Harmonizing Global Regulatory Pathways: Overcoming Bottlenecks for Sustainable Agri-Input Exporters
By Shivraj Anand, Whole-time Director & CEO – International Business, Parijat Industries (India) Limited
08 July 2026, New Delhi: The need to secure resilient, sustainable food systems has never been more serious. Over the past three decades, we have expanded our international footprint to 65 countries and currently we have a portfolio of 795 (domestic and global) registered formulations across markets, whilst consistently prioritizing R&D and innovation.To scale sustainable agricultural inputs, quickly enough at a sufficient pace to meet global food security needs, these regulatory differences must be addressed urgently.
The structural bottleneck facing global exporters today is the ideological divide between hazard-based and regulatory models. On one side of the spectrum, frameworks driven by the precautionary principle, may increasingly rely on intrinsic hazard cut-offs. Under this paradigm, if a substance possesses certain hazardous properties, it may face absolute prohibition, regardless of the actual likelihood of field exposure or real-world application methods. Conversely, jurisdictions that maintain scientifically rigorous, and practical risk-based models would evaluate the safe use of a chemical based on the established scientific equation: Risk equals Hazard multiplied by Exposure.
This regulatory asymmetry creates a difficult compliance system for the industry. For an export-oriented company, developing a global product strategy has morphed into an exercise in regulatory arbitrage. Unaligned approvals and differing Maximum Residue Limits (“MRLs”) do more than slow cross-border chemical trade; they would serve to disrupt global trade in agricultural commodities altogether. If a sustainable, novel formulation were to be approved for use by farmers in one jurisdiction but blocked by hazard-criteria in another, the resultant trade friction would directly discourage mid-tier innovators from investing in greener chemistries. A globally harmonized consensus that champions practical, exposure-based risk assessment is critical to keeping the innovation pipeline viable.
Beyond these deep ideological divides, the mechanical inefficiencies of the global regulatory system impose a non-tariff barrier on exporters. The lack of comprehensive Mutual Recognition Agreements (“MRAs”) can force manufacturers into an endless, costly cycle of data generation and duplication. Accordingly, a dossier featuring highly robust, internationally accepted laboratory standards toxicological and ecotoxicological data may be subjected to redundant, localized testing requirements. Regional authorities may demand country-specific field efficacy trials or localized environmental studies that add little scientific value to the overall safety profile of the molecule. This redundancy would result in severe capital misallocation. The millions of dollars and years of timeline extension spent repeating tests for different national authorities are resources diverted from research and development into biopesticides, softer chemistries, and precision agriculture formulations. For the industry to successfully transition toward sustainable inputs, regulatory bodies must adopt a “test once, accept everywhere” approach for baseline safety and toxicological data.
Compounding these traditional registration bottlenecks is the rapid integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) mandates into the regulatory system. Today, the modern agri-input exporter is confronted by a growing set of non-financial compliance frameworks that increasingly dictate market access. However, because global ESG taxonomies remain highly fragmented, what qualifies as a “sustainable” practice or a compliant emissions threshold in one jurisdiction may fail to satisfy the auditors of another. This lack of standardized ESG reporting metrics can penalize transparent manufacturers, duplicates auditing costs, and ultimately slow the global transition toward low-carbon sustainable agriculture. Harmonizing these sustainability and corporate governance metrics is now just as critical as aligning toxicological data.
While absolute global harmonization of policy may be a long-term diplomatic endeavor, we can endeavor towards immediate, practical improvements through the aggressive adoption of Regulatory Technology (“RegTech”). Digital compliance should no longer be considered an optional upgrade; it must be viewed as a strategic requirement that can bridge differing frameworks and streamline ESG reporting. To build this bridge, global agribusiness must prioritize several technological shifts:
Digital Regulatory Passports: Transitioning from static, thousands-of-pages-long PDF dossiers to dynamic, structured data formats would allow for shared data exchange between global authorities, speeding up approvals and reducing administrative friction.
Predictive Compliance Algorithms: Leveraging AI to map a molecule’s profile against shifting global regulations and regional ESG taxonomies may enable exporters to foresee bottlenecks and adjust formulations before committing massive capital to a target market.
Blockchain for Tracking and ESG Verification: If regulatory bodies mandate absolute supply chain transparency, blockchain-enabled digital ledgers may provide reliable proof of compliance-tracking raw material sourcing, fair labor practices, and carbon footprints-drastically accelerating the audit phases for both chemical registration and ESG mandates.
By standardizing the digital infrastructure of regulatory submissions, we endeavor to strip away the administrative delays preventing the introduction of sustainable inputs to the markets that need them most. Moving forward, to overcome these shared challenges, industry leaders, international trade bodies, and national regulators must collaborate on a pragmatic roadmap. A strategic priority must be to advocate for the expansion of collaborative review frameworks, similar to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Global Joint Review (GJR) program. Concurrent evaluations by multiple regulatory authorities would foster trust, align scientific interpretations, and significantly reduce time-to-market. Furthermore, establishing a unified, fast-track global regulatory pathway specific to low-risk substances would encourage investment in the sustainable agriculture critical sector.
It is now the responsibility of the international community and global policymakers to elevate regulatory harmonization from a purely technical discussion to a matter of international trade diplomacy, ensuring that non-tariff barriers disguised as environmental regulations are scientifically dismantled. Only by removing these systemic bottlenecks can we ensure that sustainable innovation flows freely from the laboratory to the global farmer.
Also Read: Crystal Crop Protection and Corteva Sign Collaboration Agreement
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
