Indian agrochemical companies scale up via product deals with MNCs

As multinational companies grapple with regulatory uncertainty in India, domestic agrochemical firms are acquiring products and technologies, reshaping the crop protection landscape

Tagros Chemicals Private Ltd, one of India’s larger agrochemical companies, last month acquired German multinational Bayer AG’s Flubendiamide (FLB) business, including key brands and formulations.

 

Flubendiamide is a potent insecticide for lepidopteran pests in crops such as rice and cotton, and will now become part of Tagros’ new Arquivo entity. The acquisition marks Tagros’ entry into branded formulations, boosting its B2C presence.

 

However, Tagros’ acquisition of a prominent plant protection chemical so far owned by a multinational company is not the first instance of such a deal between an Indian firm and a multinational company (MNC).

 

In fact, increasingly, Indian crop protection and agrochemical companies are aggressively acquiring products and technologies from MNCs as patents of several important molecules expire amid a shift in the global manufacturing order.

 

This trend, while enhancing local manufacturing and innovation, promises sustained advantages for farmers through affordability and tailored solutions. Recent deals underscore these and their impact on Indian agriculture over the long term.

 

Recent acquisitions highlight shift in crop protection ownership

 

In February 2025, Dhanuka Agritech Ltd bought the manufacturing and distribution rights for Bayer’s fungicides Iprovalicarb and Triadimenol for Rs 165 crore.

 

These products target fungal diseases in fruits, vegetables and cereals, thus granting Dhanuka access to over 20 countries where these products were sold.

 

Barely a month later, in March 2025, Coromandel International Ltd picked up a 53 per cent stake in NACL Industries for Rs 820 crore.

 

Though this was not a direct product acquisition and not with an MNC, it integrated NACL’s MNC-tied formulations such as insecticides and herbicides, enhancing Coromandel’s crop protection line-up.

 

Going back a few years, in 2019, UPL Ltd famously acquired Arysta LifeScience from Platform Specialty Products for $4.2 billion, absorbing a vast portfolio of crop protection chemicals, including biosolutions and adjuvants.

 

Lower costs, local manufacturing and farmer benefits

 

These acquisitions not only exemplify Indian firms indigenising premium MNC technology but, several experts said, these tie-ups could also benefit farmers by way of substantial cost savings and enhanced effectiveness through domestic production.

 

Local manufacturing reduces import dependence, making generic agrochemicals significantly more affordable than multinational brands. While combined R&D accelerates crop-specific innovations, competition fosters quality upgrades and bio-alternatives, aligning with sustainability amid regulations.

 

For instance, Tagros’ Flubendiamide could improve access for marginal farmers fighting bollworms in Gujarat’s cotton regions, which could lead to yield improvements.

 

Similarly, Dhanuka’s fungicides suit India’s humid climates, curbing losses from sheath blight in paddy.

 

“The strategic acquisition of Bayer’s Flubendiamide business marks a pivotal moment for Indian farmers. By bringing globally proven high-performance crop protection solutions, the Indian crop protection industry is empowering farmers with safer, more effective pest control that protects yields, supports sustainable farming practices, and enhances productivity,” said Kalyan Goswami, director general, Agro Chem Federation of India.

 

Regulatory hurdles and quality concerns persist

 

However, roadblocks to this trend remain.

 

Some experts said there are multiple quality concerns in generics as well as regulatory hurdles, which Indian firms are trying to counter with robust training programmes and compliance investments, as seen with UPL’s and Coromandel’s farmer outreach networks.

 

Nonetheless, this strategic evolution not only fortifies supply stability but also ignites a wave of domestic innovation, something experts believe could slash input costs on plant protection chemicals by 15–25 per cent by 2030.

 

“Ultimately, this consolidation between Indian and foreign companies will empower millions of marginal farmers with advanced, budget-friendly solutions, igniting resilient agriculture, surging incomes, and a sustainable, thriving rural tomorrow,” a senior industry executive said.

 

Why MNCs remain wary of deeper India investments

 

In contrast, some insiders said that while Indian companies are stepping up efforts to consolidate their collaborations with MNCs, the MNCs themselves have not been that forthcoming when it comes to investment due to regulatory uncertainties and indecision.

 

In fact, a few months ago, the chief executive officer of a large multinational plant protection company told a media organisation that it might rethink investing in India due to policy uncertainties such as those around biostimulants.

 

For many MNCs, India’s agrochemical approval system is widely seen as one of the slowest globally. While new molecules can take six to 10 years for registration in India, other markets typically give their clearance in about three years.

 

In India, foreign firms also face frequent data requests, including for already submitted data, unclear timelines, and limited predictability.

 

“Even after global approvals in countries such as the European Union and the United States, India often requires fresh local trials, which raises costs and timelines,” the industry executive quoted above said.

 

He said most multinational plant protection companies rely on innovation-led growth for patented, premium molecules. “When approvals drag, their core advantage disappears, making India less attractive than Brazil, Vietnam or even Africa in some cases,” the executive explained.

 

Then there are weak regulatory data protection rules for patented molecules, which make companies wary of launching high-cost R&D products because returns are uncertain and easily eroded. Also, much of India’s policy for the sector, experts said, is tilted towards generics and price-sensitive farming, which makes the volume-driven, low-margin market structurally unattractive for global innovators.

 

Above all, frequent bans and review lists of molecules and heavy compliance requirements on labelling, traceability and packaging, among other issues, create regulatory risk for MNCs, especially when they operate globally standardised product lines. The result is that MNCs prefer to use India as a manufacturing or sourcing base rather than as a priority innovation or launch market.

 

And after all this, MNCs must also deal with state-level regulatory complexities that further complicate matters.

 

The net result is that while Indian policy has not outright banished MNCs from the agrochemical sector, it has reduced their return on innovation and increased regulatory uncertainty even as it favours generic, low-cost models.

 

The MNCs have responded by either scaling down their operations in India or partnering with Indian firms instead of going solo, as recent developments indicate.

 

India's Changing AgroChem Story

• India’s agrochemical exports nearly tripled in 10 years to $3.3 billion in FY25, up from $1.3 billion in 2014–15
• India is now the world’s third-largest exporter of agrochemicals, after China and the US
• India’s agrochemical market is estimated at around Rs 69,000 crore as of FY24
• Exports (around 51 per cent value share) and domestic formulations (around 49 per cent value share) contribute almost equally
• India’s agrochemical market in FY24 was dominated by insecticides (41 per cent), followed by herbicides (22 per cent), fungicides (21 per cent), plant growth regulators (6 per cent), biostimulants (8 per cent) and seed treatment (2 per cent)
• Eight crop segments — rice, cotton, wheat, soybean, chillies, grapes, sugarcane and gram — contribute around 65 per cent of the domestic agrochemical market