Introduction

Food is a fundamental necessity for human survival and well-being, yet current methods of food production exert significant pressures on our planetary boundaries1,2. Alarmingly, six of the nine planetary boundaries have already been crossed, including climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land-system change, biogeochemical flows, freshwater use, and novel entities (i.e. introduction of novel synthetic chemicals into the environment)2. More specifically, the global food system accounts for roughly one-third of annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), causes about one-third of terrestrial acidification, and is largely responsible for the eutrophication of global surface waters3,4. Furthermore, problems such as soil erosion, salinization, compaction, acidification, and chemical pollution have collectively degraded approximately one-third of the global land area5. These negative environmental impacts directly threaten global food security and human well-being6.

In response to these threats, a wide range of sustainable farming approaches have been proposed, such as agroecology and circular agriculture, as contributors to bringing the global food system back within planetary boundaries. Regenerative agriculture, in particular, has been heralded by some food system actors (e.g. farmers, scientists, NGOs, and policymakers) as an approach both to keep our food system within planetary boundaries and to foster a safe and just space for people and the planet7,8,9,10. Yet, regenerative agriculture faces significant criticism including concerns regarding exaggerated or overly simplistic claims on the impact of its practices11, a certain feeling of dogma or buzz12, the absence of government-supported implementation standards13, and corporate greenwashing14. While resistance to new or emerging approaches to farming is not uncommon15, it is crucial to better understand the key players driving the buzz (and fuzz16) around regenerative agriculture and the narratives they promote to evaluate the adoption of practices, encourage policy development, and shape public perception17.

Several reviews have explored the ambitions and practices associated with regenerative agriculture16,18. These studies frequently prioritize academic perspectives19, focus on particular themes such as soil health20, emphasize a limited range of practices21, or restrict their analyzes to specific national contexts22. Collectively, these studies indicate that regenerative agriculture is highly context-specific23, with a general consensus that soil regeneration is the entry point to enhancing food system sustainability across the dimensions of people, planet, and profit19. Nonetheless, we could find no comprehensive study that systematically examines the diverse actors within regenerative agriculture.

In this paper, we analyze the current configuration of actors promoting regenerative agriculture in five countries across Southern and Western Europe (further referred to as Europe): Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal. The research combines online search engines with farm interviews to identify the types of actors involved (e.g. farmers, NGOs, and governments), their geographical locations, the year they committed to regenerative practices, the size of their enterprises, and the specific themes and practices they advocate. The general discussion examines the findings through multiple lenses, highlighting power asymmetries, the challenges of scaling, and the role of science and policy in advancing agriculture within safe and just planetary boundaries.

Results

Geography and year of commitment of actors

Of the 849 regenerative agriculture actors identified across Europe, Spain accounted for the largest share, with over 250 actors (Fig. 1). In contrast, most other countries recorded an average of ~150 (SD 40) actors. The prominence of Spain in this regard was attributed during our interviews to its strong emphasis on regenerative agriculture, driven by the active involvement of various NGOs such as Agricultura Regenerativa Ibérica24 and Climate Farmers25, which support farmers in transitioning to regenerative practices. A significant number of the actors were concentrated in urban areas. Notably, the capital cities of, for example, Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Portugal exhibited the highest concentrations of actors within their respective countries, with 12, 43, 69, and 16 actors, respectively. These actors in urban areas predominantly comprised headquarters of sourcing and processing companies (e.g. Cargill and Unilever), financial institutions (e.g. Van Lanschot Kempen and ABN AMRO), and NGOs (e.g. Rainforest Alliance and Global Landscape Forum). Apart from these urban hotspots, other actors such as local advisories and farmers were distributed throughout Europe, highlighting the broad adoption of the term regenerative agriculture across different pedoclimatic conditions (e.g. soil type and climate zone) and farming systems (e.g. arable and livestock).

Fig. 1: Overview of the number (n) of actors promoting regenerative agriculture at both the European and country levels.
Fig. 1: Overview of the number (n) of actors promoting regenerative agriculture at both the European and country levels.
Full size image

Spikes on the European map represent the magnitude of actors identified at the municipality level, while country-level figures illustrate the distribution of actors at the provincial level. The abbreviations NL, DE, FR, ES, and PT indicate the case countries: the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, and Portugal.

The number of actors that claim to be committed to regenerative agriculture has been increasing over time (Fig. 2). Early adopters demonstrated their engagement between 1980 and 2010, followed by an almost exponential growth of all actors since 2016. Since 2021, however, growth slowed and declined in 2023. This slowdown is largely driven by a drop in the number of new farmers engaging in regenerative agriculture. We question if this points to saturation among farmers that engage with regenerative agriculture, a decrease in overall interest, or a shift towards other concepts (i.e. agroecology). A similar overall trend was observed in the publication of popular news items11 and peer-reviewed publications16,26 on regenerative agriculture. This trend also confirms earlier findings that regenerative agriculture originated as a grassroots approach led by farmers27. While initially driven predominantly by farmers, a notable shift occurred from 2016 to 2020 onwards, with non-farming actors such as processors playing an increasingly prominent role.

Fig. 2: Commitment to regenerative agriculture over time.
Fig. 2: Commitment to regenerative agriculture over time.
Full size image

The figure illustrates the years in which various actors committed to regenerative agriculture between 1980 and 2023. The actors are represented by bars each year, using distinct color patterns to differentiate types of actors. The dotted line shows the cumulative total of committed actors over time.

Type and size of actors

From the 849 actors examined, 16 categories of actor types were identified, spanning from farmers to various actors throughout the supply chain (Fig. 3). The majority of actors comprised farmers (31%), advisory enterprises (16%), and processing companies (12%). These three types will be discussed in further detail. Despite the broad range of actor categories, substantial variation existed within each category. For instance, among farmers, at least nine distinct farm types were recognized, predominantly mixed crop-livestock farms (29%), agroforestry systems (12%), and horticulturists (12%). Specialized livestock farming systems were represented much less, including dairy farms (5%) and beef farms (1%). Farm sizes varied significantly, with most (17%) being small-scale (e.g. arable farms of <10 ha in the Netherlands). In contrast, processing companies were generally very large, often multinational, with over 100,000 employees. Also, a high diversity of processing companies engaged in regenerative agriculture, encompassing sectors such as livestock feed (e.g. Cargill), pet food (e.g. Purina), textiles (e.g. Patagonia), ketchup (i.e. Kraft Heinz Company), beer (i.e. Guiness), whisky (i.e. Diageo), and coffee (e.g. Nescafé). Advisory or consultancy enterprises, were predominantly very small, often consisting of independent consultants (e.g. Met Natuur Mee). However, actors of varying sizes were identified (e.g. Peterson, 500 employees). These advisory enterprises spanned diverse sectors (e.g. farming, healthy food, medicine), offering advice on regenerative practices at the farm level or throughout the supply chain (e.g. KAIROS and Peterson), monitoring environmental impacts (e.g. DéWarrier), and designing multifunctional landscapes globally (e.g. AidEnvironment). Additionally, this study included ‘knowledge and innovation projects’ dedicated to the pursuit of regenerative agriculture. While these projects do not involve direct actor commitment to regenerative agriculture, they do indirectly show involvement in the transition. These projects ranged from local projects with a strong focus on farmers28 to national large-scale public – private partnerships between a wide range of food system actors29.

Fig. 3: Distribution of regenerative actors by type and size.
Fig. 3: Distribution of regenerative actors by type and size.
Full size image

Regenerative actors are categorized into 16 distinct types, with the total number of actors in each group represented by bars. Within each group, actor sizes - ranging from very small to very large - are depicted as bubbles. Sizes were determined using country- and sector-specific criteria. For 2.7% of actors, size information was unavailable.

Regenerative themes and practices promoted

To better understand how different food system actors perceive regenerative agriculture, we analyzed the regenerative themes and practices referenced by the 849 actors (Fig. 4) on their websites and during interviews (see Methods, section 4.1). This revealed a predominant focus on environmental concerns (planet), with comparatively less emphasis on socio-economic dimensions (people and profit). Consistent with findings from previous reviews16,19, soil health and biodiversity emerged as the most prominent themes, addressed by 81% and 74% of the actors, respectively. Within the theme of soil health, aspects related to soil conservation and regeneration were frequently mentioned. In the context of biodiversity, the focus was on enhancing both above- and below-ground biodiversity or creating conditions conducive to such improvements. Although soil health and biodiversity were the most important themes across all case countries, the prominence of other themes varied. For example, while climate regulation was the third most addressed theme in France and Portugal, nutrient cycling held that position in Spain, underscoring that the definitions of regenerative agriculture vary regionally30. Animal welfare received the least attention across countries, mentioned by only 33% of actors. Many different actors aimed to address multiple and similar regenerative themes. Specifically, 11% of actors addressed all eight themes, while 18% addressed seven themes (see Supplementary Figs. 1–4 for details), highlighting that for many actors, a regenerative agricultural approach is inherently systemic, spanning multiple domains. Despite this broad engagement, nearly 10% of the actors identified themselves as contributing to regenerative agriculture without specifying particular themes or clarifying how they implemented the approach.

Fig. 4: Thematic commitments of regenerative actors.
Fig. 4: Thematic commitments of regenerative actors.
Full size image

Actors’ commitments are grouped under broader sustainability dimensions - People, Planet, and Profit - as well as more specific regenerative themes. Contributions are displayed at both the EU level and country level, with specific actors distinguished by different color patterns in the stacked bars.

In addition to addressing various regenerative themes, actors also mentioned specific regenerative practices. A total of 4935 practices were identified, exhibiting varying degrees of overlap and detail. These were grouped into 207 distinct micro-clusters and 63 meso-clusters, each contributing to different dimensions of sustainability (i.e. People, Planet, and Profit, see Section 4.2). Figure 5 presents those meso-clustered practices mentioned more than 15 times, Supplementary Table 1 shows the full range of micro and meso-practices. The figure reveals that most of these practices are promoted primarily for their contributions to environmental sustainability. The three most frequently mentioned meso-practices were cover crops, crop diversification, and agroforestry, collectively accounting for nearly 25% of all identified practices. Overall, crop management-related practices dominated the dataset. However, the frequency with which practices are mentioned does not necessarily reflect their widespread adoption. The dominance of crop management-related practices may stem from their broader applicability across various farming systems (e.g. arable, mixed, horticulture). However, this trend could also be influenced by a potential higher number of actors focusing on crop management rather than livestock management. For instance, our study found that a larger proportion of horticulturists (12%) and arable farmers (8%) self-identify as regenerative compared to dairy (5%) and beef farmers (1%). Furthermore, certain practices that were frequently mentioned in some case countries were less common or not mentioned in others. For example, the use of biochar was not reported in Portugal but was frequently cited in Germany (n = 17). Similarly, herb-rich grassland was not mentioned in Spain but was referenced 19 times in the Netherlands. Supplementary Tables 2–5 provide country-specific results on the themes and practices mentioned by actors involved in regenerative agriculture.

Fig. 5: Practices identified as regenerative by actors.
Fig. 5: Practices identified as regenerative by actors.
Full size image

The practices were included only if mentioned at least 15 times and grouped under broader sustainability dimensions (i.e. People, Planet, and Profit). The bar sizes indicate the total frequency each practice was mentioned, while colors differentiate between actor types.

From Fig. 5 various types of practices can be identified, such as directive and normative practices31. Directive practices dominated the dataset, comprising over 90% of the practices identified. These are typically characterized by prescriptive “do’s and don’ts”. In this study, they were associated, for example, with practices aimed at the elimination or reduction of specific activities, such as no or reduced tillage, pesticide use, and synthetic fertilizer use. Among the primary actor groups (i.e. farmers, processors, and advisors), farmers predominantly supported the complete elimination of tillage, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers (61%), see also Supplementary Fig. 5. In contrast, processing companies, while aligned with similar regenerative themes, more frequently advocated for minimizing or reducing these practices (80%). Processing companies face the challenge of working with a diverse range of farmers at different stages of transitioning to regenerative agriculture, many of whom are not able to fully eliminate such practices. For example, while no-tillage methods may be viable for dairy farmers on sandy soils, arable farmers managing compacted heavy clay soils may benefit from some form of reduced tillage32. This could include reduced frequency or depth of tillage, or specific types of tillage applied under appropriate weather conditions33,34. However, there is a recurring tension around the ambiguity of terms such as “reduce”, which often lack clarity regarding the specific actions required31. Such vagueness raises concerns about when and how processing companies intend to phase out harmful practices, potentially exposing them to accusations of greenwashing35,36.

Normative practices, which typically embed values (e.g. fairness) and visions (e.g. preventing harm), were less frequent but notable (2%). They were most commonly found within the socio-economic dimensions of regenerative agriculture. Examples from this study include practices such as ensuring “more free time”, supporting “long-term partnerships”, providing “fair wages”, and promoting “women’s economic empowerment”. A last set of practices, which accounted for 4% of the identified practices encompassed broader agricultural approaches (e.g. conservation agriculture). A single meso-cluster, labeled “other approaches to farming”, captured these practices. Within this cluster, ~100 actors referenced, for example, organic agriculture as a regenerative practice, with fewer mentions of conservation agriculture (25 mentions) and agroecology (22 mentions).

Discussion

This study provides the first comprehensive review of the diverse actors claiming involvement in regenerative agriculture in South and West Europe. The findings identify soil health and biodiversity as the most frequently emphasized themes, with cover cropping and crop diversification emerging as key practices championed by these actors. Overall, our results show that the prioritization of themes and practices remains both actor- and context-specific (e.g. country, soil type, and climate). Although the themes and practices of regenerative agriculture address all dimensions of sustainability (i.e. People, Planet, and Profit), they are clearly skewed toward the environmental domain. Further, some themes are missing - for example, none of the actors identified healthy diets as a major theme, therefore, regenerative agriculture could potentially support both healthy and unhealthy diets. Our results align with other studies from various geographical regions, such as Eastern Europe37, Eastern and Southern Africa38,39, Australia40, and South Asia41. These studies address similar themes and practices, consistently highlighting soil regeneration as the entry point of regenerative agriculture. However, they also reveal significant differences in farming systems (e.g. smallholder farmers and rangelands), environmental and socio-economic conditions, and technological capacities.

Our research further underscores the regionally specific nature of regenerative agriculture when comparing the prioritization of practices across countries. For example, in the Netherlands, the elimination of synthetic pesticides is a prevalent goal, whereas syntropic farming (a form of agroforestry42) plays a central role in Portugal. Similarly, mulching is widely emphasized in Germany, while crop-livestock integration is a focus in Spain. Comparing our study with reviews on regenerative practices in other geographical contexts, we find that in Eastern Africa (e.g. Rwanda and Kenya), the emphasis is often on low-cost practices such as intercropping39, whereas in Australia, the application of biological soil supplements is gaining interest40. These findings demonstrate that while actors involved in regenerative agriculture consistently prioritize soil regeneration, its implementation by farmers is highly adaptable. This adaptability enables them to address region-specific challenges and leverage local opportunities.

Although regenerative agriculture shows relevance across diverse agriculture systems, there is a noticeable shift among the actors engaging with regenerative agriculture. Initially starting grassroots with farmers, regenerative agriculture is now increasingly dominated by non-farming actors, particularly industries. This raises the critical question: have non-farming actors either adopted, or co-opted regenerative agriculture, and if so, what does this mean for its potential to drive real transformation? To address this question, we examine our findings through four lenses: 1) narrative and power asymmetries, 2), the complexity for farmers in scaling regenerative practices, 3) the role of science, and 4) the role of policies and certification.

Narratives and power asymmetries: our results show that while the themes (Fig. 4) of regenerative agriculture are widely shared amongst actors, the narratives - how these themes and practices are talked about, vary significantly (see Supplementary Fig. 2 for details). This has important implications not only for how regenerative agriculture is defined and understood, but also for who has the power to define it. This, in turn, has implications for an urgently needed agricultural transformation, as the link between transformation and narratives is well established43. Moreover, our results show a notable divergence between farmers (notably small-scale farmers) and supply chain actors. Farmers often equated regenerative agriculture with specific practices, including the complete elimination of tillage, synthetic pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers (see Supplementary Fig. 5). In contrast, supply and processing companies frequently referred to the reduction of these practices, without clarifying the extent or scale of the reduction or the timeline for phasing them out. As these narratives diverge, particularly between small-scale farmers and multinational corporations, the question of whether regenerative agriculture has been co-opted, remains highly relevant. This is especially important as dominant narratives may be shaped by actors with less in-depth production experience.

In answering this question, we need to consider who has the power to shape the narrative of regenerative agriculture. Consider, that 86% of the top 100 global food companies have demonstrated commitments to regenerative agriculture, collectively exceeding US$3.2 billion in investments44. Additionally, at COP28, 26 agrifood actors pledged to transition 160 million hectares of land to regenerative agriculture by 2030, engaging 3.6 million farmers and committing over €2 billion in funding45. In contrast, small-scale farmers organizing into localized and territorial networks cannot compete with the agro-industry. This imbalance risks allowing corporate interests to define regenerative agriculture in ways that secure enormous profit at the expense of people and planet46. Already, the rejection of regenerative agriculture as ”simply a continuation of the agribusiness-as-usual model” or as a ”byword” for sustainable development, is already clearly emerging in reports and debates in NGO and critical scholarship47,48. This suggests that while there is recognition of the importance of regenerative agriculture at the local level by specific farmers, more broadly, the concept remains highly contentious and is likely to remain so.

In turn, the trends and power asymmetries marking the narratives of regenerative agriculture raise questions that demand more reflection and debate, if more just and equitable ambitions for sustainability are to be met. Key questions to ask include: How useful is the concept of regenerative agriculture when it is actively promoted by fast-fashion companies and by corporations extracting billions of dollars in annual profits?14 Do we need better definitions or stronger regulation?16,18 Should we identify explicit principles, practices, targets, and norms?49 What are the implications of the dominant narrative of regeneration for the farmers doing the hard and complex work of managing regenerative farms50?

The complexity in scaling regenerative agriculture: while large-scale value chain players demonstrate their commitments to regenerative agriculture through public statements and financial investments, our study does not show the expected trickle-down effect to their suppliers, such as large-scale farmers. Instead, in Europe it is primarily small-scale farmers who identify as regenerative. While most cited practices are compatible with large-scale systems (e.g. cover crops), this disconnect may arise from the challenges large-scale farmers face in adopting and scaling less frequently cited but more radical practices (e.g. agroforestry) due to the inherent complexities of these food systems. Large-scale European farmers are often integrated into international markets, supported by EU policies that promote export-oriented production and benefit from economies of scale and access to global supply chains. Small-scale regenerative farmers generally operate within niche markets, such as short value chains, where they can quickly adapt to shifting demands and receive financial compensation through mechanisms such as price premiums51. However, within the prevailing food system, this is not the case for large-scale farms, where the focus lies on logistical efficiency, leading to large-scale, specialized farms characterized by monoculture cropping and intensive livestock production. These farms are in the EU highly subsidized and operate on high-input, high-output models, with many environmental and societal costs being externalized52.

For large-scale farms to fully integrate regenerative themes and practices, they would need to (partially) internalize these externalized costs while also risking yield reductions53. As a result, large value chain players would need to identify considerable premiums to offset these additional expenses and risks and sufficiently incentivize their supplying farmers. This must happen at the farm level, where farmers grow multiple crops, especially when considering crop rotations. Support from a single value chain player (e.g. for regenerative sugar beet production in the Netherlands and Germany, wine grapes in France and Portugal, and olives in Spain) is not enough for farmers to fully transition to regenerative agriculture - they need commitment from all buyers to sustain a viable livelihood. Given the complexity and scale of our current food system, it becomes clear that to ensure regenerative agriculture to contribute effectively to sustainability goals, it needs to consider a wide range of actors, including industries and governments, to enable the system to change as a whole54. More concretely, food systems must begin to attribute value beyond yield alone, while incorporating environmental and societal externalities into production costs30,55.

The role of science in regenerative agriculture: for regenerative agriculture to become a meaningful and scalable solution rather than a co-opted marketing term, it is crucial to recognize the practical challenges associated with its implementation. Science plays a critical role in, for example, setting the standards against which regenerative agriculture is assessed as well as evaluating the practices associated with regenerative agriculture. Some practices are hard to achieve simultaneously (e.g. no-tillage and no herbicide use – although minimal tillage can be used for mechanical weed control)11, some can be applied only in certain types of agriculture (e.g. permaculture, mobile chicken coops), and some are rather “fringe”, lacking scientific evidence that supports their efficacy (e.g. compost tea, sheep wool fertilizer) (see also Supplementary Table 1). Furthermore, many actors highlighted the use of biostimulants and inoculants (Fig. 5) as alternatives for managing soil (nutrients) despite increasing concerns that they do not deliver the benefits claimed by manufacturers (e.g. nitrogen-fixing bacterial inoculants for cereals and other non-legumes56; mycorrhizal inoculants57).

Another key question for science is determining how to sustain productivity and prevent negative environmental spillover effects while reducing the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Some goals, such as balanced crop nutrition, are more easily achieved using synthetic fertilizers than animal manures or composts, which contain too much phosphorus and potassium relative to nitrogen to match crop nutrient requirements, particularly in an African context58. Maintaining and building soil organic matter is key to soil health and for healthy crops, but the potential for soil carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation has been exaggerated and should not be a main driver for managing soils59. Furthermore, little attention is currently given to alternative methods of pest and disease control when pesticide use is reduced or avoided. Many approaches to pest and disease control need a landscape approach, where landscape elements such as hedgerows and woodlands and nature areas can be important barriers for dispersal and refugia for natural predators of pests60,61. For example, the Earth Commission62 proposed that maintaining 20% of land per km² in natural habitat is necessary to support pollination, pest regulation, and nutrient interception. Such biodiversity targets can inform regenerative agriculture at the landscape-level. However, achieving these targets requires deeper discussion on the appropriate landscape approach – such as land sharing and land sparing63 – to understand the benefits and trade-offs involved in transitioning to regenerative agriculture.

Addressing these challenges requires not only developing alternative strategies for soil health and pest management but also establishing robust systems to track progress and assess outcomes at various scales. Means to measure and monitor progress towards different outcomes are important for all food system actors – from the farmers to see if desired outcomes are realized through the implementation of practices to the consumer who needs confidence the food purchased is produced according to the standards claimed. Science has an important role to play in selecting indicators and setting baselines against which change can be measured64 – neither are easy tasks. Yet, the burden of proof for regenerative agriculture lies in its ability to showcase its regenerative capacity on environmental themes such as soil health - until then, its potential remains uncertain.

The role of policies and certification in regenerative agriculture: given the challenges associated not only with who controls the narrative of regenerative agriculture, but also with scaling regenerative agriculture, targeted and scale-appropriate support for more sustainable modes of farming and processing is essential. However, regenerative agriculture has received relatively limited attention in policy spaces (see Fig. 3). This could be due to the lack of a clear, universally accepted definition19, or simply a matter of timing - regenerative agriculture has only recently gained significant traction11, and policymakers may still be catching up. However, it could also be that there is little demand. Much focus on sustainable agriculture has converged around agroecology, with principles and practices now more broadly recognized and adopted in policy49, and science-policy arenas, including the FAO, the Committee on World Food Security, the UN Food Systems Summit, the IPCC, and the IPBES Nexus Assessment. Consider that the convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP1565,66 included agroecology in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) as part of Target 10. By contrast, there is little activity related to regulating regenerative agriculture67.

Further, our study suggests that the rapid increase in engagement around regenerative agriculture may have already peaked, as growth appears to be plateauing, particularly among farmers. While policy is necessary to advance sustainable agricultural and food systems, it remains unclear if regenerative agriculture will be, or needs to be, part of this equation. The private sector is unlikely to call for public policy to regulate its practices. When there is a willingness to advance public policy, it is typically driven by the desire to align with existing industry standards or to establish a common set of standards that creates a level playing field among competitors. Yet, the private sector continues to develop certification programmes competing for validation and scaling, while there is no consensus on whether certification should be based on targets, practices, results, or outcomes13. Furthermore, having the private sector regulate itself is akin to having the foxes guard the hen house. Moreover, such certification schemes can function as lock-ins for farmers at a time where farmers need support to adjust to rapidly changing conditions. More attention is needed to the implications and trade-offs of policies and certification schemes for regenerative agriculture. Further, given asymmetries of power and the current political climate across Europe, we can question if there is the political will and capacity to generate policies and certification schemes that can shift from business as usual.

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that regenerative agriculture initially emerged as a grassroots approach led by farmers. However, it is increasingly associated with non-farming actors, particularly multinational processing companies. Our findings suggest a shift in the discourse, whereby these powerful actors are now shaping the narrative around regenerative agriculture. This trend is accompanied by a decline in the number of new farmers aligning themselves with the term. Such developments raise questions about a potential shift of regenerative agriculture from on-farm practices towards marketing-led agendas.

The study also confirms that regenerative agriculture practices are predominantly seen as a way to address the environmental dimensions of sustainable food production, with a particular emphasis on soil health and biodiversity. Nevertheless, the diverse practices now labeled as ‘regenerative’ remain highly context-dependent and actor-specific. At present, the usefulness of the concept of regenerative agriculture as a sustainable solution rests on its ability to demonstrate the capacity to regenerate the environment and social relations—until evidence to support this role is available, its overall impact remains uncertain.

Methods

To better understand the various actors (e.g. farmers, industries, NGOs) promoting regenerative agriculture we focused on five countries across Europe: Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal. These countries were selected because they offered a diverse cross-section of the agricultural systems in Southern and Western Europe, varied political contexts, and distinct environmental challenges. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the actors promoting regenerative agriculture, data was collected to explore, for example, the prevalence of small-scale farmers versus multinational corporations, the timelines of when various actors began their commitment to regenerative agriculture, and whether there was alignment among actors on the importance of various regenerative themes and practices. The descriptive data collected covered six specific aspects: 1) the actors’ locations, 2) the year they committed to regenerative agriculture, 3) the type of actor, 4) the size of the actor, 5) the themes they promoted, and 6) the practices they advocated. Our approach followed three steps (Fig. 6). In the first step, we identified relevant actors through a systematic search in two online search engines (i.e. Google and LinkedIn). The second step involved collecting descriptive data on the actors by extracting relevant information from their websites. A third step of this study involved conducting semi-structured interviews with farmers to ensure sufficient data collection. The process of collecting and analyzing this information is detailed in the following sections and in Supplementary Table 6.

Fig. 6: Overview of the research methodology.
Fig. 6: Overview of the research methodology.
Full size image

The illustration outlines the approach used to investigate actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Southern and Western Europe. The methodology combined a literature review with both quantitative and qualitative data collection, including manual website extraction and farm interviews. The letter ‘n’ indicates the number of actors considered at each stage of the study. PRISMA refers to the systematic review protocol68.

Literature review

To identify relevant actors, we followed the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for a systematic and transparent search68. A detailed overview of this review is reported in Supplementary Table 6. We utilized two widely used online search engines: Google Advanced Search and the professional networking platform LinkedIn69,70,71. Google Advanced Search was conducted with a single query for each case country, using the terms “regenerative agriculture” and “regenerative farming”, along with their translations into the respective country’s language (e.g. “agriculture régénératrice” in French or “regeneratieve landbouw” in Dutch), and applying a location filter for the specific country. Before finalizing the query, we tested various search terms and wildcards to assess their effect on the number of actors identified. However, using broader terms or including wildcards resulted in more irrelevant data (noise) without identifying additional actors. The same search terms were applied to LinkedIn, using location filters for the case countries and restricting the search to “people” and “companies”. LinkedIn was used as a snowball sampling platform, where people and companies mentioning regenerative agriculture were further investigated to confirm whether their websites indicated a commitment to regenerative practices before inclusion. An exception was made for farmers, as many were found to lack websites or have only a limited online presence. Therefore, farmers identified during the LinkedIn search who self-identified as regenerative were invited for semi-structured interviews to supplement the data collection. We acknowledge that only interviewing farmers may lead to an imbalance in the data collection process (see Supplementary Table 6 for details). For this study, actors were defined as entities (e.g. farmers, organizations, projects) that actively engage with regenerative agriculture (see also Supplementary Table 6) within their enterprises with an online presence in English or the respective country’s language. After an initial screening, duplicates and irrelevant entries (e.g. news articles or blog posts) were excluded based on the titles and “snippets” (the descriptions that appear under search results). While news articles and blog posts were not considered actors, we applied a snowballing approach when such sources mentioned specific regenerative farmers or other relevant actors, which were subsequently included in the next screening phase and in case of farmers invited for an interview. In the second screening, actors were excluded if their websites were inaccessible or irrelevant. An actor was considered irrelevant during full-text screening if it met the initial criteria but did not actively engage in regenerative agriculture. For example, we found several leadership training programmes held on regenerative farms that were excluded because they did not directly contribute or practice regenerative agriculture. In total, we identified 849 actors across the five case countries for data extraction. Figure 7 provides an overview of the search process, following the PRISMA 2020 statement68. Further details are provided in Supplementary Table 6.

Fig. 7: PRISMA workflow for actor identification.
Fig. 7: PRISMA workflow for actor identification.
Full size image

The PRISMA workflow outlines the systematic search and inclusion process of actors. In the initial search, “not relevant” refers to results that did not represent actors, such as newspaper articles or blog posts. During the full website screening, “not relevant” refers to actors not engaged in regenerative agriculture.

Website extraction

The actors identified through the systematic search were cataloged in an MS Excel database, and their websites were analyzed to extract key information, including their location, the year they committed to regenerative agriculture, the type and size of the actor, the themes they promoted, and the practices they advocated. The review and website extraction were done for the various countries between June 2023 until November 2024. The location of each actor was recorded as the head office if there were multiple locations within a country; if actors operated in more than one country, they were listed as separate entries. This applied to 18 actors (e.g. Danone and Climate Farmers). The year of commitment was sourced from the entities’ websites, from the website’s source code or from annual reports where their first commitment was indicated. The data collection year 2024 (incomplete) was excluded from visual representations of actor commitments but was included in the overall analysis. The 849 actors were classified into 16 archetypes72: supplier, farmer, processor, distribution or aggregation, retailer, consumer group, resource and waste recovery, financial institution, government agency, press and media, NGO or civil society organization, research or education, knowledge or innovation project, advisory or consultancy enterprises, land tenures, and other. A more in-depth definition of the different actor types can be found in Supplementary Table 6. When actors embodied multiple archetypes (e.g. a farmer also offering advisory services and education), the primary type was selected. The size of the actors was benchmarked against national inventories for different actor types and rated on a scale from 1 (very small) to 5 (very large), an example for some actor types and two case countries is given in Meso-clusters represented a medium level of aggregation, where specific micro-practices were merged into more general practices. For example, ‘intercropping’, ‘strip cropping’, and ‘companion planting’ were merged into ‘crop diversification’ practices. Furthermore, the identified practices were categorized as directive or normative, following Sumberg et al.31. Although, this classification was meant to categorize principles it was used in this study to clarify whether practices were intended to be prescriptive (e.g. no tillage) or to reflect embedded values (e.g. fair wages). For more details on the data collection and processing, see Supplementary Table 6.

Table 1 and the full list of reference values can be found in Supplementary Table 7. The themes addressed by the actors were categorized based on the eight themes established by Schreefel et al.19,23: soil health, biodiversity, nutrient cycling, water regulation, climate regulation, economic prosperity, human well-being, and animal welfare. The results from the themes and practices were aligned with the triple bottom line approach, enabling connections with the dimensions of people, planet, and profit73. All practices mentioned by the actors were recorded and grouped into clusters at two scales of aggregation. Micro-clusters represented clusters with the smallest level of aggregation and were used to aggregate practices that refer to the same activity, for example ‘reducing’ or “minimizing” tillage were grouped as ‘reduce tillage’, while ‘no-tillage’ was considered a distinct practice. Meso-clusters represented a medium level of aggregation, where specific micro-practices were merged into more general practices. For example, ‘intercropping’, ‘strip cropping’, and ‘companion planting’ were merged into ‘crop diversification’ practices. Furthermore, the identified practices were categorized as directive or normative, following Sumberg et al.31. Although, this classification was meant to categorize principles it was used in this study to clarify whether practices were intended to be prescriptive (e.g. no tillage) or to reflect embedded values (e.g. fair wages). For more details on the data collection and processing, see Supplementary Table 6.

Table 1 National reference values used for two larger actor types used for two case-countries
Full size table

Farm interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with self-identified regenerative farmers to verify or collect any descriptive information that could not be obtained from farmers’ online sources. All the identified farmers that appeared from our systematic search were approached by phone, e-mail or LinkedIn to participate in the study in which the interviews were conducted either by phone or an online platform. From the 281 regenerative farmers identified, 131 participated, resulting in a response rate of 47% (Table 2). The interviews lasted one hour on average and followed a protocol in the form of a questionnaire, which was completed using MS Forms, for the specific questions see Supplementary Table 6. The interviews and extraction of descriptive information from websites were conducted simultaneously across the case-study countries (Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal) by the respective co-authors, who are fluent in the languages of those countries. All descriptive information was then harmonized into a MS Excel database for analysis.

Table 2 Overview of regenerative farmers identified through the systematic search process and those successfully interviewed
Full size table