Redefining Regenerative Agriculture: A Broader Perspective

One “aha” moment for me during this project was realizing how challenging it is to define regenerative agriculture. Definitions often focus too narrowly on aspects like soil health or reducing chemical inputs, and are oversimplified, as they consider only the textual meaning of the word. I believe regenerative agriculture should be seen as more than just a farming practice. The purpose, methodology, and outcome of regenerative agriculture should all be part of the conversation when setting the definition. However, I have noticed that these broader elements are frequently overlooked. From my perspective, a comprehensive definition must consider both the narrow focus on how farming improves soil and the broader spectrum of how it restores balance between human activity and nature, reshapes corporate impacts on ecosystems, and contributes to the well-being of local communities. 

The entry point of forming a definition of regenerative agriculture, for me, is to think about its purpose, what organizations aim to achieve through promoting this transition. Initially, our research was restricted to concepts related solely to farming practices. We had not considered how improvements in areas like soil health and crop coverage contribute to broader goals that serve the entire planet. Many companies tend to overlook these broader implications as well. As we delve deeper into the food and beverage industry, we realized we had made the same mistake by overlooking the essential purpose of the sector. Regenerative agriculture in this sector should stem from feeding people, addressing food security, and improving affordability of land and food to help all communities meet their nutritious needs. 

The concept of food security and affordability is a critical issue tied to regenerative agriculture that often goes unaddressed in corporate strategies, despite its importance in combating hunger, poverty, and inequality. Very few companies have developed strategies that directly address the provision of a stable food chain to underprivileged and developing communities. For food and beverage companies, whose mission lies within the provision of food, it raises questions about why this has not been incorporated into their sustainability efforts. This lack of recognition indicates a gap where impact investors should intervene, encouraging companies to focus on how regenerative agriculture can serve broader human needs, not just one sole environmental or social goal.  

In order to properly form a definition, we also need to consider the outcomes of regenerative agriculture.  Different companies would have varying perspectives on what these should be. Some companies may see it as a tool for reducing carbon emissions and supporting net-zero goals, while some companies may view it through an ESG lens to showcase their corporate contributions to a particular pillar. An interesting finding from my research is that some companies offer gender-equal training programs and financial support for transitioning to regenerative agriculture, even without a comprehensive framework in place. This demonstrates that as long as the outcome aligns with the principles of regenerative agriculture, there shouldn't be limitations on how organizations use regenerative agriculture. It can be whether to improve ESG ratings or as a CSR strategy to enhance brand image. 

Profit-seeking is inherent to the nature of business. Impact investors can utilize this corporate profit-driven mindset and channel it toward pushing for outcome-focused goals. In the meantime, investors should aim for eliminating overly stringent standards of practices. Some companies encourage farmers to sequester carbon through regenerative farming, offering carbon certificates as rewards. While this strategy may be part of showcasing ESG efforts, the outcome genuinely benefits the planet and aligns with regenerative agriculture’s purpose. This example highlights the importance of adopting an outcome-based framework rather than enforcing a uniform set of practices. Regeneration means delivering deeper social and environmental impacts, beyond solely mitigating corporate harm to ecosystems. In this context, corporate efforts towards net-zero carbon emissions goals can be seen as steps toward the larger goal of fostering planetary resilience and renewal.

More importantly, I often find myself in a recurring paradox. On the one hand, companies want to engage in sustainability efforts that are highly relevant to their core business so that it can contribute to either profit maximizing or cost minimizing. On the other hand, I believe that urgent and common needs, like transitioning towards regenerative agriculture, require a more collaborative, cross-sectoral approach. The transition should be implemented across all value chains and extended beyond the food production sector. The ways of contributing to the transition can be diverse. Sectors like apparel and forestry can contribute by sourcing regeneratively grown materials or creating economic opportunities for struggling farming communities. The key is finding the common denominator that incentivizes all companies to advocate for regenerative agriculture, regardless of their sector.

Therefore, how to incentivize companies to embrace regenerative agriculture becomes critical. One potential solution is leveraging consumer demand. Currently, consumers are increasingly expecting companies to be proactive about sustainability. Yet, their willingness to pay a premium for regenerative products is uncertain. Through the scaling of organic products, we observe how the growing focus on health and wellness among consumers has led to an increase in willingness to pay more for organic products. A similar shift could be done for regenerative products. Companies can capitalize on similar consumer trends to incorporate regenerative agriculture into their supply chains, further driving positive change through market incentives.

Beyond the implementation of initiatives, we also need to think about measuring and scaling the impact of regenerative agriculture at both landscape and global levels. It is not enough to look at individual practices. The broader adoption and impact must be assessed across landscapes and industries. There should be more large-scale studies tracking how regenerative practices are improving food security, combating climate change, and preserving biodiversity. Also, global metrics are required to tie the farm-level impact to systemic changes, facilitating the scaling of these efforts.

Essentially, regenerative agriculture is not a destination but a continuous journey toward building resilience for both humanity and the planet. It is an evolving process which requires constant refinement on methodology as new information and practices emerge. When evaluating corporate practices, impact investors need to be careful to not make regenerative agriculture into a checklist of metrics. Instead, impact investors should stay focused on its deeper purpose, building an agricultural system that nourishes ecosystems, strengthens communities, and mitigates the long-term impacts of climate change.