Beyond the buzz: analysing actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Europe

Beyond the buzz: analysing actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Europe | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Beyond the buzz: analysing actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Europe Loekie Schreefel, Emile Steenman, Fabian Adler, Ricardo Buffara, and 6 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6477627/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Regenerative agriculture is advocated as a response to environmental and socio-economic challenges, yet little research systematically examines its key proponents. We analysed 849 actor websites and interviewed 131 self-identified regenerative farmers across Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal. It mapped actor types, locations, sizes, and promoted themes (e.g. biodiversity) and practices (e.g. no-tillage). Our findings suggest regenerative agriculture originated as a grassroots approach to farming that was co-opted by non-farming actors around 2020. Actors were mainly based in cities, particularly non-farming actors like NGOs. The most promoted themes were soil health and biodiversity, nearly 10% of actors mentioned no themes. Among nearly 5,000 identified practices, cover cropping and crop diversification were most cited. We conclude, by reflecting on the findings from multiple perspectives, that the burden of proof for regenerative agriculture to be sustainable lies in its ability to regenerate the environment - until then, its impact remains uncertain. Biological sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology Biological sciences/Ecology Biological sciences/Plant sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology Regenerative farming stakeholders environmental sustainability food production sustainable development Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Introduction Food is a fundamental necessity for human survival and well-being, yet current methods of food production exert significant pressures on our planetary boundaries 1 , 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 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 waters 3 , 4 . Furthermore, problems such as soil erosion, salinization, compaction, acidification, and chemical pollution have collectively degraded approximately one-third of the global land area 5 . These negative environmental impacts, in turn, directly threaten global food security and human well-being 6 . In response to these threats, a wide range of sustainable farming approaches have been proposed, such as nature-inclusive or circular agriculture, as contributors to bringing the global food system back within planetary boundaries. Regenerative agriculture, in particular, has been heralded by 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 planet 7 – 9 . Despite its growing popularity, regenerative agriculture faces significant criticism 10 including concerns regarding exaggerated or overly simplistic claims on the impact of its practices 11 , a certain feeling of dogma or buzz 12 , the absence of government-supported implementation standards 13 , and corporate greenwashing 14 . While resistance to new or emerging approaches to farming is not uncommon 15 , it is crucial to better understand the key players driving the buzz (and fuzz) around regenerative agriculture and the narratives they promote to evaluate the adoption of practices, encourage policy development, and shape public perception 16 . Several reviews have explored the ambitions and practices associated with regenerative agriculture 17 , 18 . These studies frequently prioritize academic perspectives 19 , focus on particular themes such as soil health 20 , emphasize a limited range of practices 21 , or restrict their analyses to specific national contexts 22 . Collectively, these studies indicate that regenerative agriculture is highly context-specific 23 , with a general consensus that soil regeneration is the entry point to enhancing food system sustainability across the dimensions of people, planet, and profit 19 . Nonetheless, we could find no comprehensive study that systematically examines the diverse actors within regenerative agriculture. In this paper, we analyse 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. 2. Results and discussion 2.1 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 approximately 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 Ibérica 24 and Climate Farmers 25 , 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). 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, and a decline in 2023. A similar trend was observed in the publication of popular news items 11 and peer-reviewed publications 17 , 26 on regenerative agriculture. This trend also confirms earlier findings that regenerative agriculture originated as a grassroots approach led by farmers 27 . While initially driven predominantly by farmers, a notable shift occurred from 2016 to 2020 onwards, with non-farming actors playing an increasingly prominent role. 2.2 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 farmers 28 to national large-scale public – private partnerships between a wide range of food system actors 29 . 2.3 Regenerative themes and practices promoted To better understand how different food system actors perceive regenerative agriculture, we analysed the regenerative themes and practices referenced by the 849 actors on their websites and during interviews (Fig. 4 ). 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 reviews 17 , 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 regionally 30 . Animal welfare received the least attention across countries (33%). Many actors aimed to address multiple regenerative themes. Specifically, 11% of actors addressed all eight themes, while 18% addressed seven themes (see Supplementary Materials A 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. In addition to addressing various regenerative themes, actors also mentioned specific regenerative practices. A total of 4,935 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. Figure 5 presents those meso-clustered practices mentioned more than 15 times, Supplementary Materials B 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 Materials C provides country-specific results on the themes and practices mentioned by actors involved in regenerative agriculture. From Fig. 5 various types of practices can be identified, such as directive and normative practices 31 . 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 materials D. 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 tillage 32 . This could include reduced frequency or depth of tillage, or specific types of tillage applied under appropriate weather conditions 33 , 34 . However, there is a recurring tension around the ambiguity of terms such as "reduce", which often lack clarity regarding the specific actions required 31 . Such vagueness raises concerns about when and how processing companies intend to phase out harmful practices, potentially exposing them to accusations of greenwashing 35 , 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, labelled "other approaches to farming", captured these practices. Within this cluster, approximately 100 actors referenced, for example, organic agriculture as a regenerative practice, with fewer mentions of conservation agriculture (25 mentions) and agroecology (22 mentions). 3. General discussion 3.1 The context-specific nature of regenerative agriculture This study provides the first comprehensive review of the diverse actors claiming involvement in regenerative agriculture in South and West Europe, analysing 849 actors, including farmers, NGOs, and industries. 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. 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 Europe 37 , Eastern and Southern Africa 38 , 39 , Australia 40 , and South Asia 41 . 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 prevalent, whereas syntropic farming (a form of agroforestry 42 ) 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 intercropping 39 , whereas in Australia, the application of biological soil supplements is gaining interest 40 . These findings demonstrate that while regenerative agriculture consistently prioritizes soil regeneration, its implementation is highly adaptable. This adaptability enables it 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 role of science, 3) the complexity for farmers in scaling regenerative practices, and 4) the role of policies and certification. 3.2 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. 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 established 43 . 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. 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. 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 investments 44 . 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 funding 45 . 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 planet 46 . 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 scholarship 47 , 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? Do we need better definitions or stronger regulation? Should we identify explicit principles, practices, targets, and norms? What are the implications of the dominant narrative of regeneration for the farmers doing the hard and complex work of managing regenerative farms? 3.3 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. Small-scale regenerative farmers operate within niche markets, such as short value chains, where they can quickly adapt to shifting demands and receive financial compensation through mechanisms like price premiums 49 . 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 externalized 50 . For large-scale farms to fully integrate regenerative themes and practices, they would need to (partially) internalize these externalized costs while also risking yield reductions 51 . 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) 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 effectively contribute to sustainability goals, it needs to consider a wide range of actors, including industries and governments, to enable the system to change as a whole 52 . More concretely, food systems must begin to attribute value beyond yield alone, while incorporating environmental and societal externalities into production costs 30 , 53 . 3.4 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 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 materials B). 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-legumes 54 ; mycorrhizal inoculants 55 ). 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 context 56 . 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 soils 57 . 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 pests 58 , 59 . For example, the Earth Commission 60 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 sparing 61 – 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 measured 62 – 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. 3.5 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 definition 19 , or simply a matter of timing - regenerative agriculture has only recently gained significant traction 11 , 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 policy 63 , 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) COP15 64,65 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 agriculture 66 . 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 programs competing for validation and scaling, while there is no consensus on whether certification should be based on targets, practices, results, or outcomes 13 . 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. 4. 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 analysing this information is detailed in the following sections and in Supplementary Materials E. 4.1 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 search 67 . A detailed overview of this review is reported in Supplementary Materials E. We utilized two widely used online search engines: Google Advanced Search and the professional networking platform LinkedIn 68 – 70 . 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 “r egeneratieve 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. For this study, actors were defined as entities (e.g. farmers, organizations, projects) that actively engage with regenerative agriculture (see also Supplementary Materials E #10b) 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 programs 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 statement 67 . Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials E. 4.2 Website extraction The actors identified through the systematic search were catalogued in an MS Excel database, and their websites were analysed 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 849 actors were classified into 16 archetypes 71 : 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 materials E #10b. 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 Table 1 and the full list of reference values can be found in Supplementary materials F. 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 profit 72 . 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 Materials E #13d. Table 1 National reference values used for two larger actor types used for two case-countries. Arable farming systems Private sector Score Area (ha) Employees (n) NL DE NL DE Very small ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 Small > 10–50 > 10–50 > 5–10 > 10–50 Medium > 50–100 > 50–100 > 10–50 > 50–250 Large > 100–300 > 100–200 > 50–100 > 250–500 Very large > 300 > 200 > 100 > 500 Ref 73 74 75 76 4.3 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 Materials E #27. The interviews and extraction of descriptive information from websites were conducted simultaneously across the case-study countries by the respective co-authors, who are fluent in the languages of those countries. Table 2 Overview of regenerative farmers identified through the systematic search process and those successfully interviewed. Farmers identified (n) Farmers interviewed (n) Response rate (%) Europe 281 131 47 Germany 68 23 34 Netherlands 40 30 75 France 37 18 49 Spain 94 49 52 Portugal 42 11 26 Declarations All participants provided informed consent to their inclusion in the study and the use of their data. Authorship LS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Coordination, Project administration, Funding acquisition. ES: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing. RB: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing. FA: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing. SF: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing. FD: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. JD: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. KG: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. HK: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. HvZ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Funding acquisition. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Competing interest All authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests. Author Contribution L.S.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Coordination, Project administration, Funding acquisition.E.S.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing.R.B.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing.F.A.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing.S.F.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing.F.D.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.J.D.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.K.G.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.H.K.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.H.vZ.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Funding acquisition.All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgement This study was funded by The Nest Family Office (TNFO). The funder played no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript. Data Availability The processed datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the supplementary materials. Datasets containing privacy-sensitive information are not publicly available but can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018). Richardson, K. et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci Adv 9, (2023). Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2, 198–209 (2021). Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (1979) 360, 987–992 (2018). United Nations. The Global Land Outlook, Second Edition . United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, 2022). Rockström, J. et al. Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619, 102–111 (2023). Bayer AG. Sustainability Report 2023 . (2024). Danone. Regenerative Agriculture for a Regenerative Future . https://www.danone.com/content/dam/danone-corp/danone-com/about-us-impact/policies-and-commitments/en/2021/Danone-regenerative-agriculture-2021.pdf (2021). EIT Food. Regenerative Agriculture – mentoring farmers for the benefit of all. 1 https://www.eitfood.eu/projects/regenag-revolution (2024). IFOAM - Organics International. Elevating Truly Regenerative Agriculture – a Statement from the Organic Movement . (2025). Giller, K. E., Hijbeek, R., Andersson, J. A. & Sumberg, J. Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric 50, 13–25 (2021). Wilson, K. R., Hendrickson, M. K. & Myers, R. L. A buzzword, a “win-win”, or a signal towards the future of agriculture? A critical analysis of regenerative agriculture. Agric Human Values (2024) doi: 10.1007/s10460-024-10603-1 . Schreefel, L. et al. How to monitor the ‘success’ of agricultural sustainability: A perspective. Glob Food Sec 43, 100810 (2024). Bless, A. The co-optation of regenerative agriculture: revisiting the corporate environmental food regime. Globalizations 1–23 (2024) doi: 10.1080/14747731.2024.2397260 . Conti, C., Zanello, G. & Hall, A. Why are agri-food systems resistant to new directions of change? A systematic review. Glob Food Sec 31, 100576 (2021). Gordon, E., Davila, F. & Riedy, C. Regenerative agriculture: a potentially transformative storyline shared by nine discourses. Sustain Sci 18, 1833–1849 (2023). Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K. & Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Front Sustain Food Syst 4, (2020). Jayasinghe, S. L., Thomas, D. T., Anderson, J. P., Chen, C. & Macdonald, B. C. T. Global Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review of Definitions and Assessment Approaches. Sustainability 15, 15941 (2023). Schreefel, L., Schulte, R. P. O., de Boer, I. J. M., Schrijver, A. P. & van Zanten, H. H. E. Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Glob Food Sec 26, 100404 (2020). Khangura, R., Ferris, D., Wagg, C. & Bowyer, J. Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability 15, 2338 (2023). Voisin, R. et al. What goes in and what comes out: a scoping review of regenerative agricultural practices. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 48, 124–158 (2024). Jaworski, C. C., Krzywoszynska, A., Leake, J. R. & Dicks, L. V. Sustainable soil management in the United Kingdom: A survey of current practices and how they relate to the principles of regenerative agriculture. Soil Use Manag 40, (2024). Schreefel, L. et al. How to make regenerative practices work on the farm: A modelling framework. Agric Syst 198, 103371 (2022). Agricultura Regenerativa Ibérica. Agricultura Regenerativa Ibérica. (2024). Climate Farmers. The Climate Farmers in Europe. (2024). Schreefel, L. Towards regenerative agriculture: the case of dairy and arable farming in the Netherlands. (Wageningen University, 2023). doi: https://doi.org/10.18174/581810 . Massy, C. Regenerative Agriculture. in Innovation Pathways to Sustainability 218–227 (Routledge, London, 2024). doi: 10.4324/9781003280316-23 . Innovatie Veenkoloniën. Regeneratieve Landbouw Veenkoloniën (RLV). (2024). ReGeNL. Naar een rendabele regeneratieve landbouw. (2024). Schreefel, L. et al. Tailor-made solutions for regenerative agriculture in the Netherlands. Agric Syst 203, 103518 (2022). Sumberg, J., Giller, K. E. & Glover, D. Evolving meanings of ‘principles’ in agronomic discourse. Outlook Agric 52, 363–370 (2023). López-Garrido, R. et al. Reduced tillage as an alternative to no-tillage under Mediterranean conditions: A case study. Soil Tillage Res 140, 40–47 (2014). Derpsch, R. et al. Why do we need to standardize no-tillage research? Soil Tillage Res 137, 16–22 (2014). Pearsons, K. A., Omondi, E. C., Zinati, G., Smith, A. & Rui, Y. A tale of two systems: Does reducing tillage affect soil health differently in long-term, side-by-side conventional and organic agricultural systems? Soil Tillage Res 226, 105562 (2023). IFOAM Organics Europe. Regenerative Agriculture & Organic - Position Paper . (2023). de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B. & Soares, G. R. da L. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review. Environ Sci Eur 32, 19 (2020). Dudek, M. & Rosa, A. Regenerative Agriculture as a Sustainable System of Food Production: Concepts, Conditions, Perceptions and Initial Implementations in Poland, Czechia and Slovakia. Sustainability 15, 15721 (2023). van Antwerpen, R., Watt, D. A., Gillespie, W. & van Heerden, P. D. R. Promoting Adoption of Soil Health Related Regenerative Agriculture Practices Amongst Small-Scale Sugarcane Grower Communities in South Africa. Sugar Tech 26, 635–638 (2024). Ntawuhiganayo, E. B., Nijman-Ross, E., Geme, T., Negesa, D. & Nahimana, S. Assessing the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices in Eastern Africa. Frontiers in Sustainability 4, (2023). Alexanderson, M. S., Luke, H. & Lloyd, D. J. Regenerative agriculture in Australia: the changing face of farming. Front Sustain Food Syst 8, (2024). Mishra, A. K., Bhowmick, M. K., Peramaiyan, P., Sharma, S. & Singh, S. Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Rice-Based Systems in South Asia. in Regenerative Agriculture 210–226 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2024). doi: 10.1201/9781003309581-16 . Andrade, D., Pasini, F. & Scarano, F. R. Syntropy and innovation in agriculture. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 45, 20–24 (2020). SAPEA. A Sustainable Food System for the European Union . (2020). CREO. Summary: Regenerative Ag CPG Targets | Mapping the Landscape of Corporate Engagement . (2024). COP28 UAE. COP28 Presidency Puts Food Systems Transformation on Global Climate Agenda as More than 130 World Leaders Endorse Food and Agriculture Declaration . (2023). Sanderson Bellamy, A. Profit and hegemony in agribusiness. Nat Plants 4, 867–868 (2018). FOEI. False Solutions, Real Profits: Agribusiness’ Tactics Uncovered . (2024). IPES-Food. Smoke and Mirrors: Examining Competing Framings of Food System Sustainability: Agroecology, Regenerative Agriculture, and Nature-Based Solutions . (2022). van der Ploeg, J. D. et al. The economic potential of agroecology: Empirical evidence from Europe. J Rural Stud 71, 46–61 (2019). Kremen, C., Iles, A. & Bacon, C. Diversified Farming Systems: An Agroecological, Systems-based Alternative to Modern Industrial Agriculture. Ecology and Society 17, art44 (2012). Zwetsloot, M. J. et al. Soil multifunctionality: Synergies and trade-offs across European climatic zones and land uses. Eur J Soil Sci 72, 1640–1654 (2021). O’Donoghue, T., Minasny, B. & McBratney, A. Regenerative Agriculture and Its Potential to Improve Farmscape Function. Sustainability 14, 5815 (2022). Pretty, J. et al. Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44, 263–283 (2001). Giller, K. E., James, E. K., Ardley, J. & Unkovich, M. J. Science losing its way: examples from the realm of microbial N2-fixation in cereals and other non-legumes. Plant Soil (2024) doi: 10.1007/s11104-024-07001-1 . Koziol, L., McKenna, T. P. & Bever, J. D. Meta-analysis reveals globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants fall short. New Phytologist (2024) doi: 10.1111/nph.20278 . Falconnier, G. N. et al. The input reduction principle of agroecology is wrong when it comes to mineral fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa. Outlook Agric 52, 311–326 (2023). Moinet, G. Y. K., Hijbeek, R., van Vuuren, D. P. & Giller, K. E. Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon. Glob Chang Biol 29, 2384–2398 (2023). Landis, D. A. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl Ecol 18, 1–12 (2017). Bianchi, F. J. J. A. From pattern to process: Towards mechanistic design principles for pest suppressive landscapes. Basic Appl Ecol 64, 157–171 (2022). Mohamed, A. et al. Securing Nature’s Contributions to People requires at least 20–25% (semi-)natural habitat in human-modified landscapes. One Earth 7, 59–71 (2024). Baudron, F. & Giller, K. E. Agriculture and nature: Trouble and strife? Biol Conserv 170, 232–245 (2014). Giller, K. E. et al. Ground Zero? Let’s Get Real on Regeneration: Report 1: State of the Art and Indicator Selection . (2023) doi: 10.18174/630630 . Tittonell, P. et al. Regenerative agriculture—agroecology without politics? Front Sustain Food Syst 6, (2022). United Nations. Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity . (2023). HLPE. Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems That Enhance Food Security and Nutrition . (2019). WBCSD. Briefing for policy makers: driving business impact on regenerative agriculture. (2024). Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ n71 (2021) doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 . Cook, N., Goodwin, D., Porter, J. & Collins, J. Food and food-related waste management strategies in hospital food services: A systematic review. Nutrition & Dietetics 80, 116–142 (2023). Briscoe, S. & Rogers, M. An alternative screening approach for Google Search identifies an accurate and manageable number of results for a systematic review (case study). Health Info Libr J 41, 149–155 (2024). Paez, A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 10, 233–240 (2017). Moreira-Dantas, I. R., Martínez-Zarzoso, I. & Torres-Munguía, J. A. Sustainable Food Chains to Achieve SDG-12 in Europe: Perspectives from Multi-stakeholders Initiatives. in 1–26 (2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-91261-1_90-1 . Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business . (Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK, 1997). CBS. Bedrijven met akkerbouw per grootteklasse, 2000–2018*. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/maatwerk/2018/47/bedrijven-met-akkerbouw-per-grootteklasse-2000-2018- (2018). BMEL. Tabellen zur Landwirtschaft. https://www.bmel-statistik.de/landwirtschaft/tabellen-zur-landwirtschaft#c8262 (2023). CBS. Aantal bedrijven naar sector en aantal werknemers, 2020. (2021). Statistisches Bundesamt. Rechtliche Einheiten und abhängig Beschäftigte nach Beschäftigtengrößenklassen und Wirtschaftsabschnitten. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Unternehmen/Unternehmensregister/Tabellen/unternehmen-beschaeftigtengroessenklassen-wz08.html?nn=208520 (2022). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementarymaterialsRAEuropeR2.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 31 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 21 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 12 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 30 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 22 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 22 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 19 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 18 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6477627","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":447469004,"identity":"b56c5ef5-89d3-44f6-9b33-5cfbf2729cd2","order_by":0,"name":"Loekie Schreefel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Loekie","middleName":"","lastName":"Schreefel","suffix":""},{"id":447469006,"identity":"43f87b98-7eca-4223-8df0-5c8c39cf39aa","order_by":1,"name":"Emile Steenman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emile","middleName":"","lastName":"Steenman","suffix":""},{"id":447469008,"identity":"62bbe64b-157a-4bd5-9f00-495060be0ea2","order_by":2,"name":"Fabian Adler","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fabian","middleName":"","lastName":"Adler","suffix":""},{"id":447469011,"identity":"e10b4733-0cdb-4747-bf15-6bd6ead4de36","order_by":3,"name":"Ricardo Buffara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ricardo","middleName":"","lastName":"Buffara","suffix":""},{"id":447469012,"identity":"79ea7ddb-680a-4f6d-b4bf-809a41b9d064","order_by":4,"name":"Stephan Freundt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephan","middleName":"","lastName":"Freundt","suffix":""},{"id":447469013,"identity":"c4d1f67d-77a9-45c8-bebf-bdb8e30a3438","order_by":5,"name":"Fabrice DeClerck","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"CGIAR","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fabrice","middleName":"","lastName":"DeClerck","suffix":""},{"id":447469015,"identity":"8179f3cd-ca33-4066-9371-f17299657e88","order_by":6,"name":"Jessica. A. B. Duncan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jessica.","middleName":"A. B.","lastName":"Duncan","suffix":""},{"id":447469016,"identity":"1f5b6997-ef8b-4bd8-b2be-34635057db5a","order_by":7,"name":"Ken. E. Giller","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ken.","middleName":"E.","lastName":"Giller","suffix":""},{"id":447469017,"identity":"bede6d6f-f0ad-411b-bbc4-4edd6b3cfe76","order_by":8,"name":"Howard Koster","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Howard","middleName":"","lastName":"Koster","suffix":""},{"id":447469018,"identity":"8b2c65ce-2873-437b-9408-aaa6e6e59446","order_by":9,"name":"Hannah. H. E. van Zanten","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University \u0026 Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hannah.","middleName":"H. E. van","lastName":"Zanten","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-18 08:53:32","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6477627/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6477627/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81401733,"identity":"18874d83-ddcb-46b0-b447-febe68c4366d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 16:50:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":409811,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOverview of the number (n) of actors promoting regenerative agriculture at both the European and country levels. 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.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/a2876f4a9aa72f15c0d92474.png"},{"id":81403425,"identity":"7e43b662-46b5-4531-ac6d-5d55444395f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 17:06:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":232723,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe year actors committed to regenerative agriculture is represented by stacked bars, while the dotted line indicates the cumulative number of actors over time. *The data is complete up to the year 2023.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/4797b183a23f38f356c8195a.png"},{"id":81402634,"identity":"6483d2c7-f699-4f64-9e7d-4c7a165030ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 16:58:22","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":340480,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRegenerative actors categorized into 16 types, with the total size of each group represented by bars, and the respective sizes within each group, ranging from very small to very large, depicted as bubbles. Actors sizes were determined based on country- and sector-specific criteria.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/20573979f57db958a9db3e35.png"},{"id":81401732,"identity":"40a46034-da21-435d-a6ec-0356586a4c81","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 16:50:22","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2163234,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThemes to which actors have committed, classified according to sustainability dimensions (People, Planet, Profit).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/db9ef7251494b5d0b71378e1.png"},{"id":81401744,"identity":"8e71be67-9a14-4890-b726-64b7750de515","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 16:50:23","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":554961,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePractices to which actors have committed (mentioned at least 15 times).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/a74a49501ed50ef4ff666738.png"},{"id":81403428,"identity":"4e45de46-54a1-4386-bd77-5e94c4403d9f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 17:06:23","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":130040,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIllustration of the research methodology to better understand the various actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Southern and Western Europe, in which ‘n’ represents the number of actors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/964099ef76b5c87d30422468.png"},{"id":81403427,"identity":"07b405b0-e038-4f47-b6f1-9afbf280b4f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 17:06:23","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":341691,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA workflow diagram illustrating the search process. \u003csup\u003e1 “\u003c/sup\u003eNot relevant” in the initial search refers to results that did not represent actors, such as newspaper articles or blog posts. In the full website screening, \"not relevant\" refers to actors that were not engaged in regenerative agriculture.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/57546a409e755d030511af89.png"},{"id":81404350,"identity":"0d77253d-2807-4b32-82d2-df71ccc8f8ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 17:22:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5050875,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/9428ae85-cc4f-4c3e-885b-c6cd001c5f14.pdf"},{"id":81401734,"identity":"d6a9c826-7c49-43ce-ac83-e1498bd4e05d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 16:50:23","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":559245,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementarymaterialsRAEuropeR2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6477627/v1/3012904d9df734303fe86e55.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Beyond the buzz: analysing actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Europe","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFood is a fundamental necessity for human survival and well-being, yet current methods of food production exert significant pressures on our planetary boundaries\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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 \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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 waters\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, problems such as soil erosion, salinization, compaction, acidification, and chemical pollution have collectively degraded approximately one-third of the global land area\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These negative environmental impacts, in turn, directly threaten global food security and human well-being\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to these threats, a wide range of sustainable farming approaches have been proposed, such as nature-inclusive or circular agriculture, as contributors to bringing the global food system back within planetary boundaries. Regenerative agriculture, in particular, has been heralded by 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 planet\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite its growing popularity, regenerative agriculture faces significant criticism\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e including concerns regarding exaggerated or overly simplistic claims on the impact of its practices\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, a certain feeling of dogma or buzz\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, the absence of government-supported implementation standards\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and corporate greenwashing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While resistance to new or emerging approaches to farming is not uncommon\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, it is crucial to better understand the key players driving the buzz (and fuzz) around regenerative agriculture and the narratives they promote to evaluate the adoption of practices, encourage policy development, and shape public perception\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral reviews have explored the ambitions and practices associated with regenerative agriculture\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These studies frequently prioritize academic perspectives\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, focus on particular themes such as soil health\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, emphasize a limited range of practices\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, or restrict their analyses to specific national contexts\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Collectively, these studies indicate that regenerative agriculture is highly context-specific\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, with a general consensus that soil regeneration is the entry point to enhancing food system sustainability across the dimensions of people, planet, and profit\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Nonetheless, we could find no comprehensive study that systematically examines the diverse actors within regenerative agriculture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we analyse 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.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Results and discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Geography and year of commitment of actors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the 849 regenerative agriculture actors identified across Europe, Spain accounted for the largest share, with over 250 actors (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, most other countries recorded an average of approximately 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 Ib\u0026eacute;rica\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and Climate Farmers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, 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).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of actors that claim to be committed to regenerative agriculture has been increasing over time (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Early adopters demonstrated their engagement between 1980 and 2010, followed by an almost exponential growth of all actors since 2016, and a decline in 2023. A similar trend was observed in the publication of popular news items\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and peer-reviewed publications\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e on regenerative agriculture. This trend also confirms earlier findings that regenerative agriculture originated as a grassroots approach led by farmers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While initially driven predominantly by farmers, a notable shift occurred from 2016 to 2020 onwards, with non-farming actors playing an increasingly prominent role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Type and size of actors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the 849 actors examined, 16 categories of actor types were identified, spanning from farmers to various actors throughout the supply chain (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). 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 \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;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. Nescaf\u0026eacute;). 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. D\u0026eacute;Warrier), and designing multifunctional landscapes globally (e.g. AidEnvironment). Additionally, this study included \u0026lsquo;knowledge and innovation projects\u0026rsquo; 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 farmers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e to national large-scale public \u0026ndash; private partnerships between a wide range of food system actors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Regenerative themes and practices promoted\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo better understand how different food system actors perceive regenerative agriculture, we analysed the regenerative themes and practices referenced by the 849 actors on their websites and during interviews (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). 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 reviews\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, 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 regionally\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Animal welfare received the least attention across countries (33%). Many actors aimed to address multiple regenerative themes. Specifically, 11% of actors addressed all eight themes, while 18% addressed seven themes (see Supplementary Materials A 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.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to addressing various regenerative themes, actors also mentioned specific regenerative practices. A total of 4,935 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. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e presents those meso-clustered practices mentioned more than 15 times, Supplementary Materials B 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\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17). Similarly, herb-rich grassland was not mentioned in Spain but was referenced 19 times in the Netherlands. Supplementary Materials C provides country-specific results on the themes and practices mentioned by actors involved in regenerative agriculture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e various types of practices can be identified, such as directive and normative practices\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Directive practices dominated the dataset, comprising over 90% of the practices identified. These are typically characterized by prescriptive \"do\u0026rsquo;s and don\u0026rsquo;ts\u0026rdquo;. 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 materials D. 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 tillage\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This could include reduced frequency or depth of tillage, or specific types of tillage applied under appropriate weather conditions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, there is a recurring tension around the ambiguity of terms such as \"reduce\", which often lack clarity regarding the specific actions required\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Such vagueness raises concerns about when and how processing companies intend to phase out harmful practices, potentially exposing them to accusations of greenwashing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormative 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\u0026rsquo;s economic empowerment\u0026rdquo;. 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, labelled \"other approaches to farming\", captured these practices. Within this cluster, approximately 100 actors referenced, for example, organic agriculture as a regenerative practice, with fewer mentions of conservation agriculture (25 mentions) and agroecology (22 mentions).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. General discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 The context-specific nature of regenerative agriculture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study provides the first comprehensive review of the diverse actors claiming involvement in regenerative agriculture in South and West Europe, analysing 849 actors, including farmers, NGOs, and industries. 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. 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 Europe\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, Eastern and Southern Africa\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, Australia\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and South Asia\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur 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 prevalent, whereas syntropic farming (a form of agroforestry\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) 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 intercropping\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, whereas in Australia, the application of biological soil supplements is gaining interest\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These findings demonstrate that while regenerative agriculture consistently prioritizes soil regeneration, its implementation is highly adaptable. This adaptability enables it to address region-specific challenges and leverage local opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough 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 role of science, 3) the complexity for farmers in scaling regenerative practices, and 4) the role of policies and certification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Narratives and power asymmetries\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results show that while the themes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) of regenerative agriculture are widely shared amongst actors, the narratives - how these themes and practices are talked about, vary significantly. 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 established\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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. 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.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 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\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3.2\u0026nbsp;billion in investments\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, at COP28, 26 agrifood actors pledged to transition 160\u0026nbsp;million hectares of land to regenerative agriculture by 2030, engaging 3.6\u0026nbsp;million farmers and committing over \u0026euro;2\u0026nbsp;billion in funding\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e. 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 planet\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e. Already, the rejection of regenerative agriculture as \u0026rdquo;simply a continuation of the agribusiness-as-usual model\u0026rdquo; or as a \u0026rdquo;byword\u0026rdquo; for sustainable development, is already clearly emerging in reports and debates in NGO and critical scholarship\u003csup\u003e \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e. 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.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 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? Do we need better definitions or stronger regulation? Should we identify explicit principles, practices, targets, and norms? What are the implications of the dominant narrative of regeneration for the farmers doing the hard and complex work of managing regenerative farms?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 The complexity in scaling regenerative agriculture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile 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. Small-scale regenerative farmers operate within niche markets, such as short value chains, where they can quickly adapt to shifting demands and receive financial compensation through mechanisms like price premiums\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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 externalized\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor large-scale farms to fully integrate regenerative themes and practices, they would need to (partially) internalize these externalized costs while also risking yield reductions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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) 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 effectively contribute to sustainability goals, it needs to consider a wide range of actors, including industries and governments, to enable the system to change as a whole\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. More concretely, food systems must begin to attribute value beyond yield alone, while incorporating environmental and societal externalities into production costs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 The role of science in regenerative agriculture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor 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 herbicide use \u0026ndash; although minimal tillage can be used for mechanical weed control)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, some can be applied only in certain types of agriculture (e.g. permaculture, mobile chicken coops), and some are rather \u0026ldquo;fringe\u0026rdquo;, lacking scientific evidence that supports their efficacy (e.g. compost tea, sheep wool fertilizer) (see also supplementary materials B). Furthermore, many actors highlighted the use of biostimulants and inoculants (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) 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-legumes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; mycorrhizal inoculants\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother 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 context\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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 soils\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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 pests\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, the Earth Commission\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e proposed that maintaining 20% of land per km\u0026sup2; 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 \u0026ndash; such as land sharing and land sparing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026ndash; to understand the benefits and trade-offs involved in transitioning to regenerative agriculture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing 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 \u0026ndash; 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 measured\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026ndash; 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.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 The role of policies and certification in regenerative agriculture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This could be due to the lack of a clear, universally accepted definition\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, or simply a matter of timing - regenerative agriculture has only recently gained significant traction\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, 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 policy\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, 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) COP15\u003csup\u003e64,65\u003c/sup\u003e 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 agriculture\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, 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 programs competing for validation and scaling, while there is no consensus on whether certification should be based on targets, practices, results, or outcomes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). 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 analysing this information is detailed in the following sections and in Supplementary Materials E.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Literature review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo identify relevant actors, we followed the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for a systematic and transparent search \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A detailed overview of this review is reported in Supplementary Materials E. We utilized two widely used online search engines: Google Advanced Search and the professional networking platform LinkedIn \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR69\" citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Google Advanced Search was conducted with a single query for each case country, using the terms \"\u003cem\u003eregenerative agriculture\u003c/em\u003e\" and \"\u003cem\u003eregenerative farming\u003c/em\u003e\", along with their translations into the respective country's language (e.g. \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eagriculture r\u0026eacute;g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;ratrice\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e in French or \u0026ldquo;r\u003cem\u003eegeneratieve landbouw\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e 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 \u0026ldquo;people\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;companies\u0026rdquo;. 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. For this study, actors were defined as entities (e.g. farmers, organizations, projects) that actively engage with regenerative agriculture (see also Supplementary Materials E #10b) within their enterprises with an online presence in English or the respective country\u0026rsquo;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 programs 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\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e provides an overview of the search process, following the PRISMA 2020 statement \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Further details are provided in Supplementary Materials E.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Website extraction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe actors identified through the systematic search were catalogued in an MS Excel database, and their websites were analysed 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 849 actors were classified into 16 archetypes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: 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 materials E #10b. 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 Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and the full list of reference values can be found in Supplementary materials F. The themes addressed by the actors were categorized based on the eight themes established by Schreefel et al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: 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 profit \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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 \u0026lsquo;reducing\u0026rsquo; or \"minimizing\" tillage were grouped as \u0026lsquo;reduce tillage\u0026rsquo;, while \u0026lsquo;no-tillage\u0026rsquo; 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, \u0026lsquo;intercropping\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;strip cropping\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;companion planting\u0026rsquo; were merged into \u0026lsquo;crop diversification\u0026rsquo; practices. Furthermore, the identified practices were categorized as directive or normative, following Sumberg et al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. 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 Materials E #13d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational reference values used for two larger actor types used for two case-countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArable farming systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrivate sector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eScore\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArea (ha)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployees (n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery small\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;5\u0026ndash;10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50\u0026ndash;100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50\u0026ndash;100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;10\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50\u0026ndash;250\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;100\u0026ndash;300\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;100\u0026ndash;200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50\u0026ndash;100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;250\u0026ndash;500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery large\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;300\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRef\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Farm interviews\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Semi-structured interviews were conducted with self-identified regenerative farmers to verify or collect any descriptive information that could not be obtained from farmers\u0026rsquo; 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\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). 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 Materials E #27. The interviews and extraction of descriptive information from websites were conducted simultaneously across the case-study countries by the respective co-authors, who are fluent in the languages of those countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview of regenerative farmers identified through the systematic search process and those successfully interviewed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFarmers identified (n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFarmers interviewed\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(n)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponse rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEurope\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e281\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e131\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGermany\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNetherlands\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFrance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpain\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePortugal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided informed consent to their inclusion in the study and the use of their data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAuthorship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Visualization, Coordination, Project administration, Funding acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eES: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRB: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFA: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSF: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFD: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJD: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKG: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHK: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHvZ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Funding acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eL.S.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Visualization, Coordination, Project administration, Funding acquisition.E.S.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.R.B.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.F.A.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.S.F.: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.F.D.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.J.D.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.K.G.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.H.K.: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing.H.vZ.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing, Funding acquisition.All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded by The Nest Family Office (TNFO). The funder played no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe processed datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the supplementary materials. Datasets containing privacy-sensitive information are not publicly available but can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpringmann, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519\u0026ndash;525 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichardson, K. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci Adv 9, (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrippa, M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2, 198\u0026ndash;209 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoore, J. \u0026amp; Nemecek, T. Reducing food\u0026rsquo;s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (1979) 360, 987\u0026ndash;992 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations. \u003cem\u003eThe Global Land Outlook, Second Edition\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eUnited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification\u003c/em\u003e (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, 2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRockstr\u0026ouml;m, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619, 102\u0026ndash;111 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBayer AG. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Report 2023\u003c/em\u003e. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDanone. \u003cem\u003eRegenerative Agriculture for a Regenerative Future\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.danone.com/content/dam/danone-corp/danone-com/about-us-impact/policies-and-commitments/en/2021/Danone-regenerative-agriculture-2021.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.danone.com/content/dam/danone-corp/danone-com/about-us-impact/policies-and-commitments/en/2021/Danone-regenerative-agriculture-2021.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEIT Food. Regenerative Agriculture \u0026ndash; mentoring farmers for the benefit of all. 1 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.eitfood.eu/projects/regenag-revolution\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.eitfood.eu/projects/regenag-revolution\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIFOAM - Organics International. \u003cem\u003eElevating Truly Regenerative Agriculture \u0026ndash; a Statement from the Organic Movement\u003c/em\u003e. (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiller, K. E., Hijbeek, R., Andersson, J. A. \u0026amp; Sumberg, J. Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric 50, 13\u0026ndash;25 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson, K. R., Hendrickson, M. K. \u0026amp; Myers, R. L. A buzzword, a \u0026ldquo;win-win\u0026rdquo;, or a signal towards the future of agriculture? A critical analysis of regenerative agriculture. Agric Human Values (2024) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s10460-024-10603-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10460-024-10603-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreefel, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e How to monitor the \u0026lsquo;success\u0026rsquo; of agricultural sustainability: A perspective. Glob Food Sec 43, 100810 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBless, A. The co-optation of regenerative agriculture: revisiting the corporate environmental food regime. \u003cem\u003eGlobalizations\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026ndash;23 (2024) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/14747731.2024.2397260\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14747731.2024.2397260\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConti, C., Zanello, G. \u0026amp; Hall, A. Why are agri-food systems resistant to new directions of change? A systematic review. Glob Food Sec 31, 100576 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGordon, E., Davila, F. \u0026amp; Riedy, C. Regenerative agriculture: a potentially transformative storyline shared by nine discourses. Sustain Sci 18, 1833\u0026ndash;1849 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K. \u0026amp; Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Front Sustain Food Syst 4, (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJayasinghe, S. L., Thomas, D. T., Anderson, J. P., Chen, C. \u0026amp; Macdonald, B. C. T. Global Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review of Definitions and Assessment Approaches. Sustainability 15, 15941 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreefel, L., Schulte, R. P. O., de Boer, I. J. M., Schrijver, A. P. \u0026amp; van Zanten, H. H. E. Regenerative agriculture \u0026ndash; the soil is the base. Glob Food Sec 26, 100404 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhangura, R., Ferris, D., Wagg, C. \u0026amp; Bowyer, J. Regenerative Agriculture\u0026mdash;A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability 15, 2338 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVoisin, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e What goes in and what comes out: a scoping review of regenerative agricultural practices. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 48, 124\u0026ndash;158 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaworski, C. C., Krzywoszynska, A., Leake, J. R. \u0026amp; Dicks, L. V. Sustainable soil management in the United Kingdom: A survey of current practices and how they relate to the principles of regenerative agriculture. Soil Use Manag 40, (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreefel, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e How to make regenerative practices work on the farm: A modelling framework. Agric Syst 198, 103371 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgricultura Regenerativa Ib\u0026eacute;rica. Agricultura Regenerativa Ib\u0026eacute;rica. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClimate Farmers. The Climate Farmers in Europe. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreefel, L. Towards regenerative agriculture: the case of dairy and arable farming in the Netherlands. (Wageningen University, 2023). doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18174/581810\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18174/581810\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMassy, C. Regenerative Agriculture. in \u003cem\u003eInnovation Pathways to Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e 218\u0026ndash;227 (Routledge, London, 2024). doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4324/9781003280316-23\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781003280316-23\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInnovatie Veenkoloni\u0026euml;n. Regeneratieve Landbouw Veenkoloni\u0026euml;n (RLV). (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReGeNL. Naar een rendabele regeneratieve landbouw. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreefel, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Tailor-made solutions for regenerative agriculture in the Netherlands. Agric Syst 203, 103518 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSumberg, J., Giller, K. E. \u0026amp; Glover, D. Evolving meanings of \u0026lsquo;principles\u0026rsquo; in agronomic discourse. Outlook Agric 52, 363\u0026ndash;370 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez-Garrido, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Reduced tillage as an alternative to no-tillage under Mediterranean conditions: A case study. Soil Tillage Res 140, 40\u0026ndash;47 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDerpsch, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Why do we need to standardize no-tillage research? Soil Tillage Res 137, 16\u0026ndash;22 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePearsons, K. A., Omondi, E. C., Zinati, G., Smith, A. \u0026amp; Rui, Y. A tale of two systems: Does reducing tillage affect soil health differently in long-term, side-by-side conventional and organic agricultural systems? Soil Tillage Res 226, 105562 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIFOAM Organics Europe. \u003cem\u003eRegenerative Agriculture \u0026amp; Organic - Position Paper\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B. \u0026amp; Soares, G. R. da L. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review. Environ Sci Eur 32, 19 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDudek, M. \u0026amp; Rosa, A. Regenerative Agriculture as a Sustainable System of Food Production: Concepts, Conditions, Perceptions and Initial Implementations in Poland, Czechia and Slovakia. Sustainability 15, 15721 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Antwerpen, R., Watt, D. A., Gillespie, W. \u0026amp; van Heerden, P. D. R. Promoting Adoption of Soil Health Related Regenerative Agriculture Practices Amongst Small-Scale Sugarcane Grower Communities in South Africa. Sugar Tech 26, 635\u0026ndash;638 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNtawuhiganayo, E. B., Nijman-Ross, E., Geme, T., Negesa, D. \u0026amp; Nahimana, S. Assessing the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices in Eastern Africa. Frontiers in Sustainability 4, (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlexanderson, M. S., Luke, H. \u0026amp; Lloyd, D. J. Regenerative agriculture in Australia: the changing face of farming. Front Sustain Food Syst 8, (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMishra, A. K., Bhowmick, M. K., Peramaiyan, P., Sharma, S. \u0026amp; Singh, S. Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Rice-Based Systems in South Asia. in \u003cem\u003eRegenerative Agriculture\u003c/em\u003e 210\u0026ndash;226 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2024). doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1201/9781003309581-16\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1201/9781003309581-16\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrade, D., Pasini, F. \u0026amp; Scarano, F. R. Syntropy and innovation in agriculture. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 45, 20\u0026ndash;24 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSAPEA. \u003cem\u003eA Sustainable Food System for the European Union\u003c/em\u003e. (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCREO. \u003cem\u003eSummary: Regenerative Ag CPG Targets | Mapping the Landscape of Corporate Engagement\u003c/em\u003e. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCOP28 UAE. \u003cem\u003eCOP28 Presidency Puts Food Systems Transformation on Global Climate Agenda as More than 130 World Leaders Endorse Food and Agriculture Declaration\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSanderson Bellamy, A. Profit and hegemony in agribusiness. Nat Plants 4, 867\u0026ndash;868 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFOEI. \u003cem\u003eFalse Solutions, Real Profits: Agribusiness\u0026rsquo; Tactics Uncovered\u003c/em\u003e. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIPES-Food. \u003cem\u003eSmoke and Mirrors: Examining Competing Framings of Food System Sustainability: Agroecology, Regenerative Agriculture, and Nature-Based Solutions\u003c/em\u003e. (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan der Ploeg, J. D. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The economic potential of agroecology: Empirical evidence from Europe. J Rural Stud 71, 46\u0026ndash;61 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKremen, C., Iles, A. \u0026amp; Bacon, C. Diversified Farming Systems: An Agroecological, Systems-based Alternative to Modern Industrial Agriculture. Ecology and Society 17, art44 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZwetsloot, M. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Soil multifunctionality: Synergies and trade-offs across \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;scp\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;European\u0026lt;/scp\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;climatic zones and land uses. Eur J Soil Sci 72, 1640\u0026ndash;1654 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Donoghue, T., Minasny, B. \u0026amp; McBratney, A. Regenerative Agriculture and Its Potential to Improve Farmscape Function. Sustainability 14, 5815 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePretty, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44, 263\u0026ndash;283 (2001).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiller, K. E., James, E. K., Ardley, J. \u0026amp; Unkovich, M. J. Science losing its way: examples from the realm of microbial N2-fixation in cereals and other non-legumes. Plant Soil (2024) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11104-024-07001-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11104-024-07001-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoziol, L., McKenna, T. P. \u0026amp; Bever, J. D. Meta-analysis reveals globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants fall short. New Phytologist (2024) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/nph.20278\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/nph.20278\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFalconnier, G. N. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The input reduction principle of agroecology is wrong when it comes to mineral fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa. Outlook Agric 52, 311\u0026ndash;326 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoinet, G. Y. K., Hijbeek, R., van Vuuren, D. P. \u0026amp; Giller, K. E. Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon. \u003cem\u003eGlob Chang Biol\u003c/em\u003e 29, 2384\u0026ndash;2398 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLandis, D. A. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl Ecol 18, 1\u0026ndash;12 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBianchi, F. J. J. A. From pattern to process: Towards mechanistic design principles for pest suppressive landscapes. Basic Appl Ecol 64, 157\u0026ndash;171 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohamed, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Securing Nature\u0026rsquo;s Contributions to People requires at least 20\u0026ndash;25% (semi-)natural habitat in human-modified landscapes. One Earth 7, 59\u0026ndash;71 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaudron, F. \u0026amp; Giller, K. E. Agriculture and nature: Trouble and strife? Biol Conserv 170, 232\u0026ndash;245 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiller, K. E. \u003cem\u003eet al. Ground Zero? Let\u0026rsquo;s Get Real on Regeneration: Report 1: State of the Art and Indicator Selection\u003c/em\u003e. (2023) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.18174/630630\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18174/630630\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTittonell, P. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Regenerative agriculture\u0026mdash;agroecology without politics? Front Sustain Food Syst 6, (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations. \u003cem\u003eReport of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity\u003c/em\u003e. (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHLPE. \u003cem\u003eAgroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems That Enhance Food Security and Nutrition\u003c/em\u003e. (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWBCSD. Briefing for policy makers: driving business impact on regenerative agriculture. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePage, M. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eBMJ\u003c/em\u003e n71 (2021) doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/bmj.n71\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmj.n71\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCook, N., Goodwin, D., Porter, J. \u0026amp; Collins, J. Food and food-related waste management strategies in hospital food services: A systematic review. Nutrition \u0026amp; Dietetics 80, 116\u0026ndash;142 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBriscoe, S. \u0026amp; Rogers, M. An alternative screening approach for Google Search identifies an accurate and manageable number of results for a systematic review (case study). Health Info Libr J 41, 149\u0026ndash;155 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaez, A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 10, 233\u0026ndash;240 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoreira-Dantas, I. R., Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Zarzoso, I. \u0026amp; Torres-Mungu\u0026iacute;a, J. A. Sustainable Food Chains to Achieve SDG-12 in Europe: Perspectives from Multi-stakeholders Initiatives. in 1\u0026ndash;26 (2022). doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-3-030-91261-1_90-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-91261-1_90-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElkington, J. \u003cem\u003eCannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business\u003c/em\u003e. (Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK, 1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCBS. Bedrijven met akkerbouw per grootteklasse, 2000\u0026ndash;2018*. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/maatwerk/2018/47/bedrijven-met-akkerbouw-per-grootteklasse-2000-2018-\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/maatwerk/2018/47/bedrijven-met-akkerbouw-per-grootteklasse-2000-2018-\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBMEL. Tabellen zur Landwirtschaft. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.bmel-statistik.de/landwirtschaft/tabellen-zur-landwirtschaft#c8262\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.bmel-statistik.de/landwirtschaft/tabellen-zur-landwirtschaft#c8262\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCBS. Aantal bedrijven naar sector en aantal werknemers, 2020. (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStatistisches Bundesamt. Rechtliche Einheiten und abh\u0026auml;ngig Besch\u0026auml;ftigte nach Besch\u0026auml;ftigtengr\u0026ouml;\u0026szlig;enklassen und Wirtschaftsabschnitten. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Unternehmen/Unternehmensregister/Tabellen/unternehmen-beschaeftigtengroessenklassen-wz08.html?nn=208520\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Unternehmen/Unternehmensregister/Tabellen/unternehmen-beschaeftigtengroessenklassen-wz08.html?nn=208520\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-sustainable-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Sustainable Agriculture](https://www.nature.com/npjsustainagric/)","snPcode":"44264","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44264/3","title":"npj Sustainable Agriculture","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Regenerative farming, stakeholders, environmental sustainability, food production, sustainable development","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6477627/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6477627/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eRegenerative agriculture is advocated as a response to environmental and socio-economic challenges, yet little research systematically examines its key proponents. We analysed 849 actor websites and interviewed 131 self-identified regenerative farmers across Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal. It mapped actor types, locations, sizes, and promoted themes (e.g. biodiversity) and practices (e.g. no-tillage). Our findings suggest regenerative agriculture originated as a grassroots approach to farming that was co-opted by non-farming actors around 2020. Actors were mainly based in cities, particularly non-farming actors like NGOs. The most promoted themes were soil health and biodiversity, nearly 10% of actors mentioned no themes. Among nearly 5,000 identified practices, cover cropping and crop diversification were most cited. We conclude, by reflecting on the findings from multiple perspectives, that the burden of proof for regenerative agriculture to be sustainable lies in its ability to regenerate the environment - until then, its impact remains uncertain.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Beyond the buzz: analysing actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Europe","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-25 16:50:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6477627/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-05-31T15:32:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-21T15:57:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-12T10:21:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-30T12:13:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"286402283949556806569814716043885761158","date":"2025-04-28T06:04:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"40444510219873013575222559059979834559","date":"2025-04-24T12:14:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"227820962264503955637964944766616409662","date":"2025-04-23T13:51:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T17:41:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T06:08:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-19T10:00:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Sustainable Agriculture","date":"2025-04-18T08:43:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-sustainable-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Sustainable Agriculture](https://www.nature.com/npjsustainagric/)","snPcode":"44264","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44264/3","title":"npj Sustainable Agriculture","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d13bfac3-c0d5-4dcb-a798-8f81b31b2e37","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":47629015,"name":"Biological sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology"},{"id":47629016,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology"},{"id":47629017,"name":"Biological sciences/Ecology"},{"id":47629018,"name":"Biological sciences/Plant sciences"},{"id":47629019,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-22T07:53:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-25 16:50:18","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6477627","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6477627","identity":"rs-6477627","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}