MODELING THE RATIONALITY OF RISK MANAGEMENT IN ENERGY ENTERPRISES WITHIN THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY VALUE SYSTEM

The article advances methodological principles for modeling the rationality of risk management in energy enterprises within the circular economy value system. The relevance of the research is determined by the intensification of financial, technological, environmental, security, and regulatory risks that cannot be adequately assessed using a simple composite indicator. The study aims to develop an approach that makes it possible to determine the overall level of rationality, the internal balance of the system, and its dependence on the weakest component. A threshold-balance model covering financial, technological, environmental, social, organizational, and managerial dimensions is proposed. Its calculation mechanism combines geometric aggregation, an internal balance coefficient, the weak-link effect, a circularity buffer, and an adjustment for crisis pressure. This prevents critical underperformance in one area from being fully offset by high values in other components. The approach was tested using publicly available data from DTEK, NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, NPC Ukrenergo, Ørsted, and ENGIE. Recovery, crisis, and circularity-accelerated scenarios were additionally modeled. The results show that ENGIE has the most balanced risk management profile, while Ørsted demonstrates the highest environmental and circular capacity. Wartime pressures, asset damage, financial constraints, and the need for technological restoration remain decisive factors for Ukrainian energy enterprises. Nevertheless, these companies demonstrate considerable crisis adaptability. The scientific value of the proposed approach lies in combining the diagnosis of weak components with scenario-based risk assessment. The model also provides an analytical basis for comparing how alternative managerial interventions may improve system balance and strengthen resilience under varying levels of crisis pressure. Its practical application makes it possible to identify system bottlenecks, assess reserves for increasing resilience, and substantiate priorities for recovery, decarbonization, resource efficiency, and modernization of energy enterprises.