Canada’s seed industry has spent two decades building stewardship agreements, variety use agreements and royalty programs to support innovation. Now it’s asking a different question: what if managing them all became as seamless as using a single trusted platform?

The seed industry  has become remarkably good at solving individual problems.

When protecting the durability of midge tolerant wheat became a priority, the industry developed a stewardship agreement. As new intellectual property models emerged, the Variety Use Agreement (VUA) provided a way to support continued investment in plant breeding. Certified-only agreements, farm-saved seed royalty discussions and other compliance initiatives have followed, each created to address a specific need.

Individually, these programs work. Collectively, they’ve created something few people intentionally designed: a growing collection of digital platforms that often ask retailers, seed growers and farmers to enter much of the same information, just in slightly different ways.

Today, a retailer may complete one process for the VUA, another for the Midge Tolerant Wheat Stewardship Agreement, and still others for additional contracts or compliance programs. Each platform has its own interface, its own login and its own workflow. None are particularly difficult on their own, but together they create an administrative burden that consumes time, increases the risk of errors and pulls attention away from customers.

That growing complexity was the focus of our recent Retail Strategy webinar. Rather than discussing another stewardship program or another agreement, the panel explored a different idea: what if the seed industry built a single, trusted transaction platform where retailers and farmers could manage stewardship agreements, variety use agreements, royalties and future compliance programs in one place?

An Administrative Problem Built One Solution at a Time

One reason today’s administrative landscape feels fragmented is because it wasn’t designed all at once, notes SeCan’s western business manager, Todd Hyra. 

He points to the Midge Tolerant Wheat Stewardship Agreement, introduced roughly 16 years ago, as one of the industry’s earliest examples.

“It was paper, and so everybody thought during those days paper wasn’t so bad. Fax in your form, easy. But when you have thousands of forms being faxed in, and then you start adding in other platforms that require some administration, the logical step was to go to digital platforms.”

Each program naturally developed software that suited its own needs.

“The frustration for retailers and seed growers is real,” Hyra says. “They have to go to multiple places multiple times. They’re all similar but slightly different. Even think of password management for five, 10 or 12 different locations. It’s more awkward than it has to be, really.”

That awkwardness may sound minor, but multiplied across thousands of retailers and tens of thousands of transactions, it represents a significant investment of time. The issue isn’t that the programs themselves are flawed. It’s that they don’t talk to one another.

The Hidden Cost of Administrative Friction

Justin Funk of Agri Studies argues that conversations about a unified platform shouldn’t begin with technology. Instead, they should begin with workflow.

“The first thing that comes to mind is that it shouldn’t be about the technology. It’s about eliminating the friction with experience, with workflow.”

He notes that seed and agriculture in general, like many industries, has spent years digitizing processes without necessarily improving them.

“In some cases, we’re just digitizing already inefficient processes,” he said. “If we can find a way to get data that is otherwise entered multiple times into multiple systems by multiple people and reduce that friction, then I think there’s a huge opportunity.”

The payoff isn’t simply administrative efficiency.

“It’s going to free us up to do more productive, maybe more profitable things within our operation, and I think that goes for both the retailer, the seed company and the farmer as well.”

That extra time matters because administration isn’t what differentiates retailers. Customer relationships do.

“I don’t think a retailer necessarily wins business because they have an outstanding administrative process,” Funk says. “But they might lose it if they don’t.”

He points to a common frustration he hears from producers.

“One of the criticisms that we hear from farmers is that salespeople aren’t spending enough time at the farm gate level.”

Often, the problem isn’t a lack of commitment.

“When I talk to salespeople, sometimes the reason for that is they just don’t have enough time to do it.”

Every hour spent correcting contracts, chasing signatures or entering duplicate information is an hour not spent helping farmers make decisions about their crops.

Think Expedia, Not Amazon

The webinar’s title referenced an “Amazon moment” for seed retail, but the discussion ultimately landed on a different comparison. Funk believes the better analogy is Expedia or Booking.com.

“It’s all businesses being conducted through that unified platform,” he says.

Hotels continue competing against one another on Expedia. Airlines still compete on travel websites. Consumers simply benefit from one profile, one login and one familiar experience.

Another comparison is Shopify.

“Shopify has a network of retailers — some big, some small — that are using that as the interface for the online buying experience.”

These platforms also provide something today’s seed administration often lacks: visibility.

“You buy something, your order’s received. You get a shipping notification. You can follow where it’s going. We frankly don’t really even think about it anymore because it is so easy.”

That’s exactly the point. The best digital systems disappear into the background. Users simply accomplish what they came to do.

The Real Challenge Isn’t Software

Technology, however, isn’t what concerns retailers most.

Marc van Burck of van Burck Seeds has firsthand experience administering both the VUA and the Midge Tolerant Wheat Stewardship Agreement.

For him, the biggest questions aren’t technical.

“I think the more important question is who’s going to own this customer information. We don’t want to make this into a sales funnel for seed companies or retailers.”

That concern surfaced repeatedly throughout the discussion. A unified platform cannot succeed unless participants trust how information will be collected, stored and used.

Trust Begins With Explaining Why

Van Burck said retailers spend much of their time explaining stewardship programs before they ever administer them.

“Our customers want to know why these programs exist,” he says. “Why is there a VUA? Why is there a Midge Tolerant Wheat program?”

As the people sitting across the table from farmers, retailers become the face of those programs. He believes those conversations ultimately determine whether farmers trust the system.

Technology Should Strengthen Relationships, Not Replace Them

Kansas State University agricultural economist Terry Griffin offers an international perspective. Today’s ordering systems, inventory systems, contracts and agronomic recommendations often exist in separate databases.

“When those pieces aren’t connected, everyone is making decisions with only part of the picture,” Griffin says.

Connecting those systems could improve inventory management, logistics and customer service while helping retailers anticipate issues before they become problems. Still, Griffin cautions that digital transformation should never come at the expense of relationships.

“The goal isn’t to remove the retailer from the process,” he says. “It’s to remove the repetitive work, so retailers spend more time helping farmers make better decisions.”

What Success Could Look Like

If the industry succeeds, the biggest improvements may feel surprisingly ordinary. Retailers wouldn’t repeatedly create customer records. Farmers wouldn’t repeatedly update contact information. Instead, each customer would maintain one trusted profile that could work across participating stewardship and licensing programs.

Hyra envisions exactly that.

“I’d like to see a point where we get where the customer sees enough value in accessing technology that they are the ones keeping their account current.”

He even imagines a single grower identifier.

“Working from one grower number, for lack of a better term, that just identifies them rather than by a phone number or address or email.”

The benefits extend well beyond convenience. Accuracy improves when everyone works from the same information.

Industry Must Lead

When asked who should take the first step toward building such a platform, the panel’s answer was unanimous.

Industry.

“This is not something that can be driven by government,” Hyra says. “This is something that has to be driven by industry.”

He noted that both the Midge Tolerant Wheat Stewardship Agreement and the VUA platform were themselves created through industry collaboration.

“Even competitors can get together and work together for the good of the industry.”

Van Burck agrees, but warns that standing still carries its own risks.

“If we, as an industry, don’t do it, the government will do it for us.”

For him, collaboration isn’t simply desirable — it’s necessary.

“Our industry is in shift right now,” he says. “We have to put our differences aside to work together.”