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.110661
8. Yanovska, V., Król, M., & Pittman, R. (2025). The logistics of grain exports from wartime Ukraine: What are the highest priority areas to address? Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, (30), 101363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2025.101363
9. Jia, N., Xia, Z., Li, Y., Yu, X., Wu, X., Li, Y., Su, R., Wang, M., Chen, R., & Liu, J. (2024). The Russia-Ukraine war reduced food production and exports with a disparate geographical impact worldwide. Communications Earth & Environment, (5), 765. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01915-5
10. Countryman, A. M., Litvinov, V., Kolodiazhnyi, I., Bogonos, M., & Nivievskyi, O. (2025). Global economic effects of war‐induced agricultural export declines from Ukraine. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 47(2), 624–665. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.339542
11. Goyal, R., & Steinbach, S. (2023). Agricultural commodity markets in the wake of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Economics Letters, (231), 111297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111297
12. Steinbach, S., & Yildirim, Y. (2024). Agricultural commodity market response to Russia's withdrawal from the grain deal. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(3), 1004–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12611
13. Jagtap, S., Trollman, H., Trollman, F., Garcia-Garcia, G., Parra-López, C., Duong, L., Martindale, W., Munekata, P. E. S., Lorenzo, J. M., Hdaifeh, A., Hassoun, A., Salonitis, K., & Afy-Shararah, M. (2022). The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Its Implications for the Global Food Supply Chains. Foods, 11(14), 2098. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142098
14. Poursina, D., Schaefer, K. A., Hilburn, S., & Johnson, T. (2024). Economic impacts of the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(1), 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12549
15. International Monetary Fund. (n.d.). Primary commodity prices. https://www.imf.org/en/Research/commodity-prices
16. World Bank. (2025). Ukraine’s transport and logistics system. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099061725033525342/pdf/P502442-346a4fd3-882f-46ca-95c9-ce90c0a71619.pdf
17. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. (2024). Alert and Cooperation Network (ACN): 2023 overview report. https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c235fad7-df80-4b80-9989-dfda920d0463_en?filename=acn_report_2023_overview.pdf
18. European Commission. (2005). EU legislation on MRLs: EU legislation harmonises and simplifies pesticide MRLs, and sets a common EU assessment scheme for all agricultural products for food or animal feed (Regulation (EC) No 396/2005). https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/maximum-residue-levels/eu-legislation-mrls_en
19. Centre for the Promotion of Imports from developing countries. (2024). What requirements must grains, pulses and oilseeds comply with to be allowed on the European market? (Buyer requirements). https://www.cbi.eu/market-information/grains-pulses-oilseeds/buyer-requirements
20. Stonehouse, G., & Snowdon, B. (2007). Competitive advantage revisited: Michael Porter on strategy and competitiveness. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492607306333
21. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577. https://doi.org/10.1086/227496
22. Reuters. (n.d.). EBRD launches 110 mln euro guarantee for Ukraine war-risk insurance. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ebrd-launches-110-mln-euro-guarantee-ukraine-war-risk-insurance-2024-12-12/
23. Financial Times. (2024, June 12). Aon unveils $350mn war cover scheme for Ukrainian businesses. https://www.ft.com/content/01be1081-55b7-46da-97a6-c3eb08586564
24. UkrAgroConsult. (n.d.). Insurance market: Premiums for war risks in Ukraine have risen. https://ukragroconsult.com/en/news/insurance-market-premiums-for-war-risks-in-ukraine-have-risen/
25. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2022). Digital technologies in the grain sector of Ukraine. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3d7da3d8-bac0-42ee-a609-1bbb993214a6/content
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Denys Shcherbak