Section 2: Regenerative Agriculture & Its Principles
What Does Regenerative Agriculture Mean?
The term “regenerative agriculture” was coined by Robert Rodale in the 1980s—however, Indigenous communities have been practicing this way of farming for millennia. Over the last few decades, the term has grown in use and popularity. Conversations around regenerative agriculture usually begin with the idea of regenerating soil health, which in turn sequesters carbon and combats climate change. However, regenerative agriculture is not limited to a rigid set of farming tools or methods. Fundamentally, it’s a way of seeing the world and a way of practicing agriculture that is always in conversation with the local land and ecosystem conditions.
“Deeply regenerative agriculture can exist only if it is completely interwoven into a thriving regenerative culture. This includes the songs, stories, myths, rituals, foods, ceremonies and music that transform agriculture from a functional economic activity to a spiritually rich and emotionally fulfilling central heart of an agricultural community.”
Ethan Roland Soloviev and Gregory Landua “Levels of Regenerative Agriculture”¹²
Preserving and benefiting nature does not mean that human beings have to entirely remove themselves from the equation. For example, Native Americans used controlled burns to provide significant botanical benefits to the forests of North America, including eliminating destructive weeds and diseases. As Thomas Bonnicksen notes in America’s Ancient Forests, “Native Americans were an integral part of America's forests. The forests and the people who lived there formed an inseparable whole that developed together over millennia.”¹³ When we understand ourselves as part of nature, and treat it accordingly, the quality of our intervention will be one that is beneficial to all. This is one of the lessons of regenerative agriculture—through our interventions and actions, humans can be a positive force in nature.
There is not a universal standard by which regenerative agriculture is measured or classified. There are, however, several leading certification frameworks that focus on measurable outcomes as well as ecosystem health, including:
Measuring Regenerative Outcomes
“A lot of folks are defining regeneration as a set of practices so that they can claim to be regenerative, but changing a practice doesn't necessarily lead to regeneration… This is why outcome-based verification has become essential.”¹³
Bobby Gill Director of Development & Communications, the Savory Institute
Ecological Outcomes Verification (EOV), is a global monitoring framework that tracks regenerative outcomes on over 6 million acres globally, focusing on indicators like bare soil, root structure, and soil microbial activity to provide rapid ecological feedback.¹⁵ EOV recognizes that regeneration is an ongoing practice grounded in relationship and feedback, prioritizing outcomes over a specific checklist of practices. By fostering innovation in response to each particular ecosystem, this approach allows for the regenerative principle of listening and responding to each living system.
“Living systems are random and adaptive—we don’t control them, we influence them. That’s why EOV provides rapid feedback to see if land is moving in a regenerative direction.”¹⁴
Bobby Gill
Indicators & Related Ecosystem Processes
As part of short-term monitoring, an EOV monitor annually visits and assesses qualitative aboveground indicators listed in Figure 2.1.¹⁵
The sum of the scores for each indicator gives the Ecological Health Index (EHI) for a given landbase, and serves as the main indicator of regenerating land.¹⁵ Every five years, soil samples are sent to the lab for quantitative measurements such as soil carbon and water-holding capacity.¹⁵
The certification process can also give credibility and reduce greenwashing. As La Rhea Pepper, board vice chair of Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) and co-founder and former CEO of Textile Exchange, notes, “Working with a reputable third-party certified program is a good insurance policy. If you're a brand, you're not going to want to put a claim on a product that you cannot back up.”¹⁶
Ecological Outcome Verification: Measuring Regenerative Outcomes for Food and Fiber
| Indicator | Water Cycle | Mineral Cycle | Energy Flow | Community Dynamics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Live canopy abundance | ||||
| Microfauna | ||||
| Warm season grasses | ||||
| Cool season grasses | ||||
| Forbs & legumes | ||||
| Trees & shrubs | ||||
| Contextually desirable rare species | ||||
| Contextually undesirable species | ||||
| Litter abundance | ||||
| Litter incorporation | ||||
| Dung decomposition | ||||
| Bare soil | ||||
| Soil capping | ||||
| Wind erosion | ||||
| Water erosion |
Source Savory Institute. (n.d.). EOV: Measuring regenerative outcomes for food and fiber. https://savory.global/eov/
“Unfortunately, I think the term ‘regenerative’ is being overused without clear meaning. That’s what happened to ‘sustainability’—it became a word without teeth. Until we have clear definitions—backed by policy or credible standards—the industry will keep using the term without accountability.”¹⁶
La Rhea Pepper Co-founder and former CEO of Textile Exchange
The Business Case for Regenerative Agriculture
Shifting toward regenerative agriculture practices requires the investment of capital and a whole-systems restructuring as well as multi-stakeholder collaboration. The complexity and change involved in this shift often deters brands from making the leap. However, the reality of our degraded land and ecosystems and the implications of climate change make the risk associated with business as usual an economic incentive itself. By committing to the shift now—and embracing precompetitive collaboration to do so—brands can not only ensure resiliency but also reap long-term benefits.
The Return on Investment
By looking at cotton producers in the US that implement soil health management systems (SHMS), the Soil Health Institute has shown that these farmers saved $74/acre growing cotton using SHMS.¹⁷ Notably, these farmers (based in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi) had a $172.87 gain in net income per acre from using SHMS.¹⁷ One study notes that, “Compared with control farmers, . . . the regenerative program increased yield by 4.1 percent, reduced input costs by 9.8 percent, [and] reduced water use by 14 percent.”¹⁸
An article by McKinsey & Company highlights how regenerative agriculture practices in the United States—specifically cover cropping and no-till farming—can provide economic benefits (see Figure 2.2).
A study focusing on regenerative grazing in Australia showed that farmers using these methods not only made profits comparable to the best in their field but also saved money by spending less on things like animal feed and health, while maintaining higher levels of farmer well-being as well.¹⁹ This means regenerative practices, including those related to cotton and wool production, can help the environment while improving both profits and mental well-being of farmers.
True Cost
The True Cost Calculator (TCC), launched in 2024, was designed specifically as a free online tool for fashion professionals to self-assess the environmental and social impact of garments throughout their life cycles.²⁰ True Cost economic models factor in hidden costs such as water pollution, labor exploitation, carbon emissions, and textile waste. When calculated in this way, garments that simultaneously contribute to restoring ecosystems will cost less than those that harm the environment. Such a shift would require supporting legislation, which does not yet exist. Nonetheless, prototypes and movements are already making headway in this direction by developing calculation methods and standards for true cost assessments.
The True Price Foundation also developed a standard that is updated annually in order to reflect the most up-to-date scientific insights, with which one can calculate the “true price” of a given product.