30 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM BREAK THE CYCLE OF CONFLICT To break the cycle of conflict, we must engage and explain with activists and as soon as possible. These will be uncomfortable conversations, but I am convinced that in directly addressing the issues they raise, we do indeed have significant common ground. ‘Sustainability’, climate change response, human health, nutrition, reducing exploitation of child labour and oppression of women in agriculture. Trustful and responsible corporate behaviour. Who does not want these things? If we are to address these topics with our sceptical stakeholders alongside us, we need some bravery and we must initiate the direct conversation. Our corporate actions and products are a rare example of positive market forces to deliver on a social policy agenda to address the challenges of sustainability, food security and cli- mate change mitigation. This is very special. However, with our underlying profit motive there is an obvious vested interest and by definition is not to be fully trusted, but then neither is activism claiming the basis of environmental safety when the real motive is a mistrust of big business. Only through a demonstrable change in our corporate behaviour can we hope to claim the ethical high ground and stop being pushed to be continually defensive about our work. We can also do that by describing products that demonstrate public good in a way that is easier to understand than productive agriculture in general. CORPORATE BEHAVIOUR Corporate behaviour is also challenged in the way we handle intellectual property. We are challenged that IP brings with it a risk of abusive and exploitative monopoly that is not in the public interest. Here again we must address that directly. Regulating against innovation to control the balance of interests between IP owners and users is completely off target and has the collat- eral damage coming from reducing innovation in society. IP is essential to provide a market model to risk capital investment in innovation, however, there must be balance for the system to work. Here, we need to demonstrate social responsibility as IP owners. Licences need to be accessible, terms fair, and not blocking access to genetic diversity. To engage in this way is not without risk. We have to ‘walk the talk’. To be trusted we must be trustful. Every corporate transgression, be it misleading automotive emissions or abuse of personal digital data, we all lose confidence and trust in cor- porates with every scandal and each one makes it ever more important to show why we in the seed sector are different and can be trusted. LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS There is therefore a question that is consequent on all this. What are we prepared to risk and pay to get the trust, recognition and social license to operate? Our entrepreneurial business model in plants and seeds is founded on continual innovation delivering customers ‘people’s needs. If innovation is rejected by the politi- cal norm then it is our own failure and not the fault of those who question us. The consequences of failure to society need to be recognised to be far wider than mere business failure. It would be a Pyrrhic victory for NGOs if seed companies with sufficient scale and diversity to deliver continual improvement in produc- tion and disease resistance were regulated out of existence and society loses one of the few means that exists today to respond to the global challenges facing sustainable food production. During the last years, ESA has focussed on laying the foun- dations for a new approach to the political conversation. You have seen at our most recent ESA annual meetings the Noleppa report and the engagement of modern communications advisors and expanding the Brussels team, #embracing nature in social media to build capacity to communicate positively. Now we need to build on the growing momentum that we have started and look for even more new solutions Exporting European food demand to more vulnerable regions & economies because of misplaced fears restricting domestic productivity is surely a morally questionable result of today’s EU policy. It is important to note that common purpose is not a one way street, whilst we may need to initiate and drive constructive dialog, the other parties must also behave in a more trustful and open way and make some difficult adjustments to accept the role of business and enterprise in improving sustainable agriculture. These ideas are of course no blueprint and, clearly, business decisions on how to act need to carefully balance risk and oppor- tunity and plan change in a business responsible way. However, in the end, for me, the direction of travel is clear, and all these topics must be on the agendas of boardrooms across Europe to consider exactly what companies and their seed associations must do differently. I for one remain confident that the ‘big picture’ benefit of genetic innovation will be seen through the different political agendas if we act correctly. We cannot force others to do the same but we can behave in a way that more clearly demonstrates our high ethical standards. For policy makers, the clear challenge is to balance incen- tivising private R&D whilst facilitating public recognition of the balance of benefits that this has delivered in the past and why it is essential for the future. It is our role as the seed sector to enable an easier political environment for policy makers to meet that challenge. And my message to the interested public is simply not to continue to beat people over the head with more data and detailed legal definitions. I say, LOOK AT US! THIS IS WHAT WE DO! And it is FANTASTICALLY beneficial. We have NOTHING to hide and we are on your side as concerned citizens. And (only if you ask) I can also explain the science.