Author: Nabil Chaer
Date: 27-02-2026

Introduction

The fashion industry is among the most land-intensive sectors of the global economy. Cotton, wool, leather, and other natural fibers are deeply embedded in agricultural systems, making fashion highly dependent on soil health, water availability, and biodiversity. As a result, upstream agricultural practices play a decisive role in shaping the sector’s environmental and social footprint.

In this context, regenerative agriculture (RA) has emerged as one of the most prominent concepts in contemporary sustainability discourse. The term was first introduced in the 1970s by Robert Rodale as a response to the limits of organic agriculture. While organic farming focuses primarily on reducing harm by limiting synthetic inputs, regenerative agriculture aims to actively restore ecosystems by improving soil health, biodiversity, and water systems.

Today, the concept is interpreted in two main ways. Process-based approaches emphasize specific farming practices such as no-till agriculture, cover cropping, or livestock integration. Outcome-based approaches instead focus on measurable ecological improvements, including increases in soil organic carbon, water retention, or biodiversity. Academic literature increasingly favors outcome-based definitions, as fixed lists of practices do not reliably generate regenerative outcomes across different geographies. However, outcome-based approaches require robust and often costly monitoring and verification systems.

In recent years, regenerative agriculture has been widely embraced by fashion companies as a promising solution to upstream environmental challenges. At the same time, its rapid diffusion has raised concerns. Companies increasingly reference regenerative agriculture in sustainability reporting, yet definitions, targets, and verification mechanisms vary significantly. This creates a tangible risk that RA is adopted as a narrative label rather than as an operational transformation.

This article summarizes my Master’s thesis, which analyzes how regenerative agriculture is defined, adopted, and operationalized by the world’s largest fashion companies.

How the Analysis Was Conducted

The analysis is grounded in corporate disclosures. Sustainability and annual reports published in 2020 and in 2024/25 were reviewed for the 50 largest publicly listed fashion and apparel companies, spanning luxury, high-street, and sportswear segments.

Mentions of regenerative agriculture are used as a proxy for engagement with the topic. This measure is then analyzed alongside company characteristics such as firm size, market segment, region, and ESG ratings to understand why some firms communicate more extensively on regenerative agriculture than others.

Results

1. Diffusion of Regenerative Agriculture Language

The most noticeable result is the rapid expansion of regenerative agriculture discourse. In 2020, only 9 out of 50 companies mentioned RA in their reports. By 2024/25, this number had increased to 30 companies, representing 60% of the sample.

Luxury groups such as Kering and LVMH are leading this diffusion, signaling how regenerative agriculture has shifted from a niche concept to a mainstream sustainability narrative within fashion.

Distribution of Regenerative Agriculture Mentions (2020)

Distribution of Regenerative Agriculture Mentions (2025)

2. Definitions and Framing

Despite the widespread use of the term, definitions remain highly fragmented. Only 14 companies provide an explicit definition of regenerative agriculture. Among them, 8 adopt outcome‑based definitions, 2 rely on process‑based definitions, and 3 combine both approaches.

Regenerative Agriculture definition types by market segment

Most definitions emphasize high‑level ecological outcomes such as improved soil health or ecosystem restoration, while often omitting specific farming practices. This suggests a preference for aspirational framing over operational clarity, reinforcing concerns around conceptual ambiguity and greenwashing risk.

3. Drivers of Corporate Reporting

To assess what drives differences in regenerative agriculture reporting, an OLS regression model was estimated using the number of regenerative agriculture mentions as the dependent variable. Firm size, market segment, and geographical region were included as explanatory variables, and the model was then extended to test whether MSCI ESG ratings provide additional explanatory power.

The regression analysis highlights two key drivers of regenerative agriculture reporting:

• Firm size emerges as a strong and statistically significant predictor. Larger companies communicate significantly more about regenerative agriculture, with firm size showing a positive and significant association with the number of RA mentions (β=2.81, p<0.05). This indicates that engagement with regenerative agriculture increases systematically with organizational scale, reflecting greater reporting capacity and/ or higher exposure to reputational pressures.
• Market segment also plays a decisive role. Compared to luxury firms, both High-Street and Sportswear brands report significantly less on regenerative agriculture. These differences reinforce the idea that regenerative agriculture reporting is closely tied to brand positioning and long-term value narratives rather than to sector-wide adoption.

Relationship between firm size and regenerative agriculture mentions (2025)           – Overall Regression Line

Relationship between firm size and regenerative agriculture mentions (2025)           – Separate Regression Lines by market segment

By contrast, ESG ratings do not significantly predict regenerative agriculture reporting once structural factors are taken into account. When the model is extended to include MSCI ESG scores, explanatory power does not improve, and the ESG coefficient remains statistically insignificant (β=0.76, p=0.60). Overall, these findings indicate that engagement with regenerative agriculture is driven more by firm scale and strategic visibility than by sustainability ratings, reinforcing the interpretation of regenerative agriculture as a selectively adopted corporate narrative.

4. Targets and Verification Systems

Despite the growing visibility of regenerative agriculture in corporate narratives, only a limited number of fashion companies translate these commitments into measurable targets. Across the sample, just 11 explicit targets related to regenerative agriculture were identified, confirming that operationalization remains the exception rather than the norm. In many cases, regenerative agriculture targets are also bundled within broader sustainability or sourcing commitments, rather than being articulated as stand-alone objectives.

When targets are set, they tend to focus either on sourcing commitments or on the scale of land involved in regenerative initiatives. Examples include goals related to the share of organic or regenerative fibers in procurement, as well as pledges to transition specific hectares of agricultural land to regenerative practices. These commitments are most frequently observed among luxury groups, which appear more willing to engage with long-term and land-intensive approaches.

Verification represents an even greater challenge. Only a small subset of companies rely on structured monitoring and verification frameworks, while for the majority regenerative agriculture remains embedded in pilot projects, partnerships, or qualitative storytelling. As a result, regenerative claims are often weakly connected to core sourcing strategies and reporting systems, limiting credibility and comparability.

Discussion and Managerial Implications

Taken together, the results point to a consistent pattern across the four research questions. Regenerative agriculture has rapidly become part of mainstream corporate discourse, particularly among large and luxury fashion companies. However, the operational depth of these commitments remains limited. Outcome-based framings dominate corporate definitions, yet they are often not supported by clear descriptions of farming practices or by robust verification systems. Moreover, the intensity of reporting is driven primarily by firm size and brand positioning rather than by ESG ratings, suggesting that regenerative agriculture is closely linked to strategic communication and reputation management.

For managers, these findings highlight the importance of moving beyond narrative adoption. Clear definitions, measurable outcomes, and credible monitoring systems are essential to ensure the credibility of regenerative agriculture claims and to avoid transferring transition costs and risks disproportionately onto farmers. Regenerative agriculture represents one of the most promising frontiers for sustainability in the fashion industry. However, its long‑term credibility will depend on the sector’s ability to translate ambitious narratives into operational commitments, supported by robust measurement and equitable value‑chain governance. Without this shift, regenerative agriculture risks remaining a powerful story rather than a transformative practice.