IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i8p3346-d1631200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency Evaluation of the World’s Top Ten Seed Companies: Static and Dynamic Analysis in the Context of Global Consolidation and Sustainability Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Nan Wang

    (Department of International Commerce & Area Studies, Gangneung Wonju National University, Gangneung 25457, Republic of Korea)

  • Yunning Ma

    (Department of Smart Governance Program, Inha University, Incheon 22221, Republic of Korea)

  • Yongrok Choi

    (Department of International Trade, Inha University, Incheon 22221, Republic of Korea)

  • Seungho Kang

    (Department of International Commerce & Area Studies, Gangneung Wonju National University, Gangneung 25457, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

This study evaluated the efficiency performance of the world’s top ten seed-producing companies from 2016 to 2022, exploring the interplay between asset scale, technological innovation, and resource allocation in the context of the third global wave of seed industry mergers and growing external uncertainties. Against the backdrop of rising sustainability demands and low-carbon transitions, optimizing firm-level efficiency has become central in balancing economic performance with environmental responsibility. Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI), in this study, we conducted a comprehensive static and dynamic assessment of firm efficiency. The results reveal considerable heterogeneity across firms and over time. Corteva’s overall technical efficiency (OTE) rose from 0.57 in 2018 to 0.91 in 2022, reflecting successful post-merger integration and digital innovation. DLF achieved an OTE = 1.00 in 2020 and 2022, indicating stable specialization on an optimal scale. In contrast, Bayer’s OTE dropped from 0.72 in 2016 to 0.36 in 2022, underscoring the challenges of resource integration after large-scale mergers. In terms of productivity dynamics, Corteva exhibited a sharp EFFCH surge to 1.7041 in 2018–2019, reflecting a phase of rapid efficiency recovery following its post-merger restructuring. Syngenta also demonstrated strong managerial improvement, with its EFFCH reaching 1.3759 in 2017–2018 and maintaining positive momentum thereafter. Over the entire period, Syngenta recorded the highest cumulative growth in efficiency (up 40.76%), while Bayer showed a significant decline (−28.33%), highlighting contrasting integration outcomes. On the technological front, DLF stood out with a TECHCH increase of 34.67%, suggesting that innovation remained the key driver of long-term productivity gains, particularly among firms that avoided aggressive mergers. These findings emphasize the importance of aligning technological investment with scalable and resilient operational structures to achieve sustainable efficiency. This study offers empirical guidance for policymakers and strategic planners seeking to strengthen the seed industry’s role in green transformation, while also providing a framework applicable to other capital-intensive sectors undergoing structural transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Nan Wang & Yunning Ma & Yongrok Choi & Seungho Kang, 2025. "Efficiency Evaluation of the World’s Top Ten Seed Companies: Static and Dynamic Analysis in the Context of Global Consolidation and Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-25, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:8:p:3346-:d:1631200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/8/3346/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/8/3346/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toshiyuki Sueyoshi, 1997. "Measuring Efficiencies and Returns to Scale of Nippon Telegraph & Telephone in Production and Cost Analyses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 779-796, June.
    2. Sylvie Bonny, 2017. "Corporate Concentration and Technological Change in the Global Seed Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-25, September.
    3. David Lambert, 1999. "Scale and the Malmquist productivity index," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(9), pages 593-596.
    4. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Cook, Wade D. & Seiford, Larry M., 2009. "Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Hu, Jin-Li & Kao, Chih-Hung, 2007. "Efficient energy-saving targets for APEC economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 373-382, January.
    7. R. D. Banker & A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper, 1984. "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(9), pages 1078-1092, September.
    8. Pels, Eric & Nijkamp, Peter & Rietveld, Piet, 2003. "Inefficiencies and scale economies of European airport operations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 341-361, September.
    9. Fuglie, Keith O. & Heisey, Paul W., 2007. "Economic Returns to Public Agricultural Research," Economic Brief 6388, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Yi Ji & Hechang Cai & Zilong Wang, 2023. "Impact of Industrial Synergy on the Efficiency of Innovation Resource Allocation: Evidence from Chinese Metropolitan Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    12. Kao, Chiang, 2017. "Measurement and decomposition of the Malmquist productivity index for parallel production systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 54-59.
    13. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
    14. Meeusen, Wim & van den Broeck, Julien, 1977. "Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 18(2), pages 435-444, June.
    15. Boame, Attah K., 2004. "The technical efficiency of Canadian urban transit systems," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 401-416, September.
    16. Richard D. Smart & Amer Ait Sidhoum & Johannes Sauer, 2022. "Decomposition of efficiency in the global seed industry: A nonparametric approach," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 2133-2147, September.
    17. E. Grifell-Tatjé & C. Lovell, 1999. "A generalized Malmquist productivity index," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 7(1), pages 81-101, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lampe, Hannes W. & Hilgers, Dennis, 2015. "Trajectories of efficiency measurement: A bibliometric analysis of DEA and SFA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 1-21.
    2. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2015. "Efficiency of the banking system in Vietnam under financial liberalization," OSF Preprints qsf6d, Center for Open Science.
    3. Ricardo F. Díaz & Blanca Sanchez-Robles, 2020. "Non-Parametric Analysis of Efficiency: An Application to the Pharmaceutical Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-27, September.
    4. Varun Mahajan & D. K. Nauriyal & S. P. Singh, 2020. "Domestic market competitiveness of Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 519-559, June.
    5. Adler, Nicole & Liebert, Vanessa, 2014. "Joint impact of competition, ownership form and economic regulation on airport performance and pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 92-109.
    6. Kan Tsui, Wai Hong & Balli, Hatice Ozer & Gilbey, Andrew & Gow, Hamish, 2014. "Operational efficiency of Asia–Pacific airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 16-24.
    7. Ederer, Nikolaus, 2015. "Evaluating capital and operating cost efficiency of offshore wind farms: A DEA approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1034-1046.
    8. Falavigna, Greta & Ippoliti, Roberto & Ramello, Giovanni B., 2018. "DEA-based Malmquist productivity indexes for understanding courts reform," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 31-43.
    9. Thiago Victorino & Carlos Rosano Peña, 2023. "The Development of Efficiency Analysis in Transportation Systems: A Bibliometric and Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-32, June.
    10. Gil, Guilherme Dôco Roberti & Costa, Marcelo Azevedo & Lopes, Ana Lúcia Miranda & Mayrink, Vinícius Diniz, 2017. "Spatial statistical methods applied to the 2015 Brazilian energy distribution benchmarking model: Accounting for unobserved determinants of inefficiencies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 373-383.
    11. Yang, Guo-liang & Fukuyama, Hirofumi & Chen, Kun, 2019. "Investigating the regional sustainable performance of the Chinese real estate industry: A slack-based DEA approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 141-159.
    12. Vittadini, Giorgio & Sturaro, Caterina & Folloni, Giuseppe, 2022. "Non-Cognitive Skills and Cognitive Skills to measure school efficiency," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    13. Andor, Mark A. & Parmeter, Christopher & Sommer, Stephan, 2019. "Combining uncertainty with uncertainty to get certainty? Efficiency analysis for regulation purposes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 240-252.
    14. Thanh Ngo & Kan Wai Hong Tsui, 2022. "Estimating the confidence intervals for DEA efficiency scores of Asia-Pacific airlines," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3411-3434, September.
    15. Francisco Javier Sáez-Fernández & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Mercedes Beltrán-Esteve & Caroline Elliott, 2015. "Assessing the performance of the Latin American and Caribbean banking industry: Are domestic and foreign banks so different?," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1006976-100, December.
    16. Sickles, Robin C. & Song, Wonho & Zelenyuk, Valentin, 2018. "Econometric Analysis of Productivity: Theory and Implementation in R," Working Papers 18-008, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    17. Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan & Ramanathan, Usha & Bentley, Yongmei, 2018. "The debate on flexibility of environmental regulations, innovation capabilities and financial performance – A novel use of DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 131-138.
    18. Kaffash, Sepideh & Azizi, Roza & Huang, Ying & Zhu, Joe, 2020. "A survey of data envelopment analysis applications in the insurance industry 1993–2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 801-813.
    19. Головань С.В. & Назин В.В. & Пересецкий А.А., 2010. "Непараметрические Оценки Эффективности Российских Банков," Журнал Экономика и математические методы (ЭММ), Центральный Экономико-Математический Институт (ЦЭМИ), vol. 46(3), июль.
    20. Mark Andor & Frederik Hesse, 2014. "The StoNED age: the departure into a new era of efficiency analysis? A monte carlo comparison of StoNED and the “oldies” (SFA and DEA)," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 85-109, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:8:p:3346-:d:1631200. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.