Regenerative agriculture’s core tensions unpacked

Regenerative agriculture has moved from niche to mainstream – but tensions around its definition, auditing and value continue to dominate the conversation. This concept of agriculture – which incorporates farm management practices that improve climate resilience and farming livelihoods – is being backed by the vast majority of the top 100 food companies.

But unlike organic farming, regenerative agriculture isn’t one-size-fits-all – the practices applied differ regionally and farm-to-farm; monitoring and certification methods vary in both scope and scale; and how this farming concept creates value to producers, industry and the consumer is also murky territory.

Overall, regenerative agriculture creates both opportunity and risk. As a concept, it’s designed to positively influence the supply chain; but its flexibility leaves room for interpretation that can ultimately damage trust.

We examine the core tensions of regenerative agriculture – and what the industry needs to do to resolve them, improve transparency, and build consumer confidence.

What does ‘regenerative’ mean?

While the term is widely used today, the definition of regenerative agriculture remains broad. It’s generally understood as a set of holistic farming principles aimed at improving soil health, biodiversity, animal welfare and water retention, all with the aim to strengthen supply chain and climate resilience.

But the practices producers prioritise vary based on context – with geography, farming systems and climate all playing a role in what’s adopted. That means a dairy farm may focus on improving soil health by reducing synthetic fertiliser use and introducing rotational grazing; while a coffee producer may focus on agroforestry and protecting existing forest systems to support resilience and tackle deforestation.

This creates a core tension, where the concept needs to be broad to accommodate different farming needs, but not vague to dilute transparency and trust.

What does the concept promise – and what value does it actually bring?

Another test for regenerative agriculture is the value it brings across the supply chain. It promises stronger supply chain resilience, improved farmer livelihoods, and real ESG benefits for brands.

But there’s the question of who derives the most value from regenerative agriculture – and particularly, whether CPG majors benefit the most financially from sales of regenerative products while producers upstream are less well-reimbursed.

When does certification matter – if it matters at all?

Regenerative agriculture’s flexibility can be a strength and a weakness – which is why monitoring and verification of farming methods, and the consistency of their application, are increasingly important.

For some in the industry, certification is the tie that binds the entire concept. It can deliver measurable data, independent auditing, and ultimately, transparency on progress that can foster brand and consumer trust. This can be crucial to scaling adoption.

While there’s growing interest in regenerative agriculture, investment still isn’t guaranteed, making evidence of the value of those practices ever more important.

Certification is one route to this – but the challenge is what certification systems should be used, which practices matter the most, and how auditing should happen.

The cost of certification also raises issues – particularly in the case of smallholder farmers, and how they are integrated into regenerative agriculture systems to both recognise existing low-input efforts and aid long-term economic resilience.

Another tension is in convincing funders to back certification schemes, rather than invest directly in farmer training and monitoring practices outside of formal certification.

Can regenerative ag foster consumer trust?

Downstream, translating the value of regenerative agriculture to consumers is what brands, retailers and foodservice providers are aiming for. Consumers, too, increasingly want to know where their food is being sourced; creating an opportunity to elevate producer-focused storytelling by spotlighting sustainable farming practices.

This can also improve perceptions and understanding – for example, by highlighting what certain regenerative practices resulted in, instead of talking about regenerative agriculture in the abstract.

In specialty coffee, these improvements can be tied to distinct flavour profiles and quality attributes; while in dairy, clearer storytelling around regenerative outcomes can help consumers feel more connected to the farmers behind the products.

Ultimately, the role of regenerative agriculture in building a more sustainable supply chain will depend on how effectively it can be scaled to support both large- and small-scale farmers; how transparently and consistently practices, outcomes and progress are measured, monitored and verified; and how fairly the resulting value is distributed across the supply chain.