Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Funding patterns and financial viability of agricultural startups under the RKVY-RAFTAAR scheme in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, India

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11648
Submitted
6 September 2025
Published
05-03-2026

Abstract

The emergence of agri-startups in India has reshaped agricultural entrepreneurship by addressing inefficiencies in supply chains, input distribution and technology adoption. However, their financial viability remained uncertain, particularly at early stages. To strengthen this ecosystem, the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana – Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and Allied Sector Rejuvenation (RKVY-RAFTAAR) scheme launched in the year 2017 provided structured funding, incubation and mentoring support through Business Incubation Centres. This study empirically analysed funding patterns, resource allocation and financial viability of 80 agri-startups incubated in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana across 8 sectors: Agri-Tech, Food Processing, Organic Farming, Agri-Input Supply, Agri-Marketing, Agri-FinTech, Agri-Biotechnology and Agri-Drones & Automation. A cross-sectional design was adopted using sector-wise data on funding composition, resource allocation and financial indicators, viz., Return on Investment (ROI), Operating Profit Margin (OPM) and Debt-to-Equity Ratio (D/E). A composite financial viability score (FVS) was constructed, complemented by data envelopment analysis (DEA) with slack analysis to assess efficiency and performance gaps. The findings revealed that private investment dominates funding in technology-driven sectors such as Agri-Tech and Agri-FinTech, while Organic Farming and Agri-Input Supply rely heavily on public grants. Sectoral differences were evident in resource allocation: Agri-Tech and Agri-FinTech prioritised innovation and R & D, whereas Food Processing and Organic Farming emphasised infrastructure. Financial viability was excellent in  Agri-FinTech and Agri-Tech (FVS >19), while Organic Farming and Agri-Input Supply exhibited weak to moderate viability due to low ROI and higher debt exposure. DEA results confirmed higher efficiency in innovation-led sectors and inefficiencies in sustainability-oriented ones, with slack values indicating untapped potential across traditional sectors. The study highlights the need for differentiated policy interventions, where private funding helps grow scalable models, while targeted public support should conserve ecologically critical and financially vulnerable sectors, eventually promoting inclusive and resilient agri-entrepreneurship.

References

  1. 1. National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM). India's agritech landscape: a growing opportunity [Internet]. New Delhi: NASSCOM; 2022.
  2. 2. Ernst & Young (EY) India. Future of agritech: decoding the promise [Internet]. New Delhi: EY; 2021.
  3. 3. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (MoA&FW). Operational guidelines of RKVY RAFTAAR [Internet]. New Delhi: Government of India; 2021.
  4. 4. George G, Bock AJ. The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneur Theory Pract. 2011;35(1):83–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00424.x
  5. 5. Hall BH, Khan B. Adoption of new technology. In: Jones DC, editor. New economy handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2003. p. 35–50. https://doi.org/10.3386/w9730
  6. 6. Grimsey D, Lewis MK. Public-private partnerships: the worldwide revolution in infrastructure provision and project finance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2004. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423438.00013
  7. 7. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffmann A, Giovannini E. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD; 2008.
  8. 8. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci. 1984;30(9):1078–92. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
  9. 9. Kumawat PK, Sharma A, Singh A, Praveen KV, Jha GK, Singh S. Landscaping of Indian start ups ecosystem with a special focus on agriculture. J Community Mobil Sustain Dev. 2024;19:712–23. https://doi.org/10.5958/2231-6736.2024.00163.0
  10. 10. Raj S, Atmakuri Y, Kale AR, Praveen HJ, Kumar S, Abraham A. Case studies on agri startups in India: inspiration from Mann Ki Baat, innovations and impact. J Agric Ext Manag. 2023;24(1):51–84.
  11. 11. Cassar G. The financing of business start ups. J Bus Ventur. 2004;19(2):261–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00029-6
  12. 12. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys. Investors' outlook on agritech. In: LKS in focus: agritech special edition. New Delhi: Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan; 2021. p. 72–76.
  13. 13. Hossain MM. Cost efficiency of listed food and agro based firms in India: a DEA approach. Rev Econ Finance. 2023;21(2):1169–86.
  14. 14. Latruffe L, Balcombe K, Davidova S, Zawalinska K. Technical and scale efficiency of crop and livestock farms in Poland: does specialization matter? Agric Econ. 2005;32(3):281–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2005.00322.x
  15. 15. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
  16. 16. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res. 1978;2(6):429–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
  17. 17. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K. Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA solve software. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-45283-8

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.