Referred to as the Big 4 – DowDuPont, Bayer-Monsanto, ChemChina-Syngenta and BASF – are four giant firms running the show in the agriculture industry. Their consolidated market share is causing worries among farmers and policymakers who fear sky-high prices, lack of choice to farmers, high barriers to entry and threat to innovation. In this article, I evaluate the basis for such concerns to find if they stand their ground or remain shaky.

The argument for price rise is edging on cliché: Few competitors realize the benefits from cartelizing and increase their profits by charging a higher price. While this sounds plausible, there are various explanations for why this is unlikely to happen. Most goods have substitutes. So, while the Big 4 may want to fetch higher prices for their Genetically Engineered (GE) seeds, the demand for these seeds will be competing against other non-GE hybrids, in case the former becomes unviable. Therefore, to sell more seeds these corporations will have to price their products wisely, or farmers will resort to buying non-GE alternatives. In fact, a report titled Concentration in Seed Markets: Potential Effects and Policy Responses published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) confirms the same:

‘Using data from 87 seed markets, and correcting for crop-specific and country-specific effects and several other factors, the analysis did not find evidence of higher seed prices in markets with higher levels of market concentration. However, the analysis does suggest that a greater market share for public plant breeders, and a greater share of farm-saved seed, reduce average prices.’

The second worry is that consolidation in the seeds market will reduce the choices available to farmers, leaving them dependent on the Big 4. This apprehension makes sense in a world where there are no seeds available to farmers from any other source. This is far from being true. As cited in the OECD report, farmers acquire seeds from three sources: farm-saved seed purchased seed derived from public plant breeding or purchased seed from the private sector. While GE varieties maybe few, choice across seeds is plenty.

Yet, to encourage choice in GE seeds, especially since climate change is making conditions of agriculture unpredictable every year, we need faster innovation. These seeds can be engineered to meet the changing needs of every season – they can be made drought resistant, safe from chemicals etc. – in as little time as six months. This is nothing when compared with decades taken to create new varieties through crossbreeding. More choice is a by-product of increasing competition between firms and is less likely to happen with few firms in the industry.

Why then do we have such few players in the agriculture industry? One factor is the high investments required for research and development (R&D) in GE and non-GE seeds. Investments in technology, getting the right talent onboard and having the capital to conduct R&D for years till the outcome is perfect, is a costly affair. High regulatory demands add to the cost, both in terms of time and money. Regulation, though necessary for guaranteeing safety, is sometimes taken too far when regulatory bodies don’t approve innovations, based on their whims. An article posted by Smart Indian Agriculture in March 2018 accurately explains the frustration of researchers in the domain:

‘Nearly two decades after he began work on GM (Genetically Modified) mustard, Deepak Pental and his team of scientists at Delhi University have not been able to obtain approval from the government for its cultivation, despite a recommendation from the regulator. Environment Minister Harsh Vardhan is procrastinating. He is buying time by telling the regulator to review objections that it has already considered and rejected. Anti-GM activists have attacked Pental personally and portrayed GM mustard as dangerous, even though studies have shown that it is safe.’

While high entry barriers act as deterrents, governments offer patent rights as an incentive for individuals to undertake R&D and come up with innovations. Patents give inventors the right to prevent others from commercially exploiting their invention for a given number of years. These rights, however often end up doing the opposite. Innovations secured via patents, slow down competition from external players, thereby disincentivizing a constant need to innovate in order to remain competitive.

Some argue that companies which sign conditional contracts with farmers – disallowing them to re-sow seeds or resell them to scientists – not only commit grave injustice but also slow down innovation by closing doors for further research. Offering consumers a partial right to use products is not unique to agriculture but happens all the time. Purchasing a car on lease or living in a rented house are all examples of possessing partial rights.

Both conditional contracts and inaccessibility to seeds for research can be better understood by comparing two scenarios. In a free market, competitors can use this contractual situation as an opportunity to increase their market share by offering unconditional contracts – both, allowing farmers complete rights to do as they please and scientists to acquire seeds for research. However, when the government protects innovations through patents, it disincentivizes all companies to make such offers, at least until the patents expire. The cost of this is innovation slowing down by as many years.

A thriving market for GE seeds is crucial in a world battling climate change. If we are serious about making a variety of good quality and affordable GE seeds available to farmers, lowering entry barriers by defining safety standards and doing away with patents would be an effective start. More firms hungry for profits face stronger incentives to perform and give farmers not only more choices, but better quality goods to choose from, leaving us all in good stead.

As I stumbled into the fact that March 1 was the World Compliment Day, I was reminded of childhood learning. We were all taught to greet others, it was meant to be offered with a smile, express gratitude when someone does good to you, say thank you and don’t shy away from saying sorry if you need to. We would typically do that by offering “Salaam,” it is a profound act of wishing the other person “may the peace be upon you” just as the act of obeisance through “Namaste”, both are such acts of kindness and humility. Children are mischievous and I was no exception, there were times when I’d ridicule or make fun of greetings; saying it loudly or without sincerity, I remember my late mother tutoring me through a quote of the Prophet; “be sincere and generous in your compliments but avoid exaggerations”. A teaching that has served me well.

I realized, how important it is to compliment people in our lives. There are several occasions when we take things for granted and do not feel the need for a compliment. We come across friends, colleagues and at time strangers who often leave positive vibes in us just by the way they conduct themselves before us. Maya Angelou so articulately described this “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” I noticed, complimenting comes naturally to a few people but it can also be built overtime. While a good and authentic compliment can do wonders to the recipient, it also brings alacrity to the offeror too. A smile begets smile and a frown begets grimace.

Compliments are contagious, it creates an atmosphere of gratitude and fun. There can be numerous ways of complimenting but what matters the most is the authenticity of a compliment. A simple greeting or an act of gratitude (a simple thank you) is a powerful compliment. It’s our own inertia that often hold us back from complimenting, it is a good idea to let go our inertia.

The new digital world has made it easier to compliment, a simple birthday wish on social media to a re-tweet can be a good compliment. Digital compliments also have their limitations, it can be generated through algorithm without any personal touch, it is far more effective to have a personalized and creative digital compliment rather than resorting to a robotic algorithm based compliments. Being specific in compliments or recognition encourages the repeat of a good behavior, anything that gets rewarded gets repeated. A very simple act of reading the name plate of a waiter at the restaurant and calling him/her by her name can be an effective compliment. An honest criticism in private and with dignity can be a valuable compliment.

Since I spent my formative years in the Armed Forces, I noticed camaraderie between a young officer and his men was a great display of compliments. Compliments should be an extension of one’s own personality. If one has a good sense of humor, it is worth using it, it plays an important role in compliments and recognition. One of best days at work is when we laugh out loud as a team and pull each other’s leg. It creates an environment of congeniality and makes recognition and compliments informal and joyful.

I personally find exchange of compliments both therapeutic as well as stress buster. An honest and fierce conversation can serve as a compliment. We often mistake of perceiving a difference of opinion to be disrespect. A respectful interjection executed with dignity can serve as an effective compliment. It is incumbent upon us as leaders to express our views and do that sincerely. A patient hearing is a compliment too. It is a compliment that’s getting scarce by the day, we are all becoming impatient and wish to put across our point of views faster and louder. Compliment is a display of compassion, graciousness and is an act act of charity and altruism.

A recent study published by Forbes quotes Social Rewards Enhance Offline Improvements in Motor Skill, According to Professor Norihiro Sadato, the study lead and professor at the National Institute for Physiological Sciences in Japan, “To the brain, receiving a compliment is as much a social reward as being rewarded money. We’ve been able to find scientific proof that a person performs better when they receive a social reward after completing an exercise.”

While a compliment may not run your kitchen, it will certainly help you manage your hypertension better. There must be some reasons why Mark Twain said, “I can live for two months on a good compliment.”

Conundrums of communications make the profession both challenging and exciting. Communication can be simple and yet complex, it can have contradictions and substantiations, enormity and virtuousness and it can be enlightening and misleading. It can therefore be both powerful and it is perilous!

Some of my early learning as an aspiring communications professional includes the expression “less is more”; the philosophy comes handy in 24×7 electronic media, where nothing matters more than a right sound bite in the shortest possible timeframe. Advent of digital media has changed the entire landscape of communication, it is free, uncontrolled and offers a platform to everyone and where contents can be inspiring or can create fissures. George Bernard Shaw once said “The single biggest problem in communications is the illusion that it has taken place”. In spite of all the noise that surrounds us all the time, is communication really taking place? Is less still more?

Rules of communications are strikingly similar whether it is interpersonal or mass communication. Though the interpersonal communication is much controlled and effective, it too can turn disastrous. The quotient of control in mass communication is limited and that makes it trickier. Needs and tonality of communication necessitates a closer look. Did classical Greek Philosopher, Plato meant the 21st century’s social media when he said many centuries ago “wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something”. They said “walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me” the statement has a new context with scathing and treacherous media/ cyber trials dire consequences in a few cases as Monica Lewinsky raised the question “imagine walking a mile in someone else’s headline” during her Ted talk appropriately titled as ‘the price of shame’. She went on to say “ We talk a lot about the rights of freedom of expressions, we need to talk more about the responsibility of freedom of expression, we all want to be heard but let’s acknowledge the difference between speaking up with intention and speaking up for attention”. Does the insinuation sound familiar? Unfortunately the content sadly remains there forever, much after maligned and crucified victims on the internet are gone…that’s scary!

Even if the contents on the web are for eternity, their impact generally is short-lived; it is because of an incredibly fast churning of contents on the web and reflects the myopic approach of both the users and the audiences. It is not surprising that companies and leaders are often caught in their own snare, what you speak, write or tweet today can come back to haunt you later. Interestingly these ‘eternal’ contents are mortal and do not have the bliss of immortality that the words from the olden times enjoyed, they get exterminated by the information/ communication ‘overkill’. We grew up with Mahatama Gandhi’s unforgettable words “Be the change you wish to see” or that of Abraham Lincoln “those who deny freedom to others deserves it not for themselves” which so beautifully epitomizes his unwavering commitments for emancipation.

Companies too can be classified as the natural, reluctant, or exuberant communicators. The biggest menace of communication exuberance is the urgency to claim things even if someone else has accomplished or it runs the risk of descending into a deep fallacy of ‘I and only I own the truth’, a phenomenon also very common among leaders. This too is a result of a very fast moving world and the immense pressure of performance from the word ‘go’, the shorter memory/ attention span of the audience makes the matter worse. Those who rise through the social media, fall through the social media too.

That brings me to my next question; “is social media the right place for discussion/ debate?” It is amusing to see the uproarious exchange of posts or comments on issues where the truth sits in the middle. The impunity with which people self-assume wisdom, credibility and exclusive ownership on truth is spellbinding. Using social media to educate people on the basis of facts, rationale and data is a better idea than getting swamped into a free for all debate. Communications on social media demands stricter discipline, patience and self-restraint.

For institutions, leaders or companies, mass communication is inescapable demon. It is important to use the right medium for the right content. The modern media landscape is divided into a three major categories; Paid or bought, Owned and Earned, as the name suggests the most difficult to fare is the earned media but it brings high dividends and warrants serious investments. In today’s world it is important to understand that the values of each of one them bring. In an ideal situation they all converge towards a common goal and the not surprisingly, the acronym for this convergence ‘POEM’ (paid, owned and earned media) it sounds like music (if not poem) to the audience.

Owned media typically communicates with customers, paid is meant for strangers, prospects and public at large and the earned media is for the fans or advocates. Process of ‘earning’ media is no different from earning anything else in life. It requires perseverance, honesty, hard work and a sense of purpose. Not everyone invests enough in the relationship and the content. Mistake of measuring success on the basis of eyeball hits, TRPs and media coverage is all pervasive. It merits honest and transparent conversations. A lot need to be invested in creating fresh public discourse that is unbiased, aspirational and strategic. This goes a long way in building brands and doing societal good even if it may apparently hurt in the shorter terms.

Interestingly with the ‘free for all social media’ McKinsey came up with two interesting categories and they named it as ‘hijacked media’ and ‘sold media’. While the former represents a scenario when someone else’s content is held hostage and there is a concerted communication efforts to cause reputational and revenue damages to the brand, perception or reputation of a person or a company. Later deals with a scenario where a platform is made available for someone else to push its contents through. Both of these we now see in abundance.

At a time when plethora of information, data and insights are available at a click of the mouse, premium can only be associated with novelty, uniqueness and credibility of communique. We all come across many as internet intellectuals. There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution for communication. High pitch communication may end up enticing high pitched hostility, thus, ‘where to stop, cut the noise or keep quiet’ is as important a decision as ‘where to speak or advertise’ is. A very important aspect of communication is listening and capability to live with dissenting voices. Eighteenth century writer Voltaire said it beautifully “I do not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to death your right to say it”…

We are a fortunate generation! Fortunate because our previous generations couldn’t exhaust the natural resources that were available to them. The question which arises now is that when this generation is done using the resources, would anything be left for the generations yet to come?

The rate at which the global consumption of these resources is taking place is rather alarming. This rate is ever increasing with growing population. The United Nations has predicted that the world population would reach 9.7 billion by 2050 as compared to the existing 7.4 billion in 2016. The difference being 2.3 billion which is almost equal to the cumulative population of India and China.

These numbers are sufficient to make one realize the global chaos that could be created in the coming 20 to 30 years if we don’t act now. Thankfully, the world is moving ahead with sustainable technology and replacements but still there is a need to create a major global awareness about the same so that more and more people get directly involved in endorsing this.

Let us not take this whole scenario for granted and move towards a society that acknowledges the importance of the reserved resources. Let us keep the chaos waiting for as long as we can.

Any organization, irrespective of it’s capital, business domain, geographical location and of course the products and services it produces, is born with a mere thought that someone at some point in time conceived in their mind. An idea, which is unique in it’s own way ( or not, at times), which lays the foundation to any prospect that may follow. The journey uptil this thought is unique for everybody, but the way forward is where the challenges lie.

The next step is finding people who align with thought, the people who believe in this idea and its prospects as strongly as you do. A set of people of people who become the inner-circle so to say. As the efforts multiply in a synchronized manner, so do the results. In most cases, these results are a direct implication of the team working behind it. (Not trying to take credits away from God of Luck!)

Everyone cannot belong in the inner circle, but finding the people who align with the central thought is all the more important when organizations grow. There is a lot of talent which exists in the world but is talent enough to be on your team? Let me answer this question with a real life analogy.

Messi is a majestic figure in the world of football. A larger than life individual and arguably, the greatest footballer ever. His association with Football Club Barcelona has been over two decades now. The team is built around him, they play according to his style, the formation, the strategies, everything revolves around Messi in that team. New players who join Barcelona are judged on how well their playing style could gel with that of Messi’s. This has worked out beautifully for that team. The trophies and laurels they have won in the last decade outnumber the glories of any other football club from any different corner of the world.

Now, the moment we pick Messi up and put him in his National Colours- The Argentinian Football team, we see a drastic difference. Argentina has not won a single trophy in Messi’s era barring the Olympic gold in 2008. His Argentinian team mates are all quality footballers who are also doing well in their club duties and yet the magic of magician Messi doesn’t work here.

What we observe here is the fact that even the best of the talents go wasted when not backed by a system which works in synergy. Finding the right people for any team is much more than just finding talent and matching the salary expectation. It’s the art of understanding how that team functions. How each and every individual on that team brings value to the organization. Understanding every little detail and then set sail to look out for the perfect match.

The world is immense and so is the talent pool but not everyone is for us, and we are not for everyone.