Research on the Dynamic Evaluation of the Competitiveness of Listed Seed Enterprises in China

Abstract

Seed enterprises are crucial for ensuring national food security, the driving force behind the seed industry’s advancement, and the core entity in constructing a modern seed industry system. At the micro and macro levels, agricultural seed enterprises face challenges and pressures in earning excess profits, enhancing their competitive edge, and resisting the incursion of multinational seed enterprises. This article selects panel data from 49 listed seed enterprises in China from 2015 to 2022 and uses methods such as global principal component analysis (GPCA) and Q-type cluster analysis to measure and evaluate the competitiveness of Chinese seed enterprises. Research has found that: (1) From 2015 to 2022, the overall competitiveness of listed Chinese agricultural seed enterprises has shown an upward trend. The competitiveness of agricultural seed enterprises can be further decomposed into operational capabilities, growth capabilities, production efficiency, technological innovation capabilities, etc. (2) The top ten agricultural seed enterprises in China have obvious advantages in operational and technological innovation capabilities, but their growth capabilities and production efficiency are insufficient. (3) Regarding the vertical comparison of the seed industry, the ranking of the competitiveness of Chinese listed agricultural seed enterprises from strong to weak is wheat seed enterprises > other seed enterprises > melon and vegetable seed enterprises > corn seed enterprises > rice seed enterprises. (4) Compared with international seed industry giants, there are various reasons why China’s top agricultural seed enterprises have weaker competitiveness, specifically reflected in research and development investment, scale and market share, industrial layout, and other aspects. The findings of this research offer empirical evidence to bolster the competitiveness of seed enterprises and advance the seed industry, while also aiding in fortifying the nation’s strategic oversight of the seed sector, bearing profound implications for safeguarding food security.

1. Introduction

Currently, global agriculture is facing many challenges such as climate change and resource scarcity, leading to increased uncertainty in agricultural production. The agricultural sector is crucial for increasing food availability, food and nutrition security, etc. [1,2]; therefore, disruptions in the agricultural sector may threaten a country’s situation [3]. Agriculture is more vulnerable to economic uncertainty, climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia–Ukraine conflict, etc. [4], especially for developing countries. Seed enterprises are a key force in ensuring food security. By developing high-quality and stress-resistant seed varieties to adapt to complex and changing environments, they promote agricultural innovation and sustainable development, playing an irreplaceable supporting role in addressing economic, climate, and pandemic challenges. At the same time, the international seed industry giants are competing fiercely, and the competition for the market is intensifying. Due to China’s seed industry enterprises’ “more mountains and less peaks” and “more, small, scattered, weak” status quo, effective change has not been achieved [5], facing seed supply constraints and other risks. The competitiveness of China’s seed enterprises is likely to be at a disadvantage in international competition, thus posing a direct threat to the stability and sustainable development of China’s agriculture. At present, it is a crucial moment for the revitalization of the seed industry to shift from ‘laying the foundation within three years’ to ‘achieving results within five years’, thus making the role and importance of seed enterprises increasingly prominent. Therefore, evaluating and analyzing the competitive position of Chinese seed enterprises in the current new situation is of great significance for enhancing their position in the global market and ensuring national food security. On the one hand, by conducting an in-depth analysis of competitive factors, we can identify the disparities and strengths of Chinese seed enterprises, help them occupy a more advantageous position in international competition, and enhance their influence and voice in the global seed industry market. On the other hand, it is imperative to identify strategies that enhance the competitiveness of seed enterprises in order to provide higher quality and more adaptable seeds, ensure stable grain production and quality, and maintain national food security.

In recent years, the country has placed great emphasis on the development of the seed industry. In 2006, following a significant reform of the seed management system, the number of state-owned seed enterprises increased dramatically from 2700 to over 8000. In 2011, the ‘Opinions on Accelerating the Development of the Modern Crop Seed Industry’ advocated for ‘maintaining the dominant position of enterprises’. In 2013, the government proposed to strengthen the dominant position of enterprises in technological innovation, and the State Council introduced various policies to prioritize support for leading ‘integrated breeding and promotion’ enterprises in the seed industry. In 2021, with the promulgation and implementation of the new Seed Law, these policies and regulations demonstrated the country’s unprecedented emphasis on the development of the seed industry and its support for seed enterprises. The process of agricultural modernization is constantly advancing, making the demand for high-quality seeds increasingly urgent. Only by assessing and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of seed enterprises can we steer them in the right direction and fulfill the demands of modern agricultural development. Meanwhile, technological innovation in the seed industry is rapidly advancing, necessitating continuous enhancement of competitiveness among enterprises to align with the times and ensure that they remain current in the research and application of new technologies. Ensuring national food security and the supply of vital agricultural products constitutes a significant strategic imperative, with the competitiveness of seed enterprises serving as a pivotal factor in its realization. Therefore, from an industrial development perspective, only seed enterprises with strong competitiveness can drive the healthy development of the entire seed industry chain and establish a comprehensive agricultural industry system. Consequently, to gain a larger market share, seed enterprises must enhance their competitiveness.

The evaluation of enterprise competitiveness abroad has evolved from a macro to a micro perspective. Based on Porter’s theory of competitiveness, this study constructs a competitiveness index system according to the definition and determining factors of competitiveness, and explores ways to enhance agricultural added value, improve enterprise competitiveness, and increase competitive advantage [6,7]. A more authoritative evaluation of enterprise competitiveness is provided by the World Economic Forum [8], which adopts the index structure designed by Prof. Porter and compares the competitiveness of enterprises among different countries. With the in-depth research on the evaluation of enterprise competitiveness, some scholars began to explore and analyze it at the industry level. Halkos et al. [9] used the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method to assess the competitiveness of 50 companies in the information, communication, and technology (ICT) industry. Wang et al. [10] studied high-tech enterprises based on a fuzzy evaluation model. Veza et al. [11] analyzed industrial competitiveness using the Promethee method. Meanwhile, domestic evaluation of enterprise competitiveness has experienced an evolutionary process from theoretical research to empirical analysis of indicator systems. Jin Bei [12] established an enterprise competitiveness evaluation system encompassing both evaluation and analysis indicators. Liu Zhongmin et al. [13] constructed an indicator evaluation system, encompassing two perspectives: external and potential competitiveness. In conclusion, the theoretical study of the enterprise competitiveness index evaluation system provides the basis for empirical analysis, and many scholars have explored enterprise competitiveness from an industry perspective. He Wei et al. [14] used gray analysis to conduct a comparative study of three domestic express delivery enterprises. By combing the existing literature [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22], we find that most of the literature uses cross-sectional data [23,24] or analyzes individual companies, with few systematic studies on the dynamics of the competitiveness of different agribusinesses.

Based on this, we take Chinese listed seed enterprises as a research sample and use panel data from 2015–2022 to evaluate and analyze the competitiveness of seed enterprises. The marginal contributions of our research may be reflected in the following: ① Innovatively taking seed enterprises as the research object. Most related research focuses on evaluating the competitiveness of manufacturing and industrial enterprises, with very little dedicated to seed enterprises. Compared to manufacturing and other enterprises, seed enterprises are characterized by long research and development cycles and high risks. The quality and characteristics of seeds directly impact the success or failure of agricultural production and food security, playing a crucial supporting role at the source of the agricultural industry chain. ② Using global principal component analysis to evaluate the competitiveness of seed enterprises. This method overcomes the limitations of traditional principal component analysis, which cannot evaluate and compare different time points of the same sample, and can comprehensively consider multiple related variables. By integrating and refining a large amount of data, it identifies key principal components affecting competitiveness, offering a clear quantitative basis for seed enterprises to identify their strengths and weaknesses. ③ Employing a combination of vertical and horizontal analysis perspectives to compare and analyze the competitiveness of seed enterprises in China. From a longitudinal perspective, it compares and analyzes the competitive position of seed enterprises based on industry heterogeneity. For the crop industry, we comprehensively analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different seed enterprises and provide a basis for the optimal allocation of industry resources. We also provide a comparative analysis of the competitiveness of Chinese seed enterprises and multinational seed giants from a horizontal perspective. We summarize the competitiveness of multinational seed giants and discuss the causes of the weak competitiveness of China’s seed enterprises.

2. Research Design

2.1. Indicator System Construction

This paper strictly follows the principles of objectivity, systematicity, and accessibility when constructing the competitiveness indicators of seed enterprises. First, the principle of objectivity means that the selected indicators should be able to truly and accurately reflect the actual competitive status of seed enterprises, and the definitions and measurement standards of the indicators should be clear and unambiguous. Second, according to the principle of systematicity, the indicator system should comprehensively cover all important aspects of the competitiveness of seed enterprises, and each indicator should be interrelated and complementary to each other to form an organic whole. Third, the principle of accessibility means that the data from the selected indicators should be easy to obtain and quantify. We should give full consideration to the feasibility and difficulty of data collection and try to select those indicators for which accurate data can be obtained through regular channels, statistical reports, public information, and other means. If some indicators are important but difficult to obtain reliable data for, then we need to consider them carefully or look for alternative indicators so as to ensure that the competitiveness indicator system constructed has practical applicability and application value.

There are many methods to measure a company’s competitiveness, including single indicators such as return on assets and Tobin’s Q ratio, or purely financial systems. Among them, the “China Enterprise Competitiveness Monitoring System” proposed by Jin Bei [12] has had the most significant impact on the competitiveness of enterprises. This method integrates three evaluation factors of enterprise competitiveness (scale factor, efficiency factor, and growth factor) and incorporates them into the index system. Jin Bei [12] categorized the indicators of enterprise competitiveness into evaluation indicators and analysis indicators. Evaluation indicators, especially display evaluation indicators, reflect the results of competitiveness or the final performance of competitiveness, while analytical indicators reflect the drivers or determinants of competitiveness. It is under the guidance of this idea that we first divided enterprise competitiveness into two first-level indicators, explicit competitiveness and potential competitiveness, according to “result-oriented” and “cause-oriented” competitiveness. Secondly, we selected scale strength and efficiency strength as the second-level indicators of explicit competitiveness, and operation ability and technology innovation ability as the second-level indicators of potential competitiveness of seed enterprises, which include 13 third-level indicators in total.

2.1.1. Scale Strength

Scale strength can be used as an important indicator to measure the explicit competitiveness of enterprises. The scale strength of seed enterprises includes operating revenue, enterprise scale, and net assets. First of all, operating revenue is related to the normal production and operation activities of seed enterprises, which is an important reflection of the market share of seed enterprises. Only when operating revenue can fully meet the needs of enterprise operations can it further expand the market share of seed enterprises. Secondly, the enterprise scale refers to the size of the total assets of the seed enterprise. When the seed enterprise can own or control more economic resources, it can bring more economic benefits to the seed enterprise. Furthermore, taking into account the reality of the seed enterprise’s sustainable and smooth development needs, we used net assets as a measure of the scale strength of the seed enterprise. The higher the net assets, the stronger the enterprise’s scale capacity for achieving organic growth. Among them, the data on operating revenue, enterprise size, and net asset indicators are taken directly from the financial statements of enterprises.

2.1.2. Benefit Strength

The benefit strength of a seed enterprise consists of the profitability of net assets, profitability of total assets, product profitability, output per employee, and the ability to sustainably grow benefits [25,26]. The return on equity represents the profitability of net assets, which is the core of the enterprise’s benefit capacity, reflecting the profitability of seed enterprises using capital operations. The return on total assets (ROTA) reflects the profitability of total assets. The higher the return on total assets, the more efficiently seed enterprises are utilizing their assets. The gross profit margin represents the profitability of a product. The higher the gross profit margin, the greater the competitive advantage of seed enterprises in terms of resources, technology, or labor productivity. Output per employee is one of the key performance indicators of seed enterprises’ profitability. The higher the output per employee, the better the quality of seed enterprises’ benefits. Moreover, the benefit strength of seed enterprises is not only demonstrated by their current operating performance and profitability but also by their capacity for sustainable profitable growth. Consequently, the year-on-year growth rate of basic earnings per share is considered one of the key indicators for measuring the benefit strength of seed enterprises.

Thereinto, Return on Equity (ROE) = net profit/average net assets, Return on Total Assets (ROTA) = net profit of the enterprise/average total assets, Gross Profit Margin (GPM) = (sales revenue − sales cost) ÷ sales revenue, output per employee = operating revenue/average number of employees, and year-over-year growth rate of basic earnings per share = (basic earnings per share of the current period − basic earnings per share of the previous period)/basic earnings per share of the previous period.

2.1.3. Operational Capacity

There is an indirect effect of operating capacity on the competitiveness of seed enterprises, which is one of the measures of potential competitiveness [27,28]. This study shows that total asset turnover positively affects the competitiveness of seed enterprises. When the total asset turnover is higher, it reflects the stronger operating capacity of the overall assets of the seed enterprise and the stronger potential competitiveness of the seed enterprise. On this basis, we further analyze the terms of each key component. The higher the current asset turnover rate, the stronger the ability of the seed enterprise’s short-term assets to create operating income, indicating that the efficiency of the seed enterprise’s current assets is higher. Inventory turnover is one of the seed industry’s most important indicators of risk and competitiveness, and the specificity of the seed industry means that the seed assets are not only reflected in the book assets but are also included in the inventory. Information such as the inventories stored by seed companies, as well as seed companies’ three-year rolling plans and asset impairment losses, can be reflected retrospectively through the inventory turnover ratio. The higher the inventory turnover ratio, the faster the seed company’s product turnover is and the more competitive the enterprise is in the market.

Specifically, total asset turnover = net operating income/average total assets, current asset turnover = main business income/average balance of current assets, and inventory turnover = cost of sales/average inventory balance.

2.1.4. Technological Innovation Capability

Existing studies [29,30,31,32,33,34,35] show that technological innovation capacity has a positive effect on improving the competitiveness of seed enterprises. Whether it is public welfare research, applied research, or basic and applied research, technological innovation investment includes R&D capital investment and R&D human resources investment. R&D capital investment is an important guarantee for the improvement of technological innovation ability. Under the new economic normal, the focus of scientific and technological activities of seed enterprises is to continuously increase investment in R&D capital. At the same time, only sufficient R&D manpower investment can ensure the quality improvement of seed enterprises’ technological innovation ability. Therefore, the higher the R&D capital investment and R&D manpower investment, the more importance seed enterprises attach to innovation and R&D activities and the more helpful they are to their competitiveness. The data on R&D capital investment and R&D human resources investment indicators are obtained from the financial statements of seed industry enterprises. The specific evaluation index system is shown in

Table 1. Competitiveness Evaluation Index System of Listed Seed Enterprises in China.

Overall Target	Level 1 Indicators	Secondary Indicators	Tertiary Indicators	Indicator Code
Competitiveness of listed seed enterprises	Explicit Competitiveness	Scale Strength	Revenues	x1
			Enterprise scale	x2
			Net assets	x3
		Benefits Strength	Return on net assets	x4
			Return on total assets	x5
			Gross profit margin	x6
			Output per employee	x7
			Year-on-year growth in basic earnings per share	x8
	Potential Competitiveness	Operating Capacity	Total asset turnover	x9
			Current asset turnover ratio	x10
			Inventory turnover	x11
		Technological Innovation Capacity	R&D capital investment	x12
			R&D labor investment	x13

Note: The indicators presented in this table are the result of a redundancy correlation analysis that eliminated indicators with high correlation.

.

2.2. Research Methodology and Sample Selection

2.2.1. Global Principal Component Analysis

Principal Component Analysis, abbreviated as PCA, is a method for cross-sectional data that attributes multiple variable indicators with overlapping information to a few uncorrelated principal component indicators after linear transformation, preserving the original information to a great extent [36,37]. However, it cannot realize the evaluation and comparative analysis of different time points of the same sample. Therefore, related scholars [38] proposed the global principal component analysis method on this basis to solve such problems. Global Principal Component Analysis (GPCA) incorporates time series into principal component analysis. By integrating planar data tables from different time points into a unified three-dimensional time series data matrix, it employs classical principal component analysis to ensure the unity, comprehensiveness, and comparability of data analysis. Based on a review of existing research in related fields, this article draws on Liu et al.’s [39] application of GPCA to competitiveness research, and also refers to Yu, J, Abdi, H, and Kong, X.B et al.’s [40,41,42] explanations of the model analysis steps for Principal Component Analysis and Global Principal Component Analysis. This article selects GPCA to evaluate the competitiveness of Chinese listed seed enterprises. The specific method is:

① Establish a three-dimensional time-series data table: Assuming there are m enterprises and p identical competitiveness indicator variables, the observable raw data variables are X¹, X² … X_m. Establish a data table for year t, denoted as X^t = (X_ij)_m×p. Observing it at T time points will result in T data tables, namely the three-dimensional time-series data tables. Arrange these tables in sequence to form a large matrix of Tm × p, which is defined as the comprehensive data table for the analysis, denoted as:

$$X=(X^1,X^2,\dots ,X^t){\prime }_{Tm\times p}={(X_{ij})}_{Tm\times p}$$

(1)

Among them, each row of the matrix represents a sample, which is then subjected to principal component analysis.

② Data standardization: Dimensionality reduction of the raw data to produce standardized values:

$${X^{\prime }}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{X_{ij}-\overline{X_j}}{{\sigma }_j}}$$

(2)

③ Compute the global covariance matrix:

$$V={(S_{jk})}_{p\times p}={\displaystyle {\sum }_{t=1}^T{\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^n{q_i}^t({e_i}^t-}}g){({e_i}^t-g)}^{\prime }$$

(3)

④ Calculate the eigenvectors, principal components, and contribution rates of the equation:

$$a_k={\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_i}{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^p{\lambda }_i}}};a_1+a_2+\dots a_n={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^m{\lambda }_i}}{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^p{\lambda }_i}}}$$

(4)

⑤ Perform a global principal component analysis on standardized variables to select principal components and calculate indicator weights:

$$W={\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^P\frac{a_{\mathrm{n}i}\times a_i}{p}}$$

(5)

⑥ Construct a comprehensive evaluation score function and utilize the derived principal components to conduct classification or evaluation studies on the samples:

$$F={\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^m\frac{{\lambda }_i}{q}}\times f_i$$

(6)

⑦ In this paper, the various principal components and competitiveness scores of listed seed enterprises in 2015–2022 are standardized according to Formulas (1)–(7) to visualize the size of enterprise scores, where Gij is the standardized value, i represents a certain enterprise, j represents a certain component, Sij is the value of a certain component of a certain enterprise, max(Sj) corresponds to the maximum value in the component, and min(Sj) is the minimum value. In order to avoid the impact of data fluctuations in individual years of seed enterprises and increase the reliability of the competitiveness ranking, this paper uses Equations (1)–(8) to calculate the average value of each competency and competitiveness score of an enterprise in 2015–2022, where Gij represents the average score of component j of enterprise i in 2015–2022, t represents the year, max(Gij) is the maximum value of the score in component j of enterprise i in 2015–2022, and min(Sj) is the minimum value.

$$Gij={\displaystyle \frac{Sij-\min (Sj)}{\max (Sj)-\min (Sj)}}\times 10$$

(7)

$$\overline{Gij}={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{t=2015}^{2022}Gtij-\max (Gij)-\min (Gij)}}{4}}$$

(8)

2.2.2. Cluster Analysis

Cluster Analysis is a method of analyzing data by grouping it into multiple classes, with a high degree of similarity between objects within the same class and large differences between objects in different classes. In order to further systematically analyze the actual situation of the competitiveness of listed seed enterprises in China, Q-type cluster analysis is applied to classify listed seed enterprises into four types for research.

2.2.3. Sample Selection and Data Source

Based on the agricultural enterprise sector in the Wind database, out of the key enterprises in the China seed industry credit released by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs from 2016 to 2021, and the 69 leading enterprises in the crop seed industry announced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in 2022, 49 representative listed seed enterprises were finally selected. Taking 2011–2022 as the research period, samples with missing data were excluded. Finally, the listed seed enterprises with relatively comprehensive index data from 2015 to 2022 were selected to evaluate and analyze their competitiveness. The financial data of listed seed enterprises come from the CSMAR database, Wind database, and Choice financial terminal, and some data related to innovation indicators come from the China National Research Data Service Platform (CNRDS). All other data were manually collected by the author from corporate annual reports and public sources.

3. Evaluation and Classification of the Competitiveness of Listed Seed Enterprises

3.1. Descriptive Statistics Analysis

Table 2. Descriptive statistical analysis of the main variables.

Secondary Indicator Variables	Third-Level Indicator Variables	Mean	S.D.	Min	p50	Max
Scale Strength	Revenues	12.39	34.28	0.0184	1.773	324.0
	Enterprise size	17.75	37.22	0.0849	3.514	311.7
	Net assets	9.911	20.23	−0.0216	1.868	130.4
Benefits Strength	Return on net assets	7.961	16.69	−98.30	7.415	91.44
	Net interest rate on total assets	5.379	9.195	−26.32	4.129	62.40
	Gross sales margin	28.89	16.67	−32.92	27.88	85.86
	Output per employee	0.0142	0.0131	0	0.0113	0.109
	Year-on-year growth in basic earnings per share	−38.90	69.82	−96	5.882	41.50
Operating Capacity	Total asset turnover	0.635	0.387	0.0299	0.543	3.113
	Current asset turnover ratio	1.071	0.636	0.0657	0.933	4.522
	Inventory turnover	2.290	3.061	0.208	1.538	40.94
Technological Innovation Capacity	R&D capital investment	4.410	4.764	0.0300	3.725	55.02
	R&D labor investment	11.94	7.716	0.0917	12.73	30.52

presents the descriptive statistics results for the main variables. In terms of scale strength, the operating revenue of Chinese listed seed enterprises is obviously polarized, with the maximum value of operating revenue reaching CNY 32.4 billion while the minimum value is only CNY 1.84 million and the average value is CNY 1.239 billion. The difference in the scale of seed enterprises is obvious and fluctuates greatly. The asset scale of large seed enterprises exceeds CNY 31.1 billion, and the asset scale of small seed enterprises is CNY 8.49 million, with a standard deviation of 37.22. In terms of net assets, except for one seed enterprise facing insolvency, the asset quality of the other seed enterprises is better; however, the difference in net assets is still great, with the maximum value of net assets reaching CNY 13.04 billion, with a median of CNY 186.8 billion yuan.

In terms of benefit strength, from the perspective of enterprise financial management, the fluctuation and undulation of return on net assets, return on total assets, and gross profit rate on sales of different listed seed enterprises are relatively normal; it is worth noting that the output per employee of listed seed enterprises basically does not differ much, with a mean value of 0.0142 and a median value of 0.0113, which indicates that the output per employee value of China’s listed seed enterprises is basically fixed at the present time. The year-on-year growth rate of basic earnings per share has a mean value of −38.9%, a maximum value of 69.82%, and a minimum value of −96%, indicating that the short-term profitability of seed enterprises is unstable and volatile.

In terms of operating capacity, for general enterprises, a total asset turnover ratio between 0.8 and 1 is more appropriate. The total asset turnover ratios of listed seed enterprises in China range from 0.5 to 6, reflecting the lack of efficiency in the utilization of assets of seed enterprises, and there is still room for improvement in the quality of asset management and utilization efficiency. The current asset turnover ratio and inventory turnover ratio of seed enterprises are both higher, especially the inventory turnover ratio with an average value of 2.290, which is related to the special characteristics of the seed industry. Firstly, because of the cyclical nature of crop seed sales, seed enterprises receive more advance payments from customers before they are sold, which effectively reduces the cost required for the enterprise’s inventory turnover. Secondly, as a special commodity, seeds and the relationship between suppliers and sellers are generally more solid, adopting the model of production based on sales to ensure that there is no overproduction of seeds, thus reducing the inventory.

In terms of technological innovation capability, the average value of R&D capital investment is 4.41%. Compared with multinational seed enterprises, the gap between the R&D capital investments of Chinese listed seed enterprises is obvious. The R&D investment of European and American multinational seed enterprises is generally around 10%, such as Bayer Group’s R&D investment as a percentage of operating revenue, which was greater than 10% in 2017–2021 (Data source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.). The number of R&D personnel of listed seed enterprises in China accounts for 11.94%, a value that still falls short of the R&D manpower of seed enterprises in developed countries in the seed industry.

3.2. Global Principal Component Analysis

3.2.1. Applicability Analysis

First, the applicability of a sample of 49 listed seed enterprises was tested using SPSS software (20.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The feasibility of Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the KMO test was analyzed, with the KMO statistic being 0.662. The approximate chi-square value of Bartlett’s test was 1558.519, with a significance (Sig) of 0.000, which is less than 0.01. This indicates a strong correlation among the indicators, making them suitable for global principal component analysis. The results of this analysis are shown in

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett test.

Test Methods	Indicator Variables	Results
KMO test	KMO statistic	0.662
Bartlett’s test	approximate chi-square (math.)	1558.519
	Df	78
	Sig	0.000

.

3.2.2. Principal Component Extraction

Secondly, principal components are extracted based on eigenvalue size and variance cumulative contribution rate. Four principal components are selected based on the criterion that the eigenvalue should be greater than 1. The cumulative contribution rate of these four principal components is 83.425% (

Table 4. Eigenvalues and contribution of global principal component analysis.

Principal Component	Eigenvalue (Math.)	Contribution (%)	Cumulative Contribution (%)
F1	4.357	33.515	33.515
F2	2.968	22.833	56.348
F3	2.077	15.976	72.325
F4	1.443	11.1	83.425

), exceeding 80%. This suggests that the extracted four principal components capture 83.425% of the information content of the original 13 indicators, effectively representing the information of the original 13 indicators and demonstrating strong representativeness. The results of the test are shown in Table 4.

3.2.3. Principal Component Naming

Table 5. Factor loading matrix.

Principal Component Name	Variables	F1	F2	F3	F4
operational capability	Current asset turnover ratio	0.893	−0.011	0.244	−0.016
	Revenues	0.856	0.133	−0.362	0.195
	Total asset turnover	0.836	−0.048	0.469	0.056
	Inventory turnover	0.738	−0.184	0.182	−0.011
	net assets	0.718	0.306	−0.572	0.123
	asset size	0.714	0.216	−0.591	0.226
growth capacity	Net interest rate on total assets	0.108	0.894	0.244	−0.219
	return on net assets	0.113	0.884	0.297	−0.131
	Gross sales margin	−0.335	0.74	−0.227	−0.2
	Year-on-year growth in basic earnings per share	0.087	0.643	0.38	−0.019
production efficiency	Output per employee	0.262	−0.195	0.7	0.439
Technological innovation capacity	R&D labor intensity	−0.344	0.306	0.231	0.766
	R&D capital investment intensity	−0.476	0.316	−0.262	0.671

reports the factor loading matrix and factor extraction, reflecting the extent to which the four public factors explain each of the raw indicators. The component loading matrix clarifies the meaning of each principal component. The first principal component consists of large loadings on current asset turnover, operating revenue, total asset turnover, inventory turnover, net assets, and asset size, which highlight the overall operational strength of the company, and thus it is named operational capability (F1). The second principal component has a large loading on the rate of total asset margin, return on net assets, gross profit margin on sales, and on the year-on-year growth of basic earnings per share, which contain both profitability and value growth indicators, and thus it is named growth capacity (F2). The third principal component has a large loading on the output per employee, which reflects the full labor efficiency of the enterprise, so it is named production efficiency (F3). The fourth principal component has a large load on R&D manpower investment intensity and R&D capital investment intensity, so we name it technological innovation capability (F4).

3.2.4. Principal Component Scores and Ranking

According to the four principal components extracted to evaluate a comparison of the competitiveness of listed seed enterprises from the aspects of operation capability, growth capability, production efficiency, and technological innovation capability, respectively, the regression method is applied to calculate the relevant scores (according to

Table 6. Matrix of coefficients of principal component scores.

Indicator	F1	F2	F3	F4
Current asset turnover ratio	0.205	−0.004	0.118	−0.011
revenues	0.197	0.045	−0.175	0.135
Total asset turnover	0.192	−0.016	0.226	0.039
Inventory turnover	0.169	−0.062	0.088	−0.007
net assets	0.165	0.103	−0.275	0.086
asset size	0.164	0.073	−0.284	0.156
Net interest rate on total assets	0.025	0.301	0.118	−0.152
return on net assets	0.026	0.298	0.143	−0.091
Gross sales margin	−0.077	0.249	−0.109	−0.139
Year-on-year growth in basic earnings per share	0.02	0.217	0.183	−0.013
Output per employee	0.06	−0.066	0.337	0.304
R&D labor intensity	−0.079	0.103	0.111	0.531
R&D capital investment intensity	−0.476	0.316	−0.262	0.671

). The four ability score functions are calculated as follows: F1 = 0.205 X1 + 0.197 X2 + 0.192 X3 + 0.169 X4 + 0.165 X5 + 0.164 X6 + 0.025 X7 + 0.026 X8 − 0.077 X9 + 0.02 X10 + 0.06 X11 − 0.079 X12 − 0.476, F2, F3, and F4 are calculated similarly, and the competitiveness scores of seed enterprises are derived according to Table 6.

Based on the order of average scores, the top 10 listed seed enterprises are ranked based on competitiveness. The results of the ranking of the competitiveness scores of seed enterprises are shown in

Table 7. Scores of the top 10 firms in terms of capability and firm competitiveness.

Rankings	Operational Capability		Growth Capacity		Production Efficiency		Technological Innovation Capacity		Enterprise Competitiveness
	Corporations	F1 Score	Corporations	F2 Score	Corporations	F3 Score	Corporations	F4 Score	Corporations	F Score
1	A1	10.36	B1	2.2	C1	3.86	D1	3.72	E1	3.88
2	A2	4.7	B2	1.79	C2	2.29	D2	2.01	E2	2.09
3	A3	3.64	B3	1.73	C3	0.83	D3	1.63	E3	1.56
4	A4	3.42	B4	1.01	C4	0.53	D4	1.46	E4	1.34
5	A5	1.99	B5	1	C5	0.11	D5	0.86	E5	1.08
6	A6	1.51	B6	0.61	C6	−1.07	D6	0.53	E6	0.82
7	A7	1.04	B7	0.57	C7	−2.13	D7	0.26	E7	0.7
8	A8	1.01	B8	−0.03	C8	−2.76	D8	0.06	E8	0.56
9	A9	0.58	B9	−0.05	C9	−3.79	D9	−1.18	E9	0.45
10	A10	−0.3	B10	−1.52	C10	−6.54	D10	−1.2	E10	0.17

.

3.3. Cluster Analysis

In order to systematically analyze the competitiveness of listed seed enterprises in China, on the basis of global principal component analysis, 49 listed seed enterprises were taken as samples with seed enterprise competitiveness scores as variables, and Q-type cluster analysis was performed. Firstly, standardize or normalize the result data of global principal component analysis to eliminate the impact of dimensional differences on the analysis results. Secondly, choose a similarity measurement method. In this article, the squared Euclidean distance is used for sample distance, while the average inter-group distance is used for inter-class distance. Thirdly, determine the clustering method. The hierarchical clustering method is employed for calculations, treating each data point as an individual class and selecting a distance measurement method. This article utilizes Euclidean distance and average inter-group distance to calculate the distance between each class. Based on the selected measurement method, calculate the distance or similarity between samples, and then gradually merge classes according to the principle of closest distance. Fourth, repeat the above steps until the termination condition is reached: no further changes occur in the distance between classes and the predetermined number of iterations is reached. According to the clustering analysis results, listed Chinese seed enterprises can be divided into four types. The classification results show that the distribution of listed seed enterprises is in the shape of a pyramid, with fewer seed enterprises in the upper layer and more seed enterprises in the lower layer, as shown in

Table 8. Classification of listed seed enterprises.

Type of Seed Enterprise	Number of Seed Enterprises	Name of the Seed Company
Type I	2	F1 and F2
Type II	6	F3–F8
Type III	19	F9–F27 and 19 other seed enterprises
Type IV	22	F28–49 and 22 other seed enterprises

. Table 8 shows that the first type of seed enterprises are ones with the highest enterprise competitiveness scores, with higher operational capacity, growth capacity, productivity, and technological innovation, and that this type of enterprise is a balanced development enterprise; the second type of seed enterprises are enterprises with high enterprise competitiveness scores, with high operational capacity and growth capacity and average production efficiency and technological innovation capacity, and such enterprises have high operational capacity and high growth capacity; the third type of seed enterprises are enterprises with average enterprise competitiveness scores, with high technological innovation capacity and average operational capacity, growth capacity, and production efficiency, and such enterprises are innovation-driven enterprises; the fourth type of seed enterprises are enterprises with low enterprise competitiveness scores and weak operational capacity, growth capacity, production efficiency, and technological innovation capacity, and such enterprises are potential growth enterprises.

4. A Vertical and Horizontal Comparative Analysis of the Competitiveness of Listed Seed Enterprises

4.1. Comparison of the Dynamic Competitiveness of Seed Enterprises

From 2015 to 2022, the competitiveness level of China’s listed seed enterprises is generally on an upward trend. As shown in Figure 1, the competitiveness of all four sub-dimensions is gradually increasing, indicating that the seed industry has broad market prospects. In terms of operational capability, the listed seed enterprises score the highest and rise much higher than other competitive enterprises. F2, which has strong operational capability, has carried out an industrial layout through financing and mergers and acquisitions, and its operating income has increased from CNY 1.552 billion in 2011 to CNY 3.689 billion in 2022; its asset size has increased from CNY 2.979 billion in 2011 to CNY 14.605 billion in 2022, which is a four-fold increase in 12 years. It shows that the operational capacity of seed enterprises grows faster compared to other competitiveness enhancements, mainly from the natural advantages of seed enterprises in operational capacity and efficiency strength enhancement, and through the listed seed enterprises’ own strengths and operational means. F2 has implemented differentiated operational methods for various seed industries, gradually achieving the goals of sustained stability in the rice seed industry, rapid growth in the corn seed industry, steady growth in the vegetable seed industry, rapid expansion in the wheat industry, and high market share in the sunflower and millet industries.

The growth capability of listed seed enterprises exhibits a wavy pattern, indicating that the market competitiveness of Chinese seed products still requires further enhancement. Seed enterprises should focus on improving product quality and increasing customer loyalty. Among the top ten seed enterprises ranked by competitiveness scores, F2, F3, F12, F13, and F30 are the comparative benchmarking enterprises in the industry when preparing financial statements for listed seed enterprises (this information is based on research conducted on these enterprises). The overall resource scale and operating conditions of these seed enterprises vary significantly and are quite representative.

The base score for the production efficiency of listed seed enterprises is relatively low with significant fluctuations, primarily due to the large relative fluctuations between operating income and the number of employees. Poor operating income or an increase in the number of employees will both result in a decrease in production efficiency. For example, F3, which has a high level of production efficiency, increased its operating income from CNY 1.254 billion in 2011 to CNY 5.248 billion in 2022. When normalized to per capita output, the per capita output of employees increased from CNY 4.48 million in 2011 to CNY 4.75 million in 2022, with a much lower growth rate than that of operating income. Due to the involvement of various factors such as salary management, personal performance, and job interest in employee turnover, the trend of production efficiency in seed enterprises is characterized by instability and significant fluctuations.

The technological innovation capability of seed enterprises is on an upwards trajectory. The main reason is that seed enterprises that meet the listing standards are placing increasing emphasis on R&D and innovation. F1, F3, F12, and F30, all of which possess robust technological innovation capabilities, have gradually increased their investments in R&D capital. For instance, F1’s R&D capital investment has soared from CNY 37.34 million to CNY 747 million in 2022, marking a 20-fold expansion; similarly, F30’s R&D capital investment has increased from CNY 16.03 million in 2012 to CNY 114 million in 2022, representing a more than sevenfold surge. These seed enterprises, with their strong innovation capabilities, have embraced scientific research and innovation as the cornerstone of their establishment, encompassing aspects such as breeding conditions, breeding cycles, breeding procedures, and variety ownership, and they fully leverage various internal and external resources to establish an innovative breeding system with the company at its core.

4.2. Comparison of the Static Competitiveness of Seed Enterprises

In order to accurately and timely assess the competitiveness of China’s listed seed enterprises, the latest year of annual reports with disclosures of listed enterprises, 2022, is selected as the representative year. The competitiveness scores of the top ten listed seed enterprises are calculated for comparative analysis. The analysis results are shown in

Table 9. Scores of the top 10 firms in each capacity and firm competitiveness, 2022.

Seed Enterprises	Operational Capability	Growth Capacity	Production Efficiency	Technological Innovation Capacity	Enterprise Competitiveness
G1	1.99	−1.52	3.86	1.63	1.34
G2	1.85	−0.73	0.73	0.96	0.81
G3	0.69	−0.63	−4.2	2.6	−0.35
G4	−0.41	0.74	−0.98	1.03	−0.01
G5	1.01	0.57	0.11	0.86	0.7
G6	3.64	−0.03	2.29	1.46	2.09
G7	4.7	0.61	−2.76	0.26	1.56
G8	−0.33	0.46	−0.18	−0.85	−0.15
G9	10.36	1.73	−6.54	3.72	3.88
G10	3.42	1	−2.13	−1.18	1.08

. Overall, as of 2022, among the various capabilities that constitute the competitiveness of China’s top ten listed seed enterprises, operational capabilities and technological innovation capabilities score higher, with fewer negative scores. Operational capabilities primarily encompass a company’s scale and operational efficiency. Technological innovation capabilities primarily refer to the intensity of R&D investment, which includes both capital and personnel inputs. The higher scores in operational and technological innovation capabilities indicate that China’s listed seed enterprises possess comprehensive hardware resources. This further suggests that, to date, seed enterprises eligible for or meeting listing standards generally possess strong innovation capabilities and a strong willingness to innovate.

In contrast, the growth capacity and productivity of listed seed enterprises score lower. The growth capacity of listed seed enterprises mainly includes profitability measured by profit indicators and the year-on-year growth rate of basic earnings per share, which reflects the growth of enterprise value, while production efficiency mainly refers to the output per employee. Currently, the growth capacity of G1 is low, with the return on total assets decreasing from 26.15% in 2013 to 2.68% in 2022, the return on net assets decreasing from 39.49% in 2013 to 9.71% in 2022, and the gross profit margin on sales decreasing from 58.96% in 2013 to 5.99% in 2022. However, the asset size and invested capital have increased significantly. Asset size rose from CNY 33.74 million in 2013 to CNY 776 million in 2022, indicating that, as of 2022, the inputs and outputs of G1 are relatively low. In 2022, the productivity score of G8 was low, and the output per employee was CNY 675,100, which is a significant decline compared with the previous year (the output per employee in 2017 was CNY 864,900). The seed industry has a long research and development cycle, slow capital turnover, and the need for continuous investment of funds. If the seed enterprise does not focus on production efficiency and actual output for profitability and does not have financial results and efficiency strength as the business objectives, the economic consequences of input and output will not be proportional to each other, which will inhibit the sustainable growth of the seed enterprise in the long run.

4.3. Industry Heterogeneity of Seed Enterprises’ Competitiveness

4.3.1. Criteria for Classifying Industry Differences in Seed Enterprises

Heterogeneous resources are an essential part of a firm’s competitive advantage [43]. Based on industry heterogeneity, this study divides Chinese listed seed enterprises into corn seed enterprises, rice seed enterprises, wheat seed enterprises, melon and vegetable seed enterprises, and other seed enterprises (including seed enterprises of flowers, cotton, and other crops). The screening criteria are mainly based on the “business scope” and “main business” in the annual report of the seed enterprises, taking corn seed enterprises as an example. Firstly, “Corn seed industry” was the keyword used for the initial screening. Secondly, according to the seed sub-sector operating income ratio, as well as the current year’s new approved varieties, varieties participated in the test to determine the scope of corn seed enterprises. Then, according to our preliminary research on the seed enterprise, to understand the seed enterprise’s target competitor enterprises, the financial statements of the benchmark enterprise, etc., were analyzed. Finally, we determined the corn seed enterprise research object.

Specifically, in the case of F2, business operating income relating to corn seeds accounted for 35.7% of total operating revenue (Table 8). In the case of F3, business operating income relating to corn seeds accounted for 27.61% of total operating revenue. F12’s 2022 annual report did not have a crop seed sub-segment for operating revenue share, however, this can be inferred from the number of new validated varieties and varieties of parameter data, which allow us to divide and identify the revenue from corn seed enterprises. In the case of F13, revenue from corn seeds accounted for 88.6% of total operating revenue. In the case of F14, business operating income relating to corn seeds accounted for 35.9% of total operating revenue. The basis for the division of rice seed enterprises, wheat seed enterprises, and melon seed enterprises is the same as above. Seed enterprises of other crops, such as flowers and cotton, are classified as “other seed enterprises”. Among the 49 listed seed enterprises, 16 corn seed enterprises such as Long Ping High-Tech (Changsha City, Hunan Province, China), SDDSC (ShanDong Denghai Seeds Co., Ltd. Laizhou City, China) and Anhui Winall Hi-Tech Seed Co., Ltd. (Hefei City, China), five rice seed enterprises such as Hubei Zhongxiang Agricultural Science and Technology Co., Ltd (Wuhan City, China). and Jiangxi Hong YI Seed Tech. Co., Ltd. (Ganzhou City, China), five wheat seed enterprises such as Shaanxi Datang Seed Industry Co., Ltd (Tongchuan City, China). and Zhongnongfa Seed Industry Group Co., Ltd (ZSIG, Beijing, China), six melon and vegetable seed enterprises such as Zhejiang Mitsuo Seed Co., Ltd. (Jiaxing City, China) and Hebei Shuangxing Seeds Co., Ltd. (Shijiazhuang City, China), as well as 17 other seed enterprises, were finally identified.

4.3.2. Comparison of Seed Enterprises’ Competitiveness

According to the types of crops, a comparative analysis of the competitiveness of seed enterprises was conducted based on industry differences, and the results of the analysis are shown in Figure 2. Overall, the competitiveness ranking of seed enterprises is wheat seed enterprises > other seed enterprises > melon and vegetable seed enterprises > corn seed enterprises > rice seed enterprises. Each type of crop seed enterprise has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Corn seed enterprise competitiveness is generally weaker, operational capacity, growth capacity, and production efficiency are relatively low, and technological innovation capacity in China among similar crop seed enterprises is in a more advantageous position. The reason for the weak operational capacity may lie in the fact that, firstly, the competition in the corn seed market is fierce, and seed enterprises lack effective strategies and inputs in marketing and channel construction. The second reason is that seed enterprises have deficiencies in supply chain management, resource deployment, and other aspects. The main reason for the lower growth capacity is limited by fluctuations in the corn planting area, policy adjustments, such as the “market-based acquisition + subsidies” policy, the “Separation of price and subsidy” policy, and other policies to further deepen the degree of marketization of the corn seed industry. The relatively low production efficiency mainly stems from the low level of mechanization of key aspects of maize in China, as well as relatively backward production technology and techniques. The standardization and normalization of seed production are not high enough, failing to make full use of advanced production equipment and management modes, such as the low application rate of mechanical maize grain-harvesting technology, which is the bottleneck that restricts China’s maize from achieving full mechanization [44]. The main reason for the advantageous but weak overall competitiveness of technological innovation capacity lies in the fact that the output benefits of R&D inputs may not be fully realized, and R&D results are not closely integrated with market demand. For example, if the market demands strong drought-resistant corn varieties, but the focus of enterprise R&D is placed on improving yield, it cannot effectively meet market demand and cannot be converted into actual market competitiveness. In addition to this, Chinese seed enterprises have special characteristics, and most of the seed enterprises are part-time enterprises. The business operations of seed enterprises cover not only crop cultivation, seed production, breeding, expansion, processing, promotion, sales, and technical services, but also other businesses such as the sale of agricultural products and trade in agricultural materials. The business performance and development prospects of corn seed enterprises will be affected by other business operations, and thus this may also be the reason for the weak competitiveness of corn seed enterprises.

The enterprise competitiveness of rice-based seed enterprises is the weakest among seed enterprises, with relatively low operational capacity and growth capacity and relatively strong productivity and technological innovation capacity. From an internal point of view, in recent years, extreme weather in China has increased, especially during the rice seeding and transplanting periods. The main flood season overlaps with rainfall, typhoons, and other impacts on agricultural production. In recent years, the impact of disasters on hybrid rice seed production has resulted in a significant decrease in yield, particularly during the flood season, due to pests and diseases, fertility transformation, and other disasters. Key rice production provinces such as Sichuan and Hubei, among others, have been severely affected, causing hybrid seed production volumes and yields to drastically reduce. The high commercialization rate of hybrid rice and the difficulty of supplying the production volume led to a serious division of supply and demand structure, so the operational capacity and growth capacity had to be enhanced. In terms of breeding technology, with the upgrade of the domestic consumer market and food consumption demand shifting from the “eat full to eat well” concept of change, changing rice breeding from high-yield to high-quality and high-yield led to improved production efficiency and innovation ability. Costs associated with the rice seed industry are also one of the key elements affecting the competitiveness of rice-based seed enterprises. In the case of rice grain prices, they are basically stable, in addition to other costs outside of the cost of rice seeds, including pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Farmers’ planting willingness was slightly reduced, resulting in the operation of the rice seed enterprise being hampered. As a result, rice seed enterprises have shown results of strong productivity and technological innovation but overall weak competitiveness due to the market environment.

The enterprise competitiveness of wheat seed enterprises is higher, with higher scores for operational ability and technological innovation ability and lower scores for growth ability and production efficiency. The market competitiveness of wheat seed products is stronger, but enterprises should focus on the development potential and production efficiency of their products. First of all, the higher operating capacity of wheat seeds was mainly driven by the shift in domestic and international market conditions towards favorable conditions. Overall, in 2022, the operating revenue of wheat-based seed enterprises rose significantly, the benefits of wheat cultivation were significantly higher than in previous years, the enthusiasm of farmers and consumers to plant wheat rose, and thus the market demand for specialized wheat varieties, especially brewing specialty wheat and nutritional and health-oriented wheat, increased significantly. Secondly, the wheat-class seed enterprises have higher technological innovation capacity, which is mainly due to the following two points. The first reason is the development of orderly agriculture for proprietary varieties of grain in recent years. It has promoted the upgrade of the technical processing of wine grains, as well as strong- and weak-gluten wheat, while promoting the further extension of the seed industry chain centered on varieties. Enterprises increased investment in R&D innovation in the construction of agricultural science- and technology-based industrial chain service systems, which led to the enhancement of the technological innovation capacity of wheat seed enterprises. The second reason is that wheat and rice belong to the food crops related to national food security. The Chinese government’s policy on research regarding the biological breeding of wheat and rice is stricter, whereas for corn and soybean hybrid crops, the policy is relatively more lax. Therefore, the corn and soybean seed enterprises have more scientific research inputs, but varieties of competition follow “the law of the jungle”, that is, R&D investment is not equal to the product of technological innovation ability. This means that the research investment may go down the drain, so the technical innovation ability of corn, soybean, and other seed enterprises that use more biological breeding technology may be covered up. At the same time, the growth capacity and productivity of wheat seeds are lower. The first reason is that most of the wheat seed enterprises in crop seed enterprises are small in size, but the market competition is fierce. Wheat is widely planted in China, and the market size is large. The wheat seed industry is highly mature, and the number of enterprises is higher, so the competition for wheat seed enterprises is more intense. The second reason is there are fewer high-quality varieties. Compared with corn, rice, etc., the genetic basis of wheat is relatively narrow, and the application of modern biotechnology is relatively lagging, affecting the efficiency of the creation of high-quality wheat varieties.

Melon and vegetable seed enterprises mainly include vegetable seed enterprises and watermelon seed and melon seed enterprises. The weak competitiveness of melon and vegetable seed enterprises mainly stems from their weak operational and technological innovation abilities. First, the volume of melon and vegetable seed enterprises is small. At present, China’s domestic seed enterprises with the ability to integrate breeding, propagation, and promotion are generally dominated by grain crop seed enterprises. Seed enterprises focusing on melons and vegetables are generally smaller in scale, focusing on seed multiplication and promotion, and are less competitive in terms of operational capacity and innovation ability compared with seed enterprises of staple crops. Secondly, the planting area for melons and vegetables is small. The planting area of melon and vegetable crops is much smaller than that of field crops, so the investment in operational capacity and innovation capacity is not comparable to that of seed enterprises for grain crops. Third, there are many varieties of melons and vegetables. Compared with field crops, squash crops, varieties, and seed enterprises produce their own varieties in fields, resulting in fragmentation of power, and the shape is not synergistic. Fourth, the melon and vegetable seed enterprises face a greater risk of product substitution. The current varieties of melon and vegetable replacement cycles have gradually shortened the trend; if the seed enterprises cannot continue to introduce new varieties that can be widely accepted by the market, the existing advantageous varieties will face the risk of weakening the competitiveness of the market or even being replaced.

4.4. Competitiveness Comparison between Chinese Listed Seed Enterprises and Multinational Seed Industry Giants

In the international seed market, with the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, the merger of DowDuPont to establish Cordiva, the acquisition of Syngenta by ChemChina, and other new rounds of consolidation, the global seed industry has become more centralized. According to existing research, since operating revenue represents business performance and the quality of development, it can, to a large extent, directly reflect the competitiveness of leading companies [45,46,47].

Table 10. Operating revenues of the top 20 companies in the global and Chinese seed industries. Unit: USD (Billions).

Rankings	Enterprise Abbreviation	Country	Operating Income for 2018	Rankings	Enterprise Abbreviation	Operating Income for 2018
1	Bayer Monsanto	German	741.75	1	H1	193.02
2	Cordova Agricultural Technology	America	551.31	2	H2	48.84
3	Syngenta (ChemChina)	China	206.83	3	H3	35.80
4	BASF	German	137.71	4	H4	34.46
5	Limagrain	French	125.38	5	H5	32.65
6	Covos (brand)	German	108.31	6	H6	19.27
7	Dannon	Denmark	46.68	7	H7	16.52
8	Sakata Seedling Co.	Japan	39.52	8	H8	12.84
9	Long Ping High-Tech	China	35.80	9	H9	9.10
10	Rijk Zwaan	Holland	33.26	10	H10	8.49
11	TAKII SEED	Japan	32.43	11	H11	7.67
12	Floremont I Depay Breeding Co.	French	NA	12	H12	7.61
13	Bejo	Holland	22.17	13	H13	6.27
14	Barenburg	Holland	20.93	14	H14	3.24
15	Enza Zaden	Holland	NA	15	H15	2.78
16	RAGT Semences	French	17.70	16	H16	2.64
17	Andean Seeds (United Phosphorus)	India	NA	17	H17	2.55
18	Heilongjiang Agriculture Company Limited	China	16.52	18	H18	2.48
19	Euralis	French	15.63	19	H19	2.43
20	invivo	French	9.91	20	H20	2.07

Note: The financial data of global seed companies are updated on public websites only up to 2018, and this year is chosen as a representative for the analysis, considering that a comparison of data of the same caliber is more representative.

demonstrates the comparison of operating revenues of the top 20 global and Chinese listed seed enterprises in terms of operating revenues in 2018 (the financial data of global seed enterprises are only updated to 2018 on public websites. Considering that comparing data from the same time period is more meaningful, this year is chosen as the representative for analysis.). The top six global seed enterprises have operating revenues of more than CNY 10 billion, while only one Chinese seed enterprise, H1, has operating revenues of more than CNY 10 billion (CNY 19.302 billion). The operating revenues of the top 20 global seed enterprises are basically above CNY 1 billion, but less than half of the Chinese listed seed enterprises have operating revenues of more than CNY 1 billion.

Further analysis shows that global multinational seed enterprises can be generally categorized into three types: capital-based enterprises, family-owned seed enterprises, and fundamental seed enterprises. Capital-based enterprises, represented by Bayer Monsanto, Codyha Agricultural Technology, and Syngenta (ChemChina), primarily enhance their competitiveness through mergers and acquisitions and the cooperative development of new variety property rights. Family-owned seed enterprises, such as Takii & Company, Ltd. (Kyoto, Japan), Rijk Zwaan (De Lier, The Netherlands), Bejo Seeds (Enkhuizen, The Netherlands), and Enza Zaden Company (Enkhuizen, The Netherlands), mainly develop family-managed businesses to enhance their competitiveness. Fundamental seed enterprises, exemplified by Crookham Company (Caldwell, ID, USA) and Stine Seeds (Adel, IA, USA), focus on material innovation as their core activity. These enterprises generate revenue through independent research and innovation and intellectual property licensing, rather than marketing, and their strong competitiveness is attributed to two major upfront investments: substantial R&D spending and significant legal costs.

The competitiveness of China’s listed seed enterprises is weaker than that of global multinational seed industry giants. The underlying reason lies in the significant disparities in terms of the duration of establishment, historical origins, and capital accumulation among these enterprises. Firstly, most transnational seed enterprises have experienced three waves of mergers and acquisitions throughout history. In contrast, most Chinese seed enterprises have only truly begun to develop and are currently in the initial or preliminary stages of development in 2011 (after the promulgation and implementation of the State Council’s Directive No. 8 “Opinions on Accelerating the Development of the Modern Crop Seed Industry" in 2011, China’s seed enterprises have seen a boom in development.). Secondly, multinational seed enterprises have formed their own unique corporate culture and values after long-term accumulation. From the perspective of the enterprise life cycle, China’s listed seed enterprises have yet to establish a mature value management system. Moreover, by the beginning of the 21st century, multinational seed industry giants had basically completed the accumulation of capital. Comparatively speaking, most of China’s seed enterprises are private enterprises. While a small number of state-owned seed enterprises did rely on policy support in the early years, they have yet to achieve a strength comparable to that of multinational seed enterprises.

Compared with the global multinational seed giants, there is a big gap between China’s listed seed enterprises and the global multinational seed giants in terms of R&D investment, scale and market share, industrial layout, and degree of internationalization. In terms of R&D investment, Monsanto, the global multinational seed giant, spends USD billions on R&D every year, accounting for more than 10% of its sales (this part of the data comes from the annual reports of Monsanto.). In contrast, there are only a few listed seed companies in China whose R&D expenditures account for more than 10% of operating income. For example, H3’s R&D spending as a percentage of operating revenue in 2019 was 13.15%, while H9’s was 9.9% (the data in this part come from the annual reports of H3 and H9.). In terms of scale and market share, global multinational seed giants such as Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer have extensive market share and business layouts worldwide (the data in this section were compiled by the author from the annual reports of Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer.). As for China’s listed seed companies, the larger ones, such as H3 and H9, also have relatively small shares in the domestic market. In 2019, for example, H3’s share of the Chinese seed market was 2.85%, while Monsanto Seed’s overall gross profit margin was as high as 64.56%. In terms of industrial layout, global multinational seed giants not only have a complete industrial chain in the seed industry but this also extends upstream and downstream, involving agrochemicals, biotechnology, planting, food, and other fields. On the other hand, most of the listed seed companies in China focus on a single business scope of a certain crop or technology, services, etc., and the combination of upstream and downstream related industries with the seed industry is not close. For example, Monsanto has 106 seed R&D centers around the world, with a research team of more than 20,000 people, while only H3 has more than 1000 R&D personnel among the listed seed companies in China. In terms of internationalization, global multinational seed industry giants have extensive layouts around the world and are able to make better use of resources and markets around the world to achieve global development. On the other hand, Chinese listed seed companies are less competitive in the international market and have relatively few overseas layouts. For example, Monsanto’s operating revenues come from all over the world, while the vast majority of Chinese listed seed enterprises’ revenues come from the domestic market.

5. Discussion

In order to better address the issues of upgrading the seed industry and improving the competitiveness of seed enterprises, we selected Chinese listed seed enterprises as a research sample for dynamic evaluation. Compared with existing studies, our research makes marginal academic contributions in the following three aspects. First, we made improvements in the model and methodology. We chose global principal component analysis (GPCA) as the main model for measurement because it can overcome the limitations of principal component analysis in dealing with complex multi-source data, and is capable of considering overall data characteristics and capturing dynamic changes within the data. Secondly, in order to further evaluate the competitiveness of China’s listed seed enterprises, we also conducted analyses from the seed industry’s perspective and foreign seed enterprises’ perspective, respectively, so that seed enterprises can clearly define their own positioning, discover the industry trend, and enhance their international competitiveness. Thirdly, this study enriches and refines the theory of competitiveness. This is specifically reflected in: ① Refinement of industry competition theory. It provides empirical evidence for the application and expansion of enterprise competitiveness theory in the seed industry segment. By revealing how technological innovation capabilities and other factors affect the competitiveness of seed enterprises, the connotation of industry competition theory has been enriched. ② Supplementation of the theory of industrial development. It helps to deeply explore the development laws and trends of the seed industry, clarify the relationship between the competitiveness performance of listed seed enterprises and industry development, and provide more targeted cases and data for industrial development theory. Research has shown that under specific policy support, such as before and after the promulgation of the new Seed Law (2021), listed seed enterprises, as a whole, rapidly enhanced their competitiveness, thereby promoting the upgrade of the entire seed industry. This will provide new groundwork for the policy-driven mechanism in industrial development theory. ③ Refinement of the theory of innovation. By analyzing the correlation between R&D manpower investment, R&D capital investment, and enterprise competitiveness, specific cases have been provided for the application of innovation theory in the agricultural field.

The main contribution of our research is to provide research value for policymakers, industry, and academia. First, this research is conducive to the government’s efforts to formulate more targeted and effective industrial policies, rationally allocate resources, and promote industrial upgrading, thereby guiding and regulating the healthy development of the seed industry. Second, this research can help seed enterprises understand their own strengths and weaknesses in the industry so that they can formulate targeted development strategies and competitive strategies, improve their operational efficiency and market competitiveness, and promote healthy competition and synergistic development in the industry. This research also provides a reference basis for inter-enterprise cooperation and integration. Meanwhile, this research enriches the theoretical system and research methodology of enterprise competitiveness evaluation and provides new perspectives and data support for academic research in related fields.

It should be noted that this study also has some limitations. In terms of the study scope, due to time and resource constraints, the subjects of this study are only focused on Chinese listed enterprises. For a wider range of subjects, such as unlisted seed enterprises and international seed enterprises, we have not been able to conduct in-depth exploration due to the difficulty in obtaining data. There are also some possible biases and external influences in the study. The quality of financial data released by enterprises will affect their economic strength and operational efficiency. Macroeconomic fluctuations, the impact of the pandemic, and the Russia–Ukraine conflict, among others, increase economic uncertainty, which may impact the demand and prices in the seed market, thus affecting the competitiveness of seed enterprises.

Suggestions for future research include: ① Expanding data sources and types. On the one hand, it is necessary to not only rely on publicly available financial and operational data from enterprises but also to gather industry-specific reports, expert opinions, and field research data to more comprehensively and accurately evaluate the competitiveness of the enterprise. On the other hand, it is recommended to introduce big data analysis, such as online public opinion data, e-commerce sales data, etc., to capture the impact of market dynamics and consumer feedback on enterprise competitiveness. ② Deepen research on technological innovation. Continuously track the development of cutting-edge technologies in the seed industry, such as gene editing and the application of artificial intelligence in breeding, and analyze their long-term and short-term impacts on enterprise competitiveness. At the same time, establish a technology innovation evaluation model that comprehensively considers factors such as technology research and development investment, innovation achievement transformation efficiency, and technological barriers. ③ Pay attention to changes in policies and the market environment. For example, establish a policy monitoring mechanism to timely analyze the impact of newly introduced seed industry policies on the competitiveness of listed seed enterprises and conduct dynamic evaluations. Strengthen real-time monitoring and forecasting of changes in supply and demand, price fluctuations, and competitive trends in domestic and international seed markets, providing more forward-looking information for evaluating enterprise competitiveness. ④ Dynamically adjust the evaluation index system. Firstly, regularly review and update competitiveness evaluation indicators based on industry developments and business model changes to ensure their effectiveness and adaptability. Secondly, introduce multidimensional evaluation indicators such as corporate social responsibility performance and green development capabilities to more comprehensively reflect the sustainable competitiveness of seed enterprises. ⑤ When studying the competitiveness of multinational seed industry giants, we can also conduct in-depth exploration from the perspectives of R&D strength, technology level, market share, global layout ability, etc., which is also the direction of our further research in the future.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

6.1. Conclusions

Based on the panel data of 49 listed seed enterprises in China from 2015 to 2022, we empirically assessed the competitiveness of China’s listed seed enterprises, conducted cluster analysis and decomposition evaluation on the competitiveness of seed enterprises, and made a comparative analysis of the competitiveness of seed enterprises and its causes from vertical and horizontal perspectives. The study found that: (1) From 2015 to 2022, the competitiveness of China’s listed seed enterprises showed an overall upward trend. Specifically, in terms of sub-dimensional competitiveness, operational capacity scored the highest with the largest increase, growth capacity fluctuated, production efficiency was low and varied significantly, technological innovation ability gradually strengthened, and seed enterprises placed increasing emphasis on R&D investment. (2) As of 2022, China’s top listed seed companies have strong operational and technological innovation capabilities, but their growth capacity and production efficiency competitiveness are weaker. Meanwhile, seed companies with high competitiveness scores are basically in line with the top companies recognized in the current seed industry market. (3) In terms of heterogeneity analysis in the crop industry, wheat seed enterprises demonstrate strong competitiveness. This can be attributed to the emergence and growth of order agriculture for proprietary varieties, coupled with stringent policy requirements for biological breeding. On the other hand, seed enterprises specializing in melons and vegetables, corn, and rice exhibit weaker competitiveness. The primary reasons are the relatively small scale of melon and vegetable seed enterprises, their rapid variety renewal, deficiencies in supply chain management and resource allocation among corn seed enterprises, adjustments in corn-related policies, and the impact of extreme weather on rice seed enterprises, leading to decreased production and increased costs associated with the rice seed industry. (4) A horizontal comparison reveals a significant gap in competitiveness between China’s top seed enterprises and global giants in the seed industry. This significant disparity can be attributed to differences in the enterprises’ establishment years, historical origins, and capital accumulation. These differences are specifically reflected in aspects such as R&D investment, scale, market share, industrial layout, and degree of internationalization.

6.2. Recommendations

Based on the above research conclusions, to further enhance the competitiveness of China’s seed enterprises, it is necessary to promote the parallel development of major seed corporations and smaller seed companies. The following policy suggestions are put forward:

Firstly, seed enterprises should focus on improving their growth capacity and production efficiency from an internal perspective. This involves paying attention to the input/output ratio to avoid ineffective investments, minimizing sunk costs in R&D investments for seed-related business segments to reduce the risks associated with developing and promoting new varieties, and maintaining and enhancing the competitive edge of seed enterprises in terms of operational capabilities. It is also essential to strengthen technological innovation capabilities and make targeted investments in the research and development of new varieties. Specifically, seed enterprises with a strong competitive edge should take on the responsibility of leading the national seed industry, actively collaborate with universities and research institutions, explore new ideas in variety development and process improvement, break away from past paths, and pursue breakthrough innovations. For seed enterprises with weaker competitiveness, it is recommended to follow paths that enhance their competitiveness, determining their own path to competitiveness enhancement based on the development paths of balanced enterprises, high-growth enterprises, innovation-driven enterprises, or enterprises with growth potential.

Secondly, in terms of staple crop seed enterprises, the government should focus on the sustainable growth capability of these enterprises. As diversified enterprises, the seed business is heavily influenced by the enterprise’s comprehensive factors. Only when there is an overall increase in the competitiveness of the enterprise can seed enterprises have more abundant resources to promote the vigorous development of the seed business. At the same time, seed enterprises should focus on solving the problem of production efficiency. Seed enterprises with weak competitiveness can, on the one hand, unite with large enterprises, introduce their advanced technology and equipment, promote their own technological upgrades, and achieve improvements in production efficiency; on the other hand, they can also improve the industrial chain by integrating with downstream enterprises, breaking the limitations of their current scale, and achieving leapfrog development. Seed enterprises with M&A capabilities can carry out mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and integration of seed enterprises with great development potential, learn from the experience of M&A and integration in developed countries and other seed enterprises, and enhance the competitiveness of the enterprise through a strategy of first horizontal and then vertical M&A.

Finally, in terms of horizontal competition, we should draw on the desirable aspects of global seed industry giants. First, seed enterprises can engage in mergers and acquisitions through organic equity participation. On the one hand, this allows for the integration and leveraging of superior corporate resources, enabling efficient operations within seed enterprises; on the other hand, unlike controlling mergers, it avoids the conflict between capital management’s pursuit of short-term gains and the longer R&D cycles typical of seeds. Second, enhancing technological innovation capabilities requires increasing R&D investment. R&D investment is the starting point for driving independent innovation. Only when scientific research achievements can be transformed into practical profit centers for seed products can we boost the market competitiveness and overall strength of seed enterprises. Third, strengthening variety property rights protection involves increasing legal investment. There is a positive correlation between legal oversight and the growth of seed enterprises. Only by investing in legal supervision can we promote the sustainable development of seed enterprises and truly enhance their competitiveness.