With crop protection at a crossroads, it’s time for big ag to embrace its big pharma moment

The innovation engine that powered crop protection for decades is sputtering. Internal discovery pipelines are thin, costs and timelines are rising, and the largest players are grappling with structural headwinds—from litigation and delayed listings to divestitures and portfolio resets. The pattern mirrors the inflection point Big Pharma faced roughly 15 years ago, when it moved beyond an all-in-house model and built a vibrant ecosystem with startups, university labs, and specialized partners.

“The innovation model inside large crop protection companies is broken for early-stage discovery,” says Matt Crisp, a longtime agrifood entrepreneur. The symptoms are visible: majors leaning on legacy molecules, fewer new active ingredients reaching the market, and R&D dollars skewed toward lifecycle management rather than net-new modes of action. Meanwhile, development costs have climbed, timelines have lengthened, and regulatory hurdles have stiffened.

Pharma’s playbook: focus where you’re truly differentiated

When Big Pharma hit its patent cliff, it didn’t double down on doing everything in-house. It reoriented. Internal resources concentrated on what large organizations do best—late-stage development, regulatory execution, scale-up, manufacturing, and global commercialization—while discovery diversified into a network model. The industry recognized that small, focused teams could take bigger scientific swings faster and cheaper, and that partnership—not ownership—could deliver the novelty pipelines needed.

“Pharma learned that you do not need to invent everything inside your own walls,” notes Tony Klemm, CEO of Enko. “You need to know where you add the most value.” For crop protection, that means majors prioritizing their edge in regulatory navigation, formulation at scale, supply chains, stewardship, and market access—while sourcing upstream innovation externally.

Why upstream discovery belongs in a network

Early discovery requires a different culture and risk tolerance than what large, matrixed organizations are built to support. Smaller innovators can iterate quickly, explore unconventional targets, and accept higher technical risk with lower capital intensity. “The structural danger is that the majors keep trying to conquer everything—discovery through commercial—burning capital and time on the part of the value chain where they’re least efficient: upstream,” says Crisp.

The emerging consensus: capital is better deployed by combining external, capital-efficient discovery with the majors’ internal strengths in development and deployment. As Crisp puts it, “Pfizer didn’t stop being Pfizer when it stopped doing as much internal discovery. They just got better at what they were already best at.”

Signals the shift is already underway

There are growing examples of majors leaning into external discovery. Corteva has partnered with Micropep to co-develop peptide-based biocontrols. Syngenta is collaborating with Provivi on pheromone-based control for Fall Armyworm in Brazil and with Enko on a new fungicide mode of action targeting resistance. The logic is straightforward: companies don’t need to own every stage of the value chain to win—they need to own the stages where they’re genuinely differentiated.

“We are not replacing the capabilities of Tier 1 crop protection companies,” says Klemm. “We are strengthening them. The companies that adapt will combine external, capital-efficient discovery with internal execution strength. Those that do not will struggle to generate the novelty required in a market defined by resistance, regulation, and margin pressure.”

Making external innovation work

The mechanism—co-development, joint ventures, option-based licensing, or corporate venture capital—matters less than the intent and execution. What consistently works is a clear thesis, proactive sourcing, disciplined bets, and tight integration with business units so projects can convert into pilots, partnerships, or M&A rather than stalling at the technology scouting stage.

As investor and advisor Mark S. Brooks observes, underinvesting in external innovation weakens future pipelines and ultimately erodes competitive advantage. The companies that treat external innovation as an engine of growth—not a defensive hedge—build optionality, speed, and resilience into their product roadmaps.

Why growers can’t wait

On the farm, urgency is acute. Regulators are removing older chemistries from the market, while weeds, insects, and diseases continue to build resistance against those that remain. Those two forces don’t pause for anyone’s R&D timeline, yet growers need replacements now—not in a decade. The networked model can compress cycle times by placing more, faster bets upstream and aligning the best ideas with the majors’ development muscle earlier.

How majors can lead the transition

• Define where you win: Double down on regulatory, formulation scale-up, manufacturing, stewardship, and commercialization.
• Systematize sourcing: Build a clear thesis on target pests, modes of action, and product profiles; proactively scout startups, labs, and platforms that fit.
• Create frictionless pathways: Stand up repeatable deal structures and onboarding that move promising assets into pilots fast.
• Fund with purpose: Use milestones, options, and co-development to align incentives and manage risk without stifling speed.
• Measure for conversion: Track how external bets translate into field trials, dossiers, launches, and revenue—not just press releases.

The window is open— for now

Crop protection doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel. The model exists. The startups capable of upstream risk-taking are already operating, and the majors are uniquely positioned to turn their discoveries into safe, scalable, globally available products. The question isn’t whether the transition will happen. It’s who moves decisively, and who’s still debating when the window closes.