Introduction

The research document highlights that the current global agri-food system is unsustainable, with annual environmental and health damages estimated at US$12 trillion. These costs are projected to exceed US$16 trillion by 2050 without systemic change. Conversely, the World Economic Forum estimates that regenerative agriculture could reach a market value of US$1.4 trillion and create 62 million jobs by 2030. Companies have embraced these practices to meet climate targets and improve supply chain resilience amidst geopolitical instability and price volatility.

Corporate regenerative agriculture commitments: State of play

The report assesses 78 publicly listed agri-food companies with a combined annual revenue of US$3.3 trillion and a market capitalisation of US$5.7 trillion. Approximately 64% of these companies (50 out of 78) now mention regenerative agriculture in their disclosures, a slight increase from 63% in 2023. While seven companies introduced the term, six companies—including Sodexo and Yum! Brands—removed previous references, raising questions regarding the durability and strategic depth of corporate commitments.

Establishing what regenerative agriculture can deliver and why it matters

Climate mitigation and resilience are identified by 86% of companies with regenerative agriculture programmes. A significant disconnect remains regarding materiality; 96% acknowledge climate as a financial risk, but only 42% do so for biodiversity, despite 68% identifying biodiversity as a desired outcome. Leading practices include Carrefour, which has aligned its efforts with science-based nature targets and identified adequate wages as a material business issue following a pilot materiality assessment.

Target setting and strategic integration as indicators of credible implementation

Quantified targets for regenerative agriculture have decreased, with only 28% of the 50 companies setting such goals in 2026, compared to 35% in 2023. Most targets focus on deployment, such as the volume of ingredients sourced, rather than outcomes like pesticide reduction. Notable exceptions include Nestle, which aims to source 50% of key ingredients through regenerative methods by 2030, and Unilever, which targets 1 million hectares of land.

The evolution of tracking and measuring regenerative agriculture outcomes

Measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems have gained prominence, with 54% of companies now mentioning measuring outcomes, up from 16% in 2023. Climate and water remain the primary focus, while biodiversity is the least-measured outcome. PepsiCo reports sequestering 1.9 million metric tons of emissions, and Danone’s projects have demonstrated a 34% increase in average farmer earnings and a 10% reduction in the use of chemical pesticides in specific regions.

Financial support and incentives as enablers of farmer resilience

While 40% of companies provide financial support to farmers, the actual spend is low, representing only 0.01% to 0.05% of revenue. Transparency remains limited, with only three companies—ADM, Kerry Group, and Kraft Heinz—publicly reporting specific investment data. Kraft Heinz provides up to US$30 per acre for tomato farmers. Archer Daniels Midland offers flexible, outcome-based incentives that acknowledge the diversity of farm conditions and support soil health.

The contradictions and limitations of regenerative agriculture

Programmes are heavily skewed towards crops (70%) and cattle (48%), while only 10% address pork and poultry. A significant contradiction exists in chemical usage: 52% of companies aim to reduce agrochemical inputs, yet no company has set a specific target to reduce pesticides. Practices such as cover crops and no-tillage are frequently deployed but often rely on herbicides for termination, potentially undermining soil health and increasing antimicrobial resistance risks.

Conclusion

While corporate regenerative agriculture programmes show progress in terms of disclosure and materiality assessment, the quality of implementation remains difficult for investors to evaluate. Addressing critical gaps in biodiversity, agrochemical use, and financial transparency is essential for these initiatives to scale effectively and contribute to a broader transition within the global food system.