SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN WARTIME: ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCE

Abstract

The subject of the study is the role of social enterprises in ensuring economic resilience and contributing to the post-war recovery and regional reintegration of Ukraine. The research focuses on the institutional, redistributive, and territorial functions of social enterprises under wartime conditions, with special attention to their ability to adapt, self-organize, and fill systemic gaps left by weakened state and market actors. Social enterprises are considered as hybrid socio-economic actors that combine market mechanisms with civic missions, thereby offering innovative solutions to the dual challenge of economic collapse and social fragmentation caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion. Methodology. The article employs an interdisciplinary approach based on institutional economics, resilience theory, and social innovation studies. Methods include comparative case analysis, typological classification, policy review, and system analysis of adaptation strategies. Empirical sources include reports from the Ukrainian Social Investment Fund, UNDP, OECD, and Ashoka, as well as local field data from de-occupied and frontline regions. The methodology allows the identification of both macro-level policy implications and micro-level innovations generated by social enterprises during the war. The aim of the work is to conceptualize social entrepreneurship as a systemic actor in Ukraine’s national economic architecture during wartime and reconstruction, and to assess the conditions under which social enterprises can scale up their impact. The article seeks to understand how social enterprises function as redistributors of resources, agents of local demand stimulation, and platforms for civic empowerment. It also aims to offer practical policy recommendations for legal recognition, financial support mechanisms, and integration into national and EU-aligned recovery strategies. The results of the study demonstrate that social enterprises have played a critical role in maintaining local economic activity in de-occupied and high-risk zones. Their hybrid models allowed for rapid reorganization under conditions of disruption: shifting to digital platforms, diversifying services, relocating operations, and forging cross-sectoral partnerships. These actors provided employment to vulnerable groups, maintained access to basic services, and reactivated regional supply chains. In parallel, they contributed to restoring institutional trust by engaging in transparent, participatory governance at the community level. Quantitative metrics such as SROI and employment sustainability, alongside qualitative indicators like trust and embeddedness, confirm their role as resilient infrastructure in a fragmented state. Conclusion. Social enterprises in Ukraine are not marginal or temporary crisis responders but are foundational actors in the country’s economic reintegration and resilience-building efforts. Their impact spans multiple domains: from inclusive employment and community development to institutional innovation and public service co-production. The study calls for the strategic institutionalization of social entrepreneurship through legal definition, national standards for impact measurement, and blended financing tools. Recognizing their role in national policy and aligning support mechanisms with EU frameworks will be essential to unlocking their full potential in post-war reconstruction.