Effectiveness of agribusiness incubation in promoting agri-entrepreneurship

Introduction

Agriculture and allied activities continue to play a vital role in India's economy and employment. The sector contributed 17.7% of India's Gross Value Added at current prices during 2023-24, while approximately 46.1% of the country's workforce was engaged in agriculture during the same period (Ministry of Finance, 2024; Press Information Bureau, 2025a) [1] . Indian agriculture is undergoing a significant transformation from a predominantly production-oriented activity towards a more diversified, technology-enabled and market-oriented agribusiness sector (Barman et al., 2025; Mohammad et al., 2025) [2,3] . This transformation is driven by technological advancements, market integration, climate variability, and changing consumer preferences for safe, traceable, and value-added agricultural products (SAHA et al., 2026; Parra-López et al., 2025; El Alaoui et al., 2024; Robinson, 2018) [5,6,4,7] . Consequently, agribusiness startups have emerged as key drivers of agricultural modernization by addressing challenges related to input delivery, mechanization, post-harvest management, value addition, digital advisory services, and climate-smart agriculture (Chandra et al., 2026 [8] ; Dhiman, V., & Arora, M., 2024 [9] ; Bøllingtoft & Ulhøi, 2005 [10] ; Samaeemofrad, Van Den Herik, & Verburg, 2016) [11] . Despite this encouraging growth, agribusiness startups continue to encounter multiple constraints, including inadequate entrepreneurial competencies, limited access to finance and technology (Preethika et al., 2020) [12] , weak market linkages, and insufficient institutional support during the early stages of enterprise development (Jaiswal et al., 2020; Kademani et al., 2024) [13,14] . These challenges often restrict business survival and scalability, highlighting the need for structured incubation support. In this context, Agribusiness Incubation Centres have emerged as important institutional mechanisms by providing mentoring, technical guidance, business development services, networking and capacity-building support (Srishailam et al., 2022) [15] . Among these services, entrepreneurship training ( [14] . The Agribusiness Incubation Centre at CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, promotes agripreneurship through structured training and incubation support under the RKVY-RAFTAAR programme. Although previous studies have documented the contribution of incubation centres to startup promotion, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of structured incubation training, particularly in agricultural universities and agribusiness incubation centres in India, remains limited (Yongming et al., 2026; Woolley & MacGregor, 2022) [17,16] . Therefore, the present study assesses the effectiveness of incubation training using a Training Effectiveness Index based on the four-level training evaluation framework among startups incubated under the RKVY-RAFTAAR programme at CCSHAU. The study further examines the relationships among training satisfaction, knowledge and skill gain, application of learning and enterprise outcomes to identify areas requiring stronger incubation support and improved continuity between training, enterprise application and venture performance.

Methodology

The study was conducted using an ex-post facto quantitative research design to evaluate the effectiveness of agri-business incubation training programs at the Agri-Business Incubation Centre (ABIC), Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar. A total of 60 incubatees who completed training and received grants under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana-Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and Allied Sectors Rejuvenation (RKVY-RAFTAAR) scheme between 2019 and 2025 were selected as primary respondents. Data collection was carried out using a well-structured interview schedule framed on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The analytical framework was adapted from Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Evaluation Model to systematically quantify impact across four progressive dimensions: Level I (Reaction), measuring training satisfaction regarding course content, resource persons, and infrastructure; Level II (Learning), assessing knowledge and skill gain; Level III (Behaviour), evaluating the application of learning to enter-prise operations; and Level IV (Results), capturing business outcomes such as revenue growth, quality improvement, and venture sustainability. To determine overall performance, a composite Training Effectiveness Index (TEI) was computed as the ratio of obtained training effectiveness scores to the maximum obtainable score, expressed as a percentage. Data processing was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistical tools, including frequencies, percentages, Mean, Standard Deviation (SD), and Weighted Mean Score (WMS), were utilized to summarize demographic patterns and score distributions. Pearson's bivariate correlation coefficient (𝑟) was applied to assess relationships among the key training variables, while Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the explanatory power of training satisfaction (𝑋 1 ), knowledge/skill gain (𝑋 2 ), application of learning (𝑋 3 ), and business outcomes (𝑋 4 ) on overall training effectiveness (𝑇𝐸𝐼), specified by the empirical model

was assessed at the 1 per cent level (p < 0.01).

Results

The dimension-wise evaluation of training effectiveness indicated that training satisfaction (WMS = 4.59) and training outcomes ( WMS = 4.59) recorded the highest overall Weighted Mean Scores, followed by knowledge and skill gain (WMS = 4.52) and application of learning (WMS = 4.24) (Table 1). Statement-wise rankings across all 26 items revealed that, under the training satisfaction dimension, relevance of training content to agribusiness startups recorded the highest overall score and rank (Rank [15,12] . High competency gains in opportunity identification, financial management, and business plan preparation highlight deliverable-linked workshop pedagogy, whereas lower scores in risk management confirm that navigating market volatility requires sustained post-training mentorship (Ayatse et al., 2017; Friedrich et al., 2006; Gupta et al., 2023; Kademani et al., 2024) [18,19,20,14] . Incubatees actively adopted digital tools and stakeholder networking to optimize overheads, yet market exploration scored lowest, confirming that external market entry remains constrained by structural bottlenecks such as buyer trust and supply chain negotiations (Jaiswal et al., 2020; Ogutu et al., 2016; Preethika et al., 2020) [13,21,12] . Nevertheless, positive venture outcomes in employment generation and business establishment affirm that institutional incubation effectively catalyzes the commercialization of agricultural innovations (Kadirvel et al., 2025 [22] ; Srishailam et al., 2022 [15] ; Woolley & MacGregor, 2022 [16] ; Srinivas et al., (2019) [23] . Bivariate correlation and regression analyses confirmed significant sequential path dependencies (𝑝 < 0.01) across the evaluation chain ( Reaction → Learning → Behaviour → Results). n. Crucially, behavioral application explained variance in enterprise outcomes, demonstrating that practical field execution is the primary driver of venture success (Paul et al., 2024). These findings underscore that while training builds essential cognitive readiness, maximizing commercial outcomes requires embedding continuous post-training market-connect, mentoring, and resource-based sponsorship into incubation policy (Yongming et al., 2026) [17] . Taken together, the results indicate that ABIC training is most effective at building satisfaction and awareness and progressively, though still meaningfully, less effective at producing behavioural change and enterprise outcomes (Kumar et al., 2021) [24] . This gradient corre-sponds with observations that the survival and performance of incubated ventures depend not only on training quality but also on continued institutional sponsorship after the formal programme ends (Amezcua et al., 2013), and with evidence that incubator participation shapes venture outcomes unevenly across different capability domains (Woolley & MacGregor, 2022; Kobba et al., 2020) [16,25] . The comparatively lower scores for market exploration and export access, in particular, suggest that classroom-and workshop-based instruction strengthens internal enterprise competencies more readily than it resolves the external market-linkage constraints repeatedly reported for Indian agribusiness incubatees (Preethika et al., 2020; Jaiswal et al., 2020) [12,13] . This underscores the case for embedding post-training market-linkage support, mentoring, and buyer-connect mechanisms within incubation programmes, rather than treating structured training alone as sufficient to secure agribusiness venture success.

Conclusion

The findings establish that agribusiness incubation training provides a strong foundation for entrepreneurial capability development, but its effectiveness is greater at the levels of satisfaction and knowledge acquisition than at the levels of practical application and enterprise outcomes. The high overall training effectiveness score indicates that the training effectively builds readiness among incubatees, while the comparatively lower scores for market exploration and enterprise outcomes point to gaps in converting learning into sustained business performance. The strong relationship between application of learning and enterprise outcomes further indicates that practical implementation is central to realizing the benefits of incubation. Therefore, agribusiness incubation programmes need to extend beyond structured training by integrating continuous mentoring, market and buyer linkages, financial facilitation, networking, and post-training handholding. Such an integrated support system can strengthen the transition from entrepreneurial learning to viable, scalable, and sustainable agribusiness ventures.

Declaration

Ethics approval and informed consent: During the course of the data collection, the respondents were asked for their informed consent regarding the project. Conflict of interest: The research was carried out without any financial or commercial ties that might be seen as a potential conflict of interest, according to the authors. The writers affirm that they carefully examined, amended, and edited the content as necessary throughout the development of this work. The final content of this publication is entirely the authors' responsibility. Publisher's note: All assertions made in this article are exclusively those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of their connected organizations, the publisher, the editors, or the reviewers. The publisher makes no guaranties or endorsements regarding any technique, process, or product that may be reviewed in this article, or any claims made by its producer.

References

1. Ministry of Finance. Economic Survey 2023-24. Government of India; 2024.
2. Barman B, Singh R, Padaria RN. Agriculture 4.0: The Indian narrative-Tracing its roots and growth. Food and Humanity. 2025;4:100608.
3. Mohammad SIS, Karthikeyan P, Raja N, Muthukrishnan KB, Vasudevan A. Agribusiness management in India: A review-based approach and future agenda. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies. 2025;8(3).
4. El Alaoui M, Amraoui KE, Masmoudi L, Ettouhami A, Rouchdi M. Unleashing the potential of IoT, artificial intelligence, and UAVs in contemporary agriculture: A comprehensive review. Journal of Terramechanics. 2024;115:100986.
5. SAHA S, Patra A, Reddy MD, Prusty AK. Bibliometric Analysis of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Agricultural Extension Services. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2026;62(3):27-34.
6. Parra-López C, Ben Abdallah S, Garcia-Garcia G, Hassoun A, Sánchez-Zamora P, Trollman H, Jagtap S, Carmona-Torres C. Integrating digital technologies in agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation: State of the art and future perspectives. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2025;228:109412.
7. Robinson GM. Globalization of agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2018;10:133-160.
8. Chandra V, Prusty AK, Padhy C, Raj RK, Ray S. Global Knowledge Structure of Agricultural Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Behaviour Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2026;62(3):7-14.
9. Dhiman V, Arora M. Exploring the linkage between business incubation and entrepreneurship: Understanding trends, themes and future research agenda. LBS Journal of Management & Research. 2024;22(1):66-92.
10. Bøllingtoft A, Ulhøi JP. The networked business incubatorleveraging entrepreneurial agency. Journal of Business Venturing. 2005;20(2):265-290.
11. Conference, ICE/ITMC 2016. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2016.
12. Preethika K, Reddy DS, Radhika P, Supriya K. The challenges/issues faced by stakeholders of agri business incubation centres. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(8):2503-2509.
13. Jaiswal R, Seth S, Das A, Ray P. Overview of agribusiness industry in India: Opportunities and challenges. Indian Journal of Economics and Development. 2020;16(2):136-143.
14. Kademani S, Nain MS, Singh R, Kumar S, Parsad R, Sharma DK, Patil M. Unveiling challenges and strategizing solutions for sustainable agri-entrepreneurship development. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2024;8:1447371.
15. Srishailam B, Sailaja V, Nikhitha A, Kiran PK. Promoting startups in agriculture: An innovative approach for transforming agriculture to agri-business. Vigyan Varta. 2022;3(4):73-81.
16. Woolley JL, MacGregor N. The influence of incubator and accelerator participation on nanotechnology venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2022;46(6):1717-1755.
17. Yongming C, Latip M, Sharkawi I, Mat NH. Re-conceptualizing Innovative Incubation Models for Agribusiness SMEs Growth in China using Resource-Based Perspectives. International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Scope. 2026;7(1):369, 380.
18. Ayatse FA, Kwahar N, Iyortsuun AS. Business incubation process and firm performance: an empirical review. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. 2017;7(1):2.
19. Friedrich C, Glaub M, Gramberg K, Frese M. Does training improve the business performance of small-scale entrepreneurs? An evaluative study. Industry and Higher Education. 2006;20(2):7584.
20. Gupta SK, Nain MS, Singh R, Mishra JR, Lata A. Exploring the entrepreneurial climate and attributes of agripreneurs and its determinants. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2023;59(2):93-97.
21. Ogutu VO, Kihonge E. Impact of business incubators on economic growth and entrepreneurship development. International Journal of Science and Research. 2016;5(5):231-241.
22. Kadirvel G, Marak TB, Gangmei DL, Kalita H, Assumi SR. Agribusiness Incubation in India: Current Status and Strategic Directions. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2025;31(11):421, 437.
23. Srinivas K, Kumar R, Gerard M, Rao S. Fostering entrepreneurship in agriculture through incubation centre in National Agricultural Research and Education System. Policy Brief, ICAR NAARM. 2019;5:1-4.
24. Kumar GA, Nain MS, Singh R, Kumbhare NV, Parsad R, Kumar S. Training effectiveness of skill development training programmes among the aspirational districts of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2021;57(4):67-70.
25. Kobba F, Nain MS, Singh R, Mishra JR, Shitu GA. Observational analysis of the effectiveness of entrepreneurship training programme in rural development and self-employment training institutes (RUDSETI). Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2020;56(1):13-17.
26. India Brand Equity Foundation. Agritech start-ups: The ray of hope in Indian agriculture. 2021.
27. Ozturan M, Kutlu B. Employee satisfaction of corporate e-training programs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;2(2):5561-5565.
28. Thomas B, Sudheer KP, Bonny BP. Performance Analysis of Agri-enterprises Facilitated through KA U-Agri Business Incubators. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2021;40(7):30-40.
29. How to cite this article: Raj M, Arulmanikandan B, Chahal PK, Singh B, Mishra S. Effectiveness of agribusiness incubation in promoting agri-entrepreneurship. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2026;9(9):12221227. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26180723.2026.v9.i9p.