네오니코티노이드계 농약 시장 : 제품 유형별, 작물 유형별, 제제별, 용도별, 최종사용자별, 판매 채널별 - 세계의 예측2026-2032년

The Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market was valued at USD 6.51 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 6.87 billion in 2026, with a CAGR of 7.73%, reaching USD 10.96 billion by 2032.

A comprehensive orientation to the systemic nature of neonicotinoid chemistries, their agronomic role, and the evolving environmental and regulatory context

Neonicotinoid pesticides have become one of the most scrutinized classes of insecticidal chemistries due to their systemic properties, widespread agricultural application, and documented effects on nontarget organisms. These compounds act on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, delivering effective control of piercing-sucking and chewing pests when applied as foliar sprays, seed treatments, or soil treatments. Their adoption was driven historically by efficacy, ease of use in seed treatment platforms, and compatibility with mechanized cropping systems.

Over recent years, however, the narrative has shifted as regulators, environmental scientists, and supply chain stakeholders have amplified concerns about persistence, pollinator exposure, and aquatic contamination. Research and regulatory actions have prompted growers and distributors to reassess reliance on these chemistries, while agronomists and product developers explore integrated pest management approaches and alternative modes of action. Consequently, industry participants must weigh agronomic performance against stewardship requirements and reputational considerations.

This introduction sets the stage for a detailed examination of structural shifts across regulation, trade policy, product segmentation, regional dynamics, and corporate strategy. With that context framed, the subsequent sections analyze the transformative forces redefining how these chemistries are manufactured, distributed, and deployed across agricultural and nonagricultural end users.

How regulatory tightening, environmental evidence, and technological advances are reshaping product stewardship, application practice, and commercial priorities across the industry

The landscape for neonicotinoid pesticides is undergoing transformative shifts driven by regulatory tightening, ecological monitoring, and changing grower preferences. Policymakers in several jurisdictions have sharpened restrictions or re-evaluated registrations in response to evidence linking certain application pathways to pollinator declines and water quality impacts. As a result, manufacturers and registrants are accelerating investments in stewardship programs, enhanced labeling, and product reformulation to reduce off-target exposure and demonstrate risk mitigation.

Meanwhile, technological advances in seed treatment technologies and precision application tools are reshaping how active ingredients are delivered, potentially lowering non-target exposure while retaining pest control performance. At the same time, environmental monitoring data and academic research have increased transparency and prompted wider stakeholder engagement across the supply chain; retailers and distributors now face greater due diligence expectations from buyers and procurement officers. These combined pressures are also encouraging diversification of portfolios toward reduced-risk chemistries and non-chemical alternatives, even as resistance management concerns sustain demand for effective systemic solutions.

Taken together, these developments are realigning priorities across R&D pipelines, regulatory affairs, and commercial strategies. Organizations that integrate stewardship, innovation, and responsive stakeholder engagement will be better positioned to navigate the accelerated change and maintain operational continuity.

The cumulative supply chain and commercial consequences of U.S. tariff actions in 2025 and how they are reshaping procurement, sourcing, and product strategy

The introduction of new tariff measures by the United States in 2025 has compounded existing supply chain pressures for agricultural inputs, with effects that cascade through sourcing, pricing, and distribution networks. Tariff-driven cost increases on imported active ingredients and formulation intermediates have incentivized suppliers to seek alternative supply routes, localize certain manufacturing steps, or adjust portfolio mixes to preserve margin. These shifts create both short-term transactional frictions and longer-term strategic reconfigurations as manufacturers evaluate nearshoring, supplier diversification, and inventory strategies to mitigate exposure to trade policy volatility.

From an operational perspective, increased import costs have elevated the importance of procurement agility and contractual flexibility. Distributors and direct sales organizations are recalibrating inventory models, negotiating revised terms with producers, and re-pricing product offerings to reflect higher landed costs. In parallel, some buyers-particularly large commercial agricultural enterprises-are accelerating long-term procurement agreements or investing in supplier partnerships to secure continuity of supply at predictable cost structures.

Moreover, trade policy shifts influence product development timelines as suppliers assess the commercial viability of certain formulations, including dustable powders, emulsifiable concentrates, granules, soluble powders, and suspension concentrates, when cross-border economics change. Consequently, stakeholders must adopt a scenario-based approach to supply chain planning that accounts for tariff persistence, retaliatory measures, and evolving global trade patterns.

Detailed segmentation insights explaining how product chemistry, application method, crop type, formulation, end-user profile, and sales channels intersect to shape demand

Segmentation analysis reveals where technical attributes, application modes, and customer types intersect to shape demand dynamics and risk profiles. Product-type differentiation across Acetamiprid, Clothianidin, Dinotefuran, Imidacloprid, Nitenpyram, Thiacloprid, and Thiamethoxam highlights variation in regulatory status, residue behavior, and spectrum of activity; these distinctions influence which chemistries remain preferred in seed treatment platforms or in foliar and soil applications. Application-based segmentation into foliar spray, seed treatment, and soil treatment underscores how exposure pathways and operational practices determine stewardship priorities, with seed treatments concentrating systemic delivery and foliar sprays offering more targeted seasonal interventions.

Crop-type segmentation clarifies that cereals and grains, fruits and vegetables, oilseeds and pulses, and turfs and ornamentals each impose differing performance and residue expectations on product choice, while formulation differences between dustable powder, emulsifiable concentrate, granules, soluble powder, and suspension concentrate affect handling, occupational safety, and application efficiency. End-user segmentation differentiates the agricultural sector from nonagricultural users, with agricultural demand further divided into large farms and small farms, and the nonagricultural sector encompassing commercial, government and public sector, and residential users; these distinctions drive purchasing behavior, regulatory compliance needs, and programmatic stewardship approaches. Finally, sales channel segmentation across direct sales, distributors, and online retail shapes how products reach end users and how information, training, and service are delivered, influencing adoption, compliance, and brand reputation.

How distinct regulatory philosophies, cropping systems, and distribution structures across major regions are reshaping product registration, stewardship, and commercial deployment

Regional dynamics influence regulatory frameworks, adoption patterns, and commercial priorities across the Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific. In the Americas, a mix of federal and state-level regulatory activity, combined with large-scale commercial agriculture and concentrated distribution networks, creates distinct stewardship and compliance expectations. Growers and distributors in this region are balancing productivity demands with increasing scrutiny on pollinator protection and water quality monitoring.

Across Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory approaches tend to emphasize precautionary principles and robust environmental monitoring, which has led to more restrictive approvals and proactive mitigation measures in several jurisdictions. This environment accelerates investment in alternatives and stewardship initiatives and elevates traceability and labeling requirements. In the Asia-Pacific region, diverse cropping systems, high reliance on seed treatment technologies, and rapidly modernizing distribution channels produce both strong demand and varied regulatory contexts; rapid adoption in some markets coexists with emerging restrictions and heightened resistance management concerns.

These regional contrasts mean that global producers and distributors must adopt tailored strategies for registration, communication, and supply chain design. Coordination across regional regulatory affairs teams and local commercial units is essential to harmonize product positioning, stewardship messaging, and compliance at scale.

Corporate strategies and supply chain adaptations by manufacturers, formulators, and distributors that are redefining product stewardship, commercialization, and value chain collaboration

Industry participants include established agrochemical manufacturers, formulation specialists, and downstream distributors, each responding to regulatory pressures and evolving customer needs. Leading firms that historically developed and commercialized several neonicotinoid active ingredients are recalibrating pipelines to emphasize reduced-exposure formulations, improved application systems, and integrated resistance management services. At the same time, specialist formulators and contract manufacturers are adapting by offering conversion of active ingredients into safer-to-handle delivery forms and by investing in quality assurance systems to meet heightened regulatory and buyer specifications.

Distribution networks are evolving as well: traditional distributors are enhancing technical services and stewardship training to retain relevance, while online retail channels expand reach into smaller farms and nonagricultural segments. Service providers that offer digital agronomy tools, decision-support systems, and precision application technologies are increasingly important partners for both chemical producers and end users. Together, these company-level shifts reflect a broader industry movement toward collaborative value chains that emphasize compliance, traceability, and measurable environmental outcomes, enabling stakeholders to manage risk and sustain access to key markets.

Actionable strategic priorities for manufacturers, distributors, and service providers to reduce exposure risk, stabilize supply chains, and accelerate stewardship-driven innovation

To navigate regulatory scrutiny and changing commercial dynamics, industry leaders should prioritize a coordinated set of actions that align science, stewardship, and commercial execution. Companies should accelerate investment in product stewardship programs that reduce off-target exposure through enhanced labeling, application guidance, and demonstrable mitigation measures. Parallel investment in formulation science can yield options with lower dust-off, improved placement efficiency, and compatibility with precision application systems that reduce environmental footprint.

Strategic supply chain actions include diversifying sources of key intermediates, evaluating nearshoring opportunities where feasible, and negotiating flexible procurement arrangements with suppliers and large buyers to stabilize supply and pricing. At the same time, firms should deepen stakeholder engagement, collaborating with regulators, research institutions, and grower organizations to co-develop monitoring frameworks and resistance management plans. Commercial teams must also adapt by expanding technical service offerings, providing training for safe use, and leveraging digital channels to deliver agronomic support to small farms and nonagricultural clients.

Finally, R&D portfolios should balance incremental improvements in existing chemistries with investment in alternative modes of action and biological controls. By combining pragmatic supply chain measures with forward-looking product and stewardship strategies, companies can protect commercial viability while responding to societal expectations and regulatory requirements.

A mixed-methods research approach combining expert interviews, regulatory reviews, environmental monitoring, and scenario analysis to ensure robust and validated insights

The research underpinning this report employed a mixed-methods approach that combined primary stakeholder engagement with rigorous secondary review of regulatory documents, peer-reviewed literature, and environmental monitoring datasets. Primary workstreams included structured interviews with regulatory affairs experts, R&D executives, procurement leads, and agronomy specialists to capture frontline perspectives on compliance, formulation preferences, and supply chain risks. These interviews were complemented by targeted consultations with distribution managers and technical service providers to understand channel dynamics and end-user training needs.

Secondary analyses reviewed registration dossiers, public regulatory actions, academic studies on ecotoxicology and residue behavior, and trade flow information to map how policy and commerce intersect. Environmental monitoring reports and resistance management literature informed assessments of persistence, non-target exposure, and efficacy trends. Where appropriate, scenario analysis techniques were applied to explore supply chain responses to tariff changes, regulatory shifts, and adoption of new application technologies. Quality control measures included cross-validation of interview insights against documentary sources, triangulation across data types, and internal peer review to ensure methodological rigor and transparency.

A forward-looking synthesis of how regulatory pressure, environmental evidence, and commercial imperatives converge to shape the sustainable use of neonicotinoid chemistries

Neonicotinoid pesticides remain a pivotal component of modern pest management, yet their future use is being reshaped by intensified regulatory scrutiny, environmental evidence, and shifting commercial incentives. These forces are prompting reformulation efforts, shifts in application practice, and strategic supply chain adjustments. Stakeholders across the value chain must therefore embed stewardship as a core commercial and scientific priority, while maintaining operational resilience in the face of trade policy changes and regional regulatory divergence.

The path forward requires a balanced approach: maintain agronomic performance for crops that rely on systemic protection while investing in alternative chemistries, biologicals, and precision delivery systems that reduce non-target exposures. Companies that proactively adapt-by strengthening stewardship, diversifying supply chains, and engaging transparently with regulators and growers-will be best positioned to sustain market access and meet evolving societal expectations. Continued monitoring, collaborative research, and targeted investments will be essential to reconcile productivity needs with environmental protection goals.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Definition
• 1.3. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.4. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.5. Currency Considered for the Study
• 1.6. Language Considered for the Study
• 1.7. Key Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

• 2.1. Introduction
• 2.2. Research Design
  • 2.2.1. Primary Research
  • 2.2.2. Secondary Research
• 2.3. Research Framework
  • 2.3.1. Qualitative Analysis
  • 2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis
• 2.4. Market Size Estimation
  • 2.4.1. Top-Down Approach
  • 2.4.2. Bottom-Up Approach
• 2.5. Data Triangulation
• 2.6. Research Outcomes
• 2.7. Research Assumptions
• 2.8. Research Limitations

3. Executive Summary

• 3.1. Introduction
• 3.2. CXO Perspective
• 3.3. Market Size & Growth Trends
• 3.4. Market Share Analysis, 2025
• 3.5. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2025
• 3.6. New Revenue Opportunities
• 3.7. Next-Generation Business Models
• 3.8. Industry Roadmap

4. Market Overview

• 4.1. Introduction
• 4.2. Industry Ecosystem & Value Chain Analysis
  • 4.2.1. Supply-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.2. Demand-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis
• 4.3. Porter's Five Forces Analysis
• 4.4. PESTLE Analysis
• 4.5. Market Outlook
  • 4.5.1. Near-Term Market Outlook (0-2 Years)
  • 4.5.2. Medium-Term Market Outlook (3-5 Years)
  • 4.5.3. Long-Term Market Outlook (5-10 Years)
• 4.6. Go-to-Market Strategy

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Consumer Insights & End-User Perspective
• 5.2. Consumer Experience Benchmarking
• 5.3. Opportunity Mapping
• 5.4. Distribution Channel Analysis
• 5.5. Pricing Trend Analysis
• 5.6. Regulatory Compliance & Standards Framework
• 5.7. ESG & Sustainability Analysis
• 5.8. Disruption & Risk Scenarios
• 5.9. Return on Investment & Cost-Benefit Analysis

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Product Type

• 8.1. Acetamiprid
• 8.2. Clothianidin
• 8.3. Dinotefuran
• 8.4. Imidacloprid
• 8.5. Nitenpyram
• 8.6. Thiacloprid
• 8.7. Thiamethoxam

9. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Crop Type

• 9.1. Cereals & Grains
• 9.2. Fruits & Vegetables
• 9.3. Oilseeds & Pulses
• 9.4. Turfs & Ornamentals

10. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Formulation

• 10.1. Dustable Powder
• 10.2. Emulsifiable Concentrate
• 10.3. Granules
• 10.4. Soluble Powder
• 10.5. Suspension Concentrate

11. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Application

• 11.1. Foliar Spray
• 11.2. Seed Treatment
• 11.3. Soil Treatment

12. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by End User

• 12.1. Agricultural Sector
  • 12.1.1. Large Farms
  • 12.1.2. Small Farms
• 12.2. Non Agricultural Sector
  • 12.2.1. Commercial
  • 12.2.2. Government & Public Sector
  • 12.2.3. Residential

13. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Sales Channel

• 13.1. Direct Sales
• 13.2. Distributors
• 13.3. Online Retail

14. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Region

• 14.1. Americas
  • 14.1.1. North America
  • 14.1.2. Latin America
• 14.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 14.2.1. Europe
  • 14.2.2. Middle East
  • 14.2.3. Africa
• 14.3. Asia-Pacific

15. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Group

• 15.1. ASEAN
• 15.2. GCC
• 15.3. European Union
• 15.4. BRICS
• 15.5. G7
• 15.6. NATO

16. Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market, by Country

• 16.1. United States
• 16.2. Canada
• 16.3. Mexico
• 16.4. Brazil
• 16.5. United Kingdom
• 16.6. Germany
• 16.7. France
• 16.8. Russia
• 16.9. Italy
• 16.10. Spain
• 16.11. China
• 16.12. India
• 16.13. Japan
• 16.14. Australia
• 16.15. South Korea

17. United States Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market

18. China Neonicotinoids Pesticides Market

19. Competitive Landscape

• 19.1. Market Concentration Analysis, 2025
  • 19.1.1. Concentration Ratio (CR)
  • 19.1.2. Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)
• 19.2. Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, 2025
• 19.3. Product Portfolio Analysis, 2025
• 19.4. Benchmarking Analysis, 2025
• 19.5. ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Ltd.
• 19.6. BASF SE
• 19.7. Bayer AG
• 19.8. Corteva, Inc.
• 19.9. FMC Corporation
• 19.10. Hubei Sanonda Co., Ltd.
• 19.11. Mitsui Chemicals, Inc.
• 19.12. Nufarm Limited
• 19.13. Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.
• 19.14. Syngenta AG
• 19.15. UPL Limited