Dutch Greenhouse Growers Demand Profit Before Innovation Investment
Netherlands, Friday, 19 December 2025.
Half of Dutch greenhouse growers only invest in new technology if it guarantees immediate financial returns, creating a fundamental clash with cash-strapped startups needing quick market adoption. This risk-averse approach contrasts sharply with international competitors who embrace early adoption for strategic advantage, potentially leaving the Netherlands behind in agricultural innovation.
Innovation Event Reveals Deep Industry Divide
The tension between financial pragmatism and technological advancement came into sharp focus at a recent innovation event in Dutch greenhouse horticulture, held several months before December 2025 [1]. When innovation specialist Koen Bol from Royal Brinkman posed the statement ‘I only invest in innovation if it makes me money’ to a room full of entrepreneurs and growers, half the audience raised their hands in agreement [1]. The moment crystallized when someone in the audience called out: ‘In the end, it’s all about the money’ [1]. This response highlighted the conservative investment approach that characterizes much of the Netherlands’ greenhouse sector, where growers prioritize proven returns over experimental technologies.
Startup Pressure Meets Grower Caution
Royal Brinkman finds itself positioned uniquely between both sides of this innovation divide, regularly sitting at tables with both growers and technology startups [1]. On the startup side, pressure builds quickly as companies face investor demands for results while operating with limited financial runways [1]. These pressures force startups to bring technologies to market rapidly, often at premium prices that reflect substantial development costs and time investments [1]. Meanwhile, growers approach these innovations from an entirely different perspective, recognizing potential benefits while simultaneously calculating significant risks [1]. The investment requires time, process modifications, and carries uncertainty about whether new technologies will function effectively in their specific operational contexts [1].
Dutch Market’s Risk-Averse Innovation Culture
Dutch growers demonstrate a markedly different approach to innovation adoption compared to their international counterparts. Rather than embracing new technologies for competitive advantage, Dutch greenhouse operators typically prefer to wait one to two years for other growers to test innovations before making investment decisions [1]. This cautious strategy reflects what industry observers describe as a lack of ‘early-adopter culture’ in the sector [1]. Koen Bol from Royal Brinkman summarizes the prevailing attitude: ‘We want to move forward, but the first question always remains, what does it deliver?’ [1]. This wait-and-see approach, while reducing individual risk, potentially positions Dutch growers at a competitive disadvantage against international operators who leverage early technology adoption for strategic market positioning.
Climate Pressures Add Urgency to Innovation Debate
The innovation investment debate occurs against a backdrop of mounting climate pressures that could reshape cost-benefit calculations for Dutch agricultural technology adoption. Recent extreme weather events have demonstrated the financial vulnerability of greenhouse operations, with a single hailstorm causing over €70 million in damage to Dutch greenhouse horticulture in the years preceding 2025 [2]. The broader climate impact on Dutch agriculture reflects a national pattern, where extreme weather caused €886 million in damages across the Netherlands in 2022 alone [2]. As the sector moves toward 100% green cultivation targets, the collaboration between growers, suppliers, and cooperatives increasingly focuses on solutions that extend beyond single-season cost calculations [1]. This shift suggests that innovation investment decisions may need to incorporate longer-term risk management and climate adaptation considerations, potentially altering the traditional profit-first approach that currently dominates grower decision-making.