New report finds large corporations are diluting the meaning of regenerative agriculture; regenerative certifiers say validating regenerative outcomes will prevent greenwashing
As the regenerative agriculture trend continues to grow, there are increasing concerns about greenwashing of regenerative claims. Multi-national biotech/pesticide companies such as Bayer and Syngenta as well as large food and agriculture companies such as Nestlé, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, Cargill, and ADM, to name a few, are touting regenerative practices to sequester carbon and help mitigate climate change.
“Regenerative agriculture being misused by large corporations”
How valid are these “regenerative” claims? Not very, according to a recent report from the New Climate Institute, titled “Navigating Regenerative Agriculture in Corporate Climate Strategies.” The report highlights greenwashing concerns around 30 large food and agriculture corporations. The report states: “There are early signs that regenerative agriculture is being misused by large companies and that its meaning is being diluted, leaving out key principles and practices such as climate justice and reducing chemical inputs.”
Further, it states that “food and agriculture companies are not using regenerative agriculture to redesign the food production system—instead, they are superposing some regenerative agriculture practices on top of business-as-usual agricultural practices.”
The report ends by stating that companies making regenerative agriculture claims need to “ensure that their claims are backed by stringent verification schemes.”
Certification of regenerative is essential
In the past few years, regenerative verification programs have emerged to verify regenerative claims. The leading programs are Certified Regenerative by A Greener World, Savory Institute’s Land to Market, Regenerative Organic Certified, Regenified, Soil & Climate Initiative, and Ethos.
Can these programs prevent greenwashing? Program representatives say they can.
“Yes, absolutely, regenerative certifications are extremely important because without some type of verification, regenerative becomes what sustainable is now,” says Emily Moose, executive director of A Greener World, which offers a range of certification programs, including regenerative.
“We see certification of regenerative as essential,” says Kristine Root, chief marketing officer at Regenified. “Otherwise you have companies saying, ‘we created our own regenerative program.’ That’s where certification can really say ‘no, this is what regenerative is.’ We need to be grounded in the truth that regenerative agriculture is about farm level practices that influence the ecosystems within those farms. That is why certification is absolutely essential.”
Consumers also value certification, according to a recent survey commissioned by Regenified. The survey found that 72% of values-based shoppers—those who have a preference for purchasing high quality, nutritious food—“place high importance on certification when choosing products, demanding clear labeling to ensure trust in the products they choose.”
Jeff Bos, senior director, design & innovation at the Soil & Climate Initiative, says that certification programs can show measurable outcomes that farmers achieve, such as soil health. “In order to get those outcomes farmers need to be demonstrating that they’re following the soil health pillars. If they are just doing cover cropping and spraying all the time, they’re not building soil health. Rigorous standards are really important.”
That is also the view of Courtney Pineau, executive director of the Climate Collaborative, a non-profit that aims to activate climate action in the grocery industry.
“Rigor means setting a high bar for action and continuous improvement. I encourage all companies to ensure that any claims they make are verifiable and specific,” she says.
Pineau predicts that there will be lawsuits against companies making baseless regenerative claims, like what has happened with “natural” claims.
Megan Meiklejohn, interim CEO of Land to Market, which certifies regenerative pastureland, says it’s important to have a variety of regenerative certifiers. “I think programs like Land to Market can prevent greenwashing, but it’s going to have to be other organizations as well. I think it’s good to have diversity in the certification space because our program is very specific on rangelands and grasslands. We need solutions for field crops too.”
Meiklejohn also emphasizes the need for certification programs to be rigorous. “We do need to make sure that these programs result in actual regeneration of the land.”
Regenerative certification programs
No common definition of regenerative agriculture
One of the main reasons regenerative is susceptible to greenwashing is the lack of a standard definition for what regenerative is. Unlike organic, which has a uniform standard defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, regenerative has no such uniform standard. As a result, agriculture and food companies can set their own standards for what regenerative means. The New Climate Institute report says that 18 of the 30 companies highlighted in the report define regenerative agriculture. The report states: “We find that there is a lack of a common definition or regenerative agriculture, even among those who use regenerative agriculture most in their sustainability strategies and communication.”
In the absence of a common definition, regenerative certification organizations are filling the void with their own standards.
Is a common definition of regenerative needed? The California Department of Food and Agriculture has been working for the last two years to create such a definition. The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) recently established their own definition for regenerative agriculture “attempting to clarify its meaning and address growing consumer and market demand.”
Several certification representatives doubt the need for a definition, saying that flexibility is needed.
“I think it would be very difficult, as the process in California has demonstrated, to come up with a single common definition of a term as all-encompassing as regenerative,” Moose says. “I think it is probably more feasible to have principles or guidance around the claim that ensure that it is meaningful.”
There is general agreement about the principles of regenerative agriculture, which include reducing soil disturbance with minimal or no tillage, keeping the soil covered with cover crops to reduce runoff, maintaining living roots in the ground as much as possible, adding plant diversity to build soil diversity, and integrating livestock, which add manure to build soil health.
Bos also says flexibility is needed. “We need to have some common pillars and some standards around those common pillars across regenerative, but we still need to leave space for the grower to do what makes the most sense for the farm,” he says.
Meiklejohn says defining regenerative would be detrimental because regenerative practices vary depending on the location.
“If the definition results in talking about regenerative practices, I think that would be harmful because what works for one farmer may not work for their neighbor let alone someone in a different country or a different eco region,” she says.
On the other hand, Root would like to see a common definition for regenerative. “I think it would be very helpful if we could all come together on common ground and say, ‘this is what regenerative means,’ ” she says. “The more we can unite to recognize that this is for the betterment of humanity and for our planet, I think that would be incredibly helpful.”
Overall, regenerative certification programs can have a very positive impact, says Pineau. “Certification programs that are rigorously run and include a transparent, credible standard have the potential to significantly impact how food is grown and produced. My hope is that these programs provide companies with a rigorous path for agriculture that truly regenerates our food system.”
