When Simulation Replaces Relationship, and Metrics Replace Meaning

What was once relationship became transaction.
What was once covenant became contract.

Regenerative — once a prayer on the tongue —
now fed into models, dashboards, and decks.
Commoditized. Codified.
Extracted into metrics for markets
that do not know how to kneel.

The breath of the land was captured and sold.
Institutions speak of healing
while scripting the performance.
Consultants built tools
to measure what only care could know.

Regenerative agriculture —
transformed into ritual theater.
A choreography of optics
for systems that fear the unquantifiable.

Yet the soil remembers.
The mycelium murmurs.
Roots stretch toward memory,
not certification.

Let the performance collapse.
Let the carbon contracts wither.
Let the land speak —
untranslated, unbought, unbound.

✦ Introduction ✦ 

The regenerative agriculture movement stands at a critical inflection point. What began as grassroots ecological wisdom rooted in place-based farming practices has been systematically captured and transformed by multinational corporations, financial institutions, and sustainability consultants into a performance framework that may cause more ecological and social harm than the industrial systems it claims to replace.

This document exposes the architecture of what we call "planned incompetency"—an emergent system of distributed ignorance. It is "planned" not by a cabal of individuals in a smoke-filled room, but by the very design of corporate sustainability frameworks, which systematically prioritize plausible deniability, compliance, and marketing optics over ecological truth. This structure ensures initiatives can fail on the ground while succeeding on paper, maintaining the illusion of progress. From CEOs who have never set foot on working farms to sustainability officers who mistake carbon accounting for ecological relationship, from consultants who rely on modeled assumptions to verifiers who check paperwork rather than soil health, the entire apparatus operates through systematic harmony that protects everyone from accountability while extracting data, autonomy, and agency from the farmers who actually work the land.

The critique targets specifically the institutional machinery—corporations, governments, NGOs, and financial institutions—that has co-opted regenerative agriculture for ESG compliance, Net Zero targets, and marketing purposes. We are not critiquing small-scale farmers experimenting with ecological practices based on direct relationship with their land, nor community-led initiatives genuinely seeking restoration. The distinction matters: authentic regenerative agriculture emerges from farmers' lived relationship with place; corporate regenerative agriculture emerges from sustainability consultants' relationship with spreadsheets.

It is crucial to state that this critique is not an indictment of the character of every individual within these systems. Many sustainability professionals, corporate leaders, and consultants are driven by genuine concern for the planet. However, the architecture of planned incompetency is so effective precisely because it harnesses good intentions and channels them into flawed frameworks. It creates a system where dedicated people can work hard, believe they are contributing to solutions, and yet collectively produce outcomes that are ineffective or counterproductive. The tragedy is not a lack of will, but a system that renders will irrelevant.

The Systematic Failures Exposed

This analysis reveals multiple layers of institutional failure that operate in concert:

• The Measurement Paradox: Corporate frameworks demand quantified proof of ecological relationships that require years to develop and understand. Soil carbon measurement costs thousands per farm, biodiversity accounting attempts to manage the 91% of species science hasn't discovered, and outcome-based metrics shift implementation burdens from corporations who set targets onto farmers who must prove delivery using measurements they can't afford.
• The Implementation Reality Gap: Regenerative agriculture requires whole-system redesigns—complex crop rotations, integrated livestock, seasonal pattern recognition, and deep ecological literacy. Yet corporate mandates force farmers into practices they can't implement (like no-till without herbicides in many instances) while maintaining unchanged yield targets and providing no transition support.
• The Carbon Accounting Fiction: Climate claims rely entirely on modeling assumptions rather than actual measurement, with the same practices showing highly variable results—sometimes increasing rather than decreasing emissions depending on soil type and climate. The three pillars of carbon project integrity (additionality, permanence, and no leakage) systematically fail in corporate regenerative programs, creating elaborate carbon theater rather than genuine emission reductions.
• The Supply Chain Simulation: Companies cannot trace what they claim to be selling. "Regeneratively grown" products exist through accounting sleight-of-hand called "supply shed" frameworks that allow corporations to claim environmental benefits based on regional statistical averages rather than actual product sourcing. Verification systems check paperwork that assumes traceability without proving it.
• The Digital Colonialism: High-tech solutions promise to solve measurement challenges through AI and remote sensing but create algorithmic black boxes that no one can meaningfully audit. Data colonialism requires farmers to share detailed information that becomes corporate property while creating new forms of technical dependency on consultant classes.

The Human Architecture of Deception

The system requires and cultivates specific human characteristics to sustain itself. Social media and conference culture have manufactured a class of sustainability professionals who perform competence about regenerative agriculture without understanding its requirements. The narcissism engine rewards performers over practitioners, creating LinkedIn profiles and PowerPoint presentations about transforming food systems while excluding those with actual ecological competence who might threaten the simulation.

This isn't accidental incompetence—it's systematic cultivation of half-knowledge that keeps everyone just competent enough to comply and just incompetent enough to never question foundations. The competent are dangerous because they see the rift between regenerative rhetoric and farming reality.

Academic and Expert Consensus

Academic researchers, agroecologists, and indigenous agriculture experts are mounting serious critiques against corporate regenerative agriculture. Ken Giller and colleagues at Wageningen University identify fundamental scale mismatches, while research published in PeerJ reveals 29% lower grain production with high dependency on specific conditions. Analysis of 79 global agri-food companies worth $3 trillion found that 63% mention regenerative agriculture in strategies, but only 8% provide financial support for farmers.

Traditional knowledge systems offer proven alternatives through bioregional adaptation and food sovereignty frameworks that predate corporate regenerative agriculture by millennia. These systems fundamentally challenge corporate approaches through seven-generation thinking, ecosystem integration, and cultural-ecological relationships that recognize land as living relative rather than resource for extraction.

The Sacred Deception

The spiritual appropriation embedded in regenerative agriculture represents perhaps its most dangerous aspect. The term "regenerative" implies healing and restoration, but any agricultural practice—conventional or not—represents human imposition on natural systems. True healing would mean allowing weeds, shrubs, and eventually forests to reclaim agricultural land. What regenerative agriculture actually attempts is damage reduction while maintaining human control and production—admirable and necessary, but not healing.

This spiritual bypassing allows practitioners to feel righteous about activities that remain fundamentally extractive while preventing honest conversations about actual benefits, limitations, and trade-offs. The land doesn't need salvation narratives; it needs humility.

✦ The Architecture of Acceptable Failure ✦

Modern sustainability is not failing by accident. It is failing on cue. At every link in the chain—from carbon accounting to Net Zero, from science-based targets to voluntary nature-positive commitments—a quiet force ensures that the truth never fully arrives. That force is planned incompetency: the deliberate dilution of critical thinking, depth, and discernment across a sector that promises precision but relies on vagueness to function.

This isn't about a few bad actors. It's a system designed to keep everyone just competent enough to comply—and just incompetent enough to never question the foundations. It is a choir of half-knowledge, each voice echoing the next.

Clarifying the Target: Corporate Co-optation, Not Grassroots Innovation

This critique is specifically directed at multinational corporations, governments, financial institutions, NGOs, and other large institutional stakeholders who are using regenerative agriculture as a mechanism to virtue signal, meet Net Zero targets, achieve Carbon Neutral claims, demonstrate ESG leadership, or generate sustainability metrics for marketing purposes.

We are not targeting:

• Small-scale farmers experimenting with regenerative practices to reduce environmental harm
• Community-led initiatives genuinely seeking ecological restoration
• Local food systems developing context-appropriate agricultural methods
• Farmers transitioning practices based on direct relationship with their land
• Grassroots movements rooted in indigenous knowledge and place-based wisdom

The problem is not regenerative agriculture itself—it's the systematic commodification and co-optation of these practices by institutions that prioritize measurement, compliance, and carbon accounting over genuine ecological relationship.

When farmers adopt cover crops because they observe soil health improvements, that's experimentation and stewardship. When corporations mandate cover crops to generate carbon credits for Net Zero targets while ignoring implementation feasibility, farmer welfare, and ecological context—that's the extractive system this document exposes.

The distinction matters: Authentic regenerative agriculture emerges from farmers' lived relationship with land. Corporate regenerative agriculture emerges from sustainability consultants' relationship with spreadsheets. One serves the soil; the other serves the simulation.

Our critique targets the latter—the institutional machinery that transforms genuine ecological practices into performance metrics, carbon credits, and ESG compliance theater. This machinery doesn't just fail to support real regeneration; it actively undermines it by prioritizing measurement over meaning, compliance over relationship, and carbon accounting over ecological wisdom.

The Chain of Distributed Ignorance

Here's how the incompetence distributes itself across regenerative agriculture initiatives:

• The CEO believes the regenerative target because it sounds visionary
• The Chief Sustainability Officer has never spent time on a working farm
• The Director of ESG doesn't understand what "soil health" actually means or how to measure it
• The consultants rely on modeled assumptions about carbon sequestration
• The verifiers check for documentation, not ecological outcomes
• The suppliers translate corporate requirements into farmer mandates without understanding feasibility

And the public? The public sees "regenerative agriculture cookies" with a leaf logo and assumes meaningful change is happening. Job well done.

This isn't a failure of one person. It's systemic harmony—a collective performance that sustains the illusion of action while protecting everyone from accountability.

The Illusion of Lofty Goals

Companies are encouraged to set "ambitious" regenerative agriculture targets:

• Regenerative sourcing across entire supply chains
• Soil health improvements across millions of acres
• Biodiversity-positive agricultural systems
• Carbon-negative farming operations
• Nature-positive value chains

But they do so while knowing—consciously or not—that regenerative agriculture lacks universally accepted definitions, soil health measurement is prohibitively expensive for most farmers, ecological outcomes cannot be easily attributed to specific practices, independent verification is surface-level at best, and reporting is optimized for optics, not accuracy.

Companies set "ambitious" biodiversity targets—biodiversity-positive agricultural systems—without acknowledging that biodiversity science itself is built on profound unknowns. How can agricultural systems be "biodiversity-positive" when we don't know what biodiversity exists? Claims of "increasing biodiversity" could simultaneously be true and false without anyone knowing the difference, because, of course no one will actually measure and monitor biodiversity. Worse, the focus on easily measured species—large vertebrates, visible plants—may divert attention from critical but invisible ecosystem foundations like soil microbiomes that support the unknown majority of life.

When confronted with the structural failures of these systems, many people retreat into a familiar defense: "It's better to do something than nothing." But this mantra, repeated like a moral shield, too often serves as an excuse for avoiding the harder truth: that much of what we're doing is not just imperfect—it is incoherent, ineffective, or actively counterproductive.

Striking water with a sword does not move the river. Running in circles does not map the terrain.

Real change doesn't come from frantic gestures. It comes from those willing to pause, to interrogate, and to rebuild from the roots. That kind of work doesn't virtue signal. It threatens the very structures that protect mediocrity.

✦ Regenerative Agriculture Requires Systems Thinking, Not Substitution ✦

Unlike organic agriculture, which often operates as a substitution model (replace synthetic inputs with approved alternatives), regenerative agriculture demands a whole-system redesign:

• No-till farming
• Multi-species cover crops
• Complex crop rotations
• Integrated livestock
• On-farm carbon and water cycling

This is not just a new input list—it's a paradigm shift. It demands deep ecological literacy, seasonal pattern recognition, and a living relationship with soil dynamics. Most farmers—especially in monoculture or subsistence systems—are not trained or equipped to make that leap overnight.

The Outcome-Based Measurement Trap

Corporate leaders and sustainability executives are increasingly promoting outcome-based frameworks over practice-based approaches, arguing that measuring results matters more than defining methods. This sounds progressive, but it creates a measurement paradox: if regenerative agriculture requires whole-system redesign and deep ecological literacy, how can distant consultants with standardized metrics capture what farmers need years to understand through lived relationship with their land?

Outcome-based systems often require:

• Expensive soil testing and laboratory analysis that can cost thousands per farm
• Technical expertise most farmers lack—requiring external consultants
• 3-10 year timeframes for meaningful soil health results
• Complex attribution of outcomes to specific practices versus weather, soil type, or other factors
• Standardized baselines across vastly different ecological contexts—an impossibility acknowledged even by framework developers

This shifts the burden from corporations to define what they're asking for onto farmers to prove what they're delivering—using measurements they can't afford, timelines that don't match business cycles, and standards that may not reflect their local ecosystem realities.

Take soil organic carbon, considered the most "aligned" metric across frameworks. Even this requires different reference levels by geography and ecological zones, expensive laboratory analysis, and sampling protocols that most farms cannot implement independently. Yet corporations use modeled assumptions about carbon sequestration to make net-zero claims while farmers bear all the implementation and verification costs.

The biodiversity measurement challenge reveals the fundamental absurdity of outcome-based regenerative agriculture frameworks. According to scientific consensus, approximately 91% of Earth's species remain undiscovered—with an estimated 8.7 million species of plants, animals, and fungi existing on Earth, but only 1.5-2 million formally identified and catalogued. For marine species, this figure reaches 91% unknown; for terrestrial species, 86% remain undiscovered.

You cannot manage what you cannot measure—and we cannot measure what we do not know exists.

Yet corporate sustainability frameworks like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) confidently propose three "evidence-based biodiversity-related outcomes" for regenerative agriculture: natural habitat percentage per km², crop diversity per km², and pesticide impact ratings. These metrics claim to capture "improved ecological integrity" and "increased cultivated biodiversity" while ignoring that the vast majority of life on farms—soil microorganisms, arthropods, fungi, and countless other species—remains completely unknown to science.

The precautionary principle cuts both ways: while we intuitively know we must care for and nurture the natural world, rushing to act "just in case" biodiversity is declining could make things worse. Without knowing what exists, we risk creating policies that protect non-critical species while neglecting foundational ecosystem elements—topsoil integrity, keystone species, and critical ecological processes that support the unknown 91%.

This measurement paradox creates perfect conditions for sophisticated greenwashing: corporations can claim biodiversity improvements using metrics that capture a tiny fraction of actual biological diversity, while the vast majority of life on their farms remains invisible to their accounting systems.

✦ The Implementation Reality: Why Corporate Mandates Fail ✦

No-Till Without Herbicides Is an Unsolved Puzzle for Many Farmers

In most industrial regenerative models (like Gabe Brown's or U.S.-based carbon farmers), no-till systems depend initially on herbicides like RoundUp/glyphosate to suppress weeds before cover crops establish.

If you remove both tillage and herbicides — as is often demanded in “purist” regenerative or ideological approaches — farmers face unmanageable weed pressure. Overcoming this challenge requires advanced equipment, agronomic expertise, and time. But in corporate-backed programs, farmers are typically rushed into compliance without support. The result is predictable: either failure, or quiet reversion to chemical inputs — all while the system claims regenerative success.

In Indonesia, with year-round growing conditions and intense weed competition, this could cause total crop failure in early years without adapted tools. Yet corporate initiatives often mandate both practices simultaneously without providing farmers the transition support, equipment, or knowledge needed to manage the resulting challenges.

In most cases, suppliers are forced to implement these requirements on farmers who had never heard of cover crops, with promises of funding that never materialized and yield targets that remained unchanged. When crops failed, farmers were blamed for "poor implementation" rather than corporations acknowledging the impossibility of what they'd demanded.

Cover Crops: The Implementation Reality Gap

Cover crops are promoted as a cornerstone of regenerative agriculture—fixing nitrogen, suppressing weeds, feeding soil microbes, and preventing erosion.

But corporate programs consistently underestimate the implementation barriers that make cover crops impractical for many farmers:

• Upfront costs without immediate returns: Quality cover crop seed, new planting equipment, and additional labor create cash flow challenges for farmers already operating on thin margins
• Knowledge and equipment gaps: Farmers need training in species selection, planting timing, termination methods, and integration with cash crops—support rarely provided by corporate programs
• Short-term yield penalties: The learning curve often reduces cash crop yields in early years while farmers develop management skills
• Labor timing conflicts: Cover crop planting and termination compete with critical cash crop activities during peak seasons

The result: farmers are mandated to implement practices they can't afford, don't understand, and that may reduce their income—while corporations claim carbon benefits from "farmer adoption" that exists mainly on paper.

Cover crops are vital to regenerative systems—they fix nitrogen, suppress weeds, feed microbes, and prevent erosion.

But they also consume land, water, and labor—inputs already scarce among smallholder farmers.

If farmers are forced to grow cover crops instead of food or income crops, without adequate support or ecosystem compensation, it undermines subsistence and survival.

This is particularly devastating in regions where every acre must produce food or income for family survival. Corporate regenerative initiatives often overlook this reality, treating cover crops as a simple add-on rather than understanding the complex resource trade-offs involved. The result: farmers choosing between regenerative compliance and feeding their families.

✦ The Human Element: Performers, Not Practitioners ✦

To sustain the grand illusion of regenerative agriculture transformation, a system must be created that selects for certain human traits over others. It must elevate performers over practitioners—those who can eloquently articulate the vision without being burdened by the complex realities of its implementation. It is a system that rewards confidence over competence, and communication over communion with the land.

And we live in the perfect era for this. The age of social media has trained an entire class of sustainability professionals to believe they are brilliant, unique, righteous, and deserving—often without any substance behind it.

The Performance Engine

LinkedIn, conferences, ESG panels—they manufacture entitlement at scale. People perform competence about regenerative agriculture. They rehearse importance about soil carbon. And they believe their own hype about transforming food systems. The system rewards this behavior with speaking opportunities, inflated job titles, and consulting contracts.

Fake It 'Til You Break It

"Fake it till you make it" has become the operating system of modern sustainability professionals working on regenerative agriculture. You don't need to understand mycorrhizal networks or soil carbon permanence—you just need to say things like:

"We're embedding regenerative agriculture practices into our scope 3 decarbonization pathways through farmer-centric ESG-aligned impact strategies."

That sentence means nothing. But it sounds like everything. And that's all that matters.

What organizations want is not depth, but representation. They don't need someone who understands soil microbiomes—they need someone who can sit in the "Regenerative Agriculture Manager" chair. A body in a blazer. A LinkedIn profile. A PowerPoint about carbon farming. That's the job.

✦ Carbon Markets and the Verification Infrastructure Gap ✦

Carbon Markets Are Premature and Manipulative Incentives

Governments and NGOs often promote regenerative transitions as a way for farmers to "earn carbon credits".

But the science behind soil carbon measurement, MRV (monitoring, reporting, verification) systems, and payment structures is still immature and exploitative.

Farmers may be promised income that never materializes, while being bound to monitoring contracts, data sharing agreements, and land-use restrictions.

This is a new form of digital colonialism dressed in green rhetoric.

The Modeling Deception: Why Carbon Accounting Cannot Capture Reality

The fundamental problem with regenerative agriculture carbon claims lies deeper than verification gaps—it's rooted in the impossibility of accurately measuring what corporations claim to be achieving.

The Measurement Reality: Accurately measuring on-site greenhouse gas fluxes (CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide) from agricultural soils is extremely difficult, if not impossible at scale. There are massive seasonal differences, weather-dependent variations, and site-specific factors that would require continuous monitoring across large areas—costs that are prohibitive for most projects.

The Modeling Dependency: Because direct measurement is impractical, carbon accounting systems for regenerative agriculture rely entirely on high-level emission factors and process-based modeling—both carrying enormous assumptions that may have little relationship to on-ground reality.

These models typically assume that implementing regenerative practices like no-till farming or cover crops will always result in greenhouse gas reductions. But the scientific literature tells a dramatically different story.

The Scientific Reality: Studies examining the actual impact of regenerative agricultural practices show highly variable results:

• Some studies show GHG emission reductions
• Others show no measurable impact
• Many show increased emissions

Context Determines Everything: In poor and dry soils, implementing cover crops can actually increase GHG emissions because more organic material decomposes in the soil, increasing moisture and bacterial activity. The same practice that reduces emissions in one soil type and climate can increase them in another.

The Accounting Fiction: Despite this scientific reality, carbon accounting systems are designed with assumptions that systematically show emission reductions when regenerative practices are implemented, regardless of actual site conditions.

This means corporations can claim carbon benefits from regenerative agriculture projects that may actually be increasing emissions in specific locations. The modeling creates a parallel universe where regenerative practices always work, while farmers deal with the ecological reality where context determines outcomes.

The Double Deception: Not only are farmers required to implement practices that may be inappropriate for their conditions, but the carbon accounting systems then claim climate benefits that may not exist—or may be the opposite of what's actually happening in the soil.

This is how regenerative agriculture becomes a tool for corporate carbon accounting fiction rather than genuine ecological restoration.

The Verification Infrastructure Gap

What's missing from most regenerative agriculture initiatives is what the forestry sector learned decades ago: you need clear standards, independent certification bodies, and third-party verification. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) demonstrate how multiple competing standards can coexist—each with clear, verifiable criteria and transparent consumer labeling.

Without such infrastructure, "regenerative" claims become meaningless marketing:

• No standardized audit procedures
• No accredited certification bodies
• No chain of custody protocols
• No consumer transparency about what claims actually mean
• No protection against exploitation or false promises

Current regenerative initiatives often rely on self-reporting and modeled assumptions rather than independent verification. This creates a regulatory-free zone where corporations can make regenerative claims without meaningful oversight, while farmers bear all the implementation risk with no protection against exploitation or false promises.

The result: consumers see "regeneratively grown" products with no way to know what practices were actually used, whether claims were verified, or how the product differs from conventional alternatives. This mirrors the meaningless proliferation of terms like "natural" or "eco-friendly"—marketing speak with no accountability.

The Hierarchy of Harm: What Gets Lost in Biodiversity Theater

Biodiversity conservation researchers like Martine Maron emphasize that meaningful nature-positive strategies must follow the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, minimize, restore, then offset biodiversity impacts. But regenerative agriculture initiatives consistently skip this logical sequence, jumping directly to offset-style claims without addressing fundamental harm.

Avoidance would mean not farming in biodiversity hotspots or critical habitats. Minimization would mean reducing agricultural footprint and intensity. Restoration would mean returning damaged lands to natural states. Only after these steps should offsetting through "regenerative practices" be considered.

Instead, corporate programs reverse this hierarchy: they promote regenerative practices as biodiversity solutions while expanding agricultural footprint, intensifying production in sensitive areas, and claiming "net positive" outcomes without first avoiding harm.

This inverted approach enables systematic greenwashing. A company can destroy wetlands for agriculture while claiming biodiversity credits from cover crop plantings elsewhere—different ecosystems, different species, different ecological functions—yet the accounting systems treat these as equivalent "biodiversity units."

The result: biodiversity substitution masquerading as biodiversity restoration. The company gets ESG credits, the wetland disappears forever, and the cover crops support an entirely different set of unknown species that may or may not represent net ecological gain.

The Three Pillars of Carbon Project Integrity And Why They All Fail in Regenerative Agriculture

For both carbon offsetting and insetting projects to have any credibility, they must demonstrate three fundamental criteria: additionality, permanence, and no leakage. Regenerative agriculture projects systematically fail on all three fronts, yet continue to generate carbon claims for corporate Net Zero targets.

1. Additionality: The Retroactive Carbon Grab

Additionality requires that emission reductions would not have occurred without the carbon project funding. While this is typically assessed for registered offset projects, corporate value-chain mitigation conveniently bypasses this requirement.

Here's how the shell game works: A farmer has been practicing no-till agriculture for several years. A corporation then decides this existing practice can help meet their Net Zero targets. The corporation claims all emission reductions from that farm starting from the day they set their GHG target—not from when they actually funded any practice changes.

The farmer was already doing regenerative agriculture before it became useful for the corporation's carbon accounting. The corporation captures carbon benefits from practices they never funded, never influenced, and never verified. This is retroactive carbon colonialism—claiming credit for farmers' existing stewardship.

2. Permanence: The Wishful Thinking Problem

Permanence requires that sequestered soil carbon remains in place over time. This is where regenerative agriculture carbon claims become particularly fictional.

For registered offsetting projects, there are some mechanisms to track permanence—buffer pools to cover reversals, monitoring requirements, and replacement obligations. These mechanisms are imperfect (verifiers largely stopped conducting site visits post-COVID), but they exist.

For insetting projects, permanence is pure wishful thinking. Most regenerative agriculture programs are out-of-contract arrangements—farmers can enter or leave at any time. There are no mechanisms to deal with soil carbon losses due to flooding, drought, disease, economic pressure, or farmers simply reverting to conventional practices.

When a farmer's regenerative practices fail (crop disease destroys cover crops, drought forces tillage, economic pressure requires selling land), all the claimed soil carbon can be lost—but the corporation has already counted those reductions toward their Net Zero target. The atmosphere doesn't care about corporate accounting timelines.

3. Leakage: The Yield Reality Nobody Wants to Discuss

Leakage occurs when emissions reductions in one location cause emissions increases elsewhere. In regenerative agriculture, leakage is not just probable—it's predictable.

It's common knowledge that farmers converting from highly productive conventional practices to newly implemented no-till and cover crop systems will experience yield decreases of 10-30% during transition. This is normal because:

• The farmer is learning new techniques
• They often lack proper training and equipment
• Soil fertility takes years to rebuild
• Weed and pest management becomes more complex

The market doesn't stop needing food during this transition. The yield deficiencies must be compensated by growing more crops elsewhere—often through:

• Expanding cultivation into natural habitats
• Intensifying production on remaining conventional farms
• Increasing imports from regions with higher emissions

Growing more crops elsewhere means additional GHG emissions that completely negate any theoretical benefits from regenerative practices—assuming there were real benefits to begin with, rather than modeling artifacts.

The Leakage Cover-Up: Corporate regenerative agriculture programs systematically ignore this leakage because accounting for it would eliminate their carbon claims. They focus on the farm they're "helping" while ignoring the broader system effects their intervention creates.

The Triple Failure: When regenerative agriculture projects fail on additionality (claiming credit for existing practices), permanence (no mechanism to ensure carbon stays sequestered), and leakage (ignoring system-wide yield effects), the entire carbon accounting exercise becomes elaborate fiction.

Corporations get to claim emission reductions that may never have occurred, may not persist, and may be offset by increased emissions elsewhere—all while farmers bear the implementation risks and costs.

This is not carbon accounting. It's carbon theater.

Supply Chain Fiction: The Supply Shed Deception

Beyond the measurement problems of regenerative agriculture lies an even more fundamental challenge: corporations cannot trace what they claim to be selling. When a corporation decides to market "low carbon" wheat or "regeneratively produced" milk, they must provide assurances that somewhere in their supply chain, practices have been modified to reduce carbon emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Demonstrating such positive impacts is nearly impossible because true chain of custody from production to retail is almost universally lacking. Wheat grown by a farmer using regenerative practices gets sold to a cooperative, who sells to a manufacturer, who sells to a distributor, who then sells to a retailer. The chain often involves even more stakeholders, each handling commingled products from multiple sources.

How would a corporation selling wheat crackers know that their wheat was actually produced via regenerative agriculture? They don't.

The Supply Shed: Accounting Sleight of Hand

Enter the concept of "supply shed"—a framework created specifically to relax traceability rules, acknowledging that very few corporations could reliably track regenerative products accurately. The supply shed allows for an accounting sleight of hand where regeneratively produced goods can be mixed with conventional goods, enabling retailers to claim that a hypothetical amount of regenerative products has entered the supply chain.

Under this system, a corporation must purchase commodities from a geographic region (the "supply shed") that hypothetically contains regenerative farms, then claim environmental benefits equivalent to the regenerative portion they've "purchased"—even though the actual products they sell may come entirely from conventional sources within that same region.

This accounting feat requires multiple stakeholders in the chain of custody to calibrate their purchasing and sales systems to track these hypothetical flows—stakeholders who have never developed such capabilities and lack incentives to invest in the complex tracking systems required. Most cooperatives, processors, and distributors operate on commodity flows where individual farm practices disappear into bulk handling systems designed for efficiency, not traceability.

The result: corporations make regenerative claims based on regional statistical averages rather than actual product sourcing. A food company can claim their bread contains "30% regeneratively grown wheat" because 30% of wheat in their supply shed comes from farms practicing regenerative agriculture—regardless of whether any regenerative wheat actually ends up in their specific products.

 The Ritual Proxy

In the end, needless to say, the supply shed model is conveniently invoked as a ritual proxy—a performative construct that simulates traceability without requiring it, allowing corporations to symbolically fulfill regenerative claims while bypassing the burden of empirical proof. It functions as a sustainability simulacrum: a gesture that mimics integrity while concealing the absence of verifiable connection between practice and product. Rather than establishing a true chain of custody, it invokes the idea of regional possibility—as if proximity alone can stand in for provenance. This allows the market to transmute ambiguity into narrative certainty, giving brands the alibi they need to sell "regenerative" goods untethered from specific, audited sources.

The supply shed, then, is not a tool of accuracy but of narrative laundering—converting complex, unverifiable systems into digestible environmental virtue. Like carbon offsets and green power certificates, it creates a ritual placeholder that satisfies compliance optics while insulating the system from meaningful accountability. Its function is less about truth than about preserving the illusion of alignment—a ceremonial veil draped over a logistical unknown.

Who can Check the Connection?

Even when third-party verifiers are involved in regenerative agriculture programs, they are neither mandated nor capable of verifying the most fundamental claim: that the specific products being sold with regenerative labels actually came from farms practicing regenerative agriculture.

Verifiers, in the best of cases, typically audit:

• Whether farmers are implementing claimed practices
• Whether carbon accounting models are applied consistently
• Whether documentation meets reporting standards
• Whether supply shed calculations are mathematically correct

What verifiers do NOT verify:

• Whether the wheat in "regeneratively grown" bread actually came from regenerative farms
• Whether the milk in "low carbon" dairy products came from farms with cover crops
• Whether supply shed claims reflect actual physical product flows
• Whether the environmental benefits claimed match the products sold

In the worst cases, verifiers don’t even confirm whether farmers are implementing the practices being claimed. Many verification contracts are not designed to go that deep—especially when their primary function is to provide minimal assurance for a company’s carbon estimates submitted to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). This is not a formal carbon project being submitted to a carbon credit registry. It is a corporate insetting program, often managed in-house, operating without adherence to any recognized methodology or standard.

SBTi and Net Zero frameworks simply do not demand the same level of rigor as carbon credit registries. Even the recently launched “insetting registries” have failed to resolve the deeper structural issue: the fragmented, unverifiable nature of supply chains composed of multiple, disconnected stakeholders. Without a unified digital accounting system adopted across all parties, insetting remains less a credible accounting protocol and more a stylized narrative—an artform of emissions justification, not a system of trustworthy environmental integrity.

Until supply chains are fully digitized and commodities tracked would it be possible to, minimally, provide some assurances that some claims on retail products are associated with corporate enabled regenerative agricultural practices? Yes, but this would require more practitioner than performance, a precondition not favored or desired by the sustainability movement, or found in its market (discussed elsewhere in this document).

Put plainly, we are nowhere near the level of coherence required to treat most insetting claims as reliable. The architecture is still aspirational. The substance has not arrived.

This verification gap is not accidental—it would be prohibitively expensive and logistically impossible for most supply chains. Verifying actual product traceability would require:

• Segregated handling from farm to retail
• Chain of custody documentation at every transfer point
• Regular sampling and testing to prevent contamination
• Real-time tracking systems across multiple stakeholders

Instead, verifiers check paperwork that assumes traceability without proving it. They verify that a company purchased the correct amount of "regenerative" commodities from a supply shed and applied the appropriate carbon accounting factors—but they cannot verify that consumers actually received regenerative products.

The result: verified claims about unverifiable products. Companies receive third-party verification for regenerative agriculture benefits while selling products that may contain zero regenerative ingredients. The verification system legitimizes supply chain fiction rather than exposing it.

This creates a perfect storm of plausible deniability: farmers implement practices, companies buy credits, verifiers approve calculations, and consumers purchase "regenerative" products—but no one in the system is responsible for ensuring these elements actually connect to each other.

Emission Factors and the Fiction of Value Chain Decarbonization

At the heart of regenerative agriculture's role in climate accounting lies a fundamental shift from carbon project methodologies to lifecycle assessment (LCA) frameworks. This shift replaces the rigorous measurement requirements of carbon credit systems with the flexible—and easily exploitable—world of emission factors.

From Carbon Credits to Commodity Accounting

Traditional carbon projects aim to issue credits representing verified reductions or removals—typically one credit per tonne of CO₂ equivalent. But corporate insetting schemes have another idea in mind. Instead, they focus on "decarbonizing the value chain" by associating emission reductions with the production of specific commodities like wheat or milk.

This transforms regenerative agriculture from a practice that must demonstrate actual atmospheric impact into merely one input in a commodity's lifecycle assessment. The emission factor for wheat now represents the sum of all impacts from farm to gate: growing the crop, manufacturing fertilizers, transportation, processing—with regenerative practices becoming just one variable in a complex equation.

Corporations request these farm-to-gate emission factors to calculate their Scope 3, Category 1 impacts under Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) FLAG requirements. This moves us entirely away from carbon accounting methodologies into LCA territory—a shift that creates massive exploitable loopholes.

The LCA Shell Game

When corporations demand emission factors from suppliers, in many cases, the process bears no resemblance to rigorous carbon accounting. Instead, suppliers use off-the-shelf LCA tools loaded with industry-wide assumptions and high-level averages. They sample a few farms, run the tool, and generate rough emission factors for their commodities. It is not required to have these EFs verified by a third party. In some cases, the tools are proprietary and input data kept secret.

Here's where the manipulation begins: If some farms in the supplier's network have implemented practices that generate lower emission factors, the corporation can selectively demand those "low-EF commodities" rather than accepting the calculated average.

Of course, these lower-emission commodities don't actually reach the corporation—they're mixed into the theoretical supply shed with everything else. But on paper, the corporation multiplies its total commodity volume by the cherry-picked lower emission factor, instantly "decarbonizing" its value chain without changing what it actually purchases.

The Zero-Sum Carbon Game

The deeper fraud emerges when you follow the system logic: if one corporation claims all the low-EF commodities from a supplier, the remaining average emission factor necessarily increases. Other purchasers of the same commodity suddenly see their carbon footprints rise, not because anything changed in their supply chain, but because the "good" emission factors were allocated elsewhere. Of course, here we assume that the supplier has an accounting system capable of knowing the quantity of each commodity with their unique EFs that are theoritically inside a hypothetical supply shed.

At the global scale, nothing has changed. No actual decarbonization occurred. No additional carbon was removed from the atmosphere. The same commodities were produced using the same practices, but through accounting manipulation, one corporation improved its metrics while others got worse.

Accounting Alchemy, Not Atmospheric Integrity

This represents a complete inversion of climate accounting principles. Instead of demonstrating actual emission reductions or atmospheric removals, corporations can claim "decarbonization" by gaming LCA assumptions and cherry-picking favorable emission factors from theoretical supply sheds. To be fair, corporations are being told by the top sustainability consulting firms in the world, that this practice is totally acceptable (see elsewhere "planned incompetency").

The result is elaborate carbon theater where lower-emission wheat exists in spreadsheets and dashboards, not in the actual products being sold. Corporations achieve Net Zero targets through selective accounting while the atmosphere sees no benefit whatsoever.

What emerges is not climate progress, but performance—one where simulation replaces substance, and accounting alchemy replaces atmospheric integrity.

✦ The Risk of Ritual Performance over Real Remembrance ✦

Just like "organic" was commodified into checkbox compliance (certification, labeling, etc.), regenerative agriculture is now at risk of becoming a brand, a certification schema, or a carbon ledger protocol—rather than a living, context-sensitive way of working with land.

Farmers are being asked to perform regeneration according to outside metrics, instead of being supported to remember and re-enter relationship with their ecosystems.

This is not transformation—it is ritualized simulation.

The Corporate Embrace of Definitional Ambiguity

Chief Innovation Officers and sustainability executives increasingly argue that regenerative agriculture "resists definition" and that focusing on outcomes rather than practices represents sophistication. This strategic ambiguity serves corporate interests by:

• Avoiding accountability to specific standards
• Allowing cherry-picking of favorable metrics
• Shifting verification burden to farmers
• Creating dependency on expensive measurement technologies
• Enabling marketing claims without meaningful oversight

The rhetoric sounds progressive: "We don't need rigid definitions; we need flexible, context-sensitive approaches that measure real impact." But this definitional nihilism creates the perfect environment for commodification and control.

We've witnessed CEO's openly say in LinkedIn: "I never want to hear about defining regenerative agriculture again"—while simultaneously promoting complex measurement frameworks that require farmers to prove outcomes they can't afford to measure, using baselines they can't establish, within timeframes that don't match agricultural reality.

When sustainability becomes performance for distant metrics rather than relationship with place, we've already lost what we claim to be regenerating. True regeneration can't be audited by consultants who've never touched the soil—it emerges from farmers who understand their land as kin, not commodity.

The irony is profound: frameworks designed to be "context-sensitive" end up requiring the same expensive measurement infrastructure everywhere, while claiming to avoid "rigid definitions" while imposing the most rigid requirement of all—quantified proof of unquantifiable relationships.

The Sacred Deception: What "Regenerative" Actually Means

This critique is not an argument against the act of farming, which is essential for human survival and can be practiced with great care. Rather, it is an argument for radical humility. To build a truly honest and effective movement, we must be precise with our language and clear-eyed about our role in the ecosystem. The word "regenerative" carries a profound spiritual weight, and we must examine whether our actions live up to its promise.

While there is no universal definition for regenerative agriculture, by and large there is a deep and intrinsic connotation in the term that it serves as a healing response—a sacred correction—to the wounds inflicted by conventional agriculture. The very word "regenerative" signals that something has been broken, depleted, or lost—namely, the integrity of soil, ecosystems, biodiversity, and human relationships with land. It is not merely an alternative method; it is positioned as an act of repair, remembrance, and realignment.

This spiritual framing is central to regenerative agriculture's appeal. It offers redemption for agriculture's sins. It promises that we can farm in a way that heals rather than harms. It suggests that through proper practices, we can restore what industrial agriculture destroyed.

But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what healing actually means.

Anyone who has extensively worked the land to grow crops knows that any agricultural practice—conventional or not—is a wound imposed by humans on a natural ecosystem. We're not debating the intensity of the wound here, just acknowledging the reality that agriculture is an imposition of human will on a system that would otherwise evolve very differently.

True healing is what nature would do if humans stopped imposing their will entirely.

Real healing would mean weeds taking over the fields. Shrubs establishing themselves among the crops. Seeds from nearby forests germinating and growing into saplings. Eventually, if enough time passed and seed sources were available, trees would replace the agricultural land entirely. The soil community would shift from agricultural microbes to forest microbes. Wildlife patterns would change. Water cycles would transform. Carbon dynamics would follow entirely different pathways.

That is nature healing from agricultural wounds—regardless of whether that agriculture was conventional or regenerative.

What regenerative agriculture is actually doing is attempting something less damaging to preconceived ecosystem functions, mostly anthropomorphized. It's trying to minimize harm while maintaining human control and agricultural production. This may be admirable, practical, and necessary—but it is not healing.

Recognizing this distinction does not diminish the value of the effort; it clarifies its purpose and protects it from the pitfalls of spiritual inflation. 

Reducing harm, minimizing chemical inputs, and improving soil function are profoundly worthy goals. But framing them as "damage reduction" rather than "healing" allows for a more honest conversation about agriculture's inherent trade-offs and prevents the movement from being captured by salvation narratives that obscure its real-world limitations.

The Spiritual Appropriation

By claiming the language of healing and regeneration, the movement appropriates spiritual concepts to justify what remains fundamentally an extractive enterprise. This spiritual bypassing allows practitioners to feel righteous about activities that are still, at their core, about bending natural systems to human purposes.

Don't misunderstand—this isn't an argument against converting conventional agricultural lands to regenerative systems. Reducing harm is meaningful. Less destructive practices matter. But there are too many elements that are not being truly discussed:

• Too many people silencing those who ask uncomfortable questions
• Too much incompetency masquerading as expertise
• Too many performers, grifters, and virtue signalers
• Too much spiritual language covering material contradictions

For the concept to become meaningfully credible, it must abandon the healing mythology and embrace what it actually is: an attempt at less harmful domination of natural systems.

When we stop pretending that regenerative agriculture is healing—when we acknowledge it as a form of damage reduction rather than restoration—we can have honest conversations about its actual benefits, limitations, and trade-offs. We can develop practices that genuinely minimize harm without the spiritual inflation that clouds clear thinking.

The land doesn't need our salvation narratives. It needs our humility.

True regeneration may not be possible within agricultural systems designed to serve human needs. But acknowledging this honestly is the first step toward practices that actually honor the more-than-human world rather than appropriating its sacred language for our Traditional Knowledge Gets Subsumed, Not Supported

Many indigenous and smallholder practices already embody regenerative principles—polycultures, agroforestry, forest gardening, rotational grazing.

But when "regenerative" is defined by Western experts, consultants, or carbon financiers, these living traditions are often erased or overwritten by imported systems.

So instead of honoring ancient ecological wisdom, the regenerative movement risks becoming another top-down imperial project, cloaked in soil science.

The New Digital Colonialism

Modern regenerative initiatives often reproduce colonial extraction patterns through:

Data Colonialism: Farmers required to share detailed soil, biodiversity, and practice data with outside organizations, creating valuable datasets owned by corporations rather than communities. I've seen contracts requiring farmers to provide GPS coordinates, soil test results, input records, and yield data—all of which becomes corporate property while farmers receive no ownership of the insights generated from their land.

Technical Dependency: Complex measurement requirements that farmers can't implement without expensive outside expertise, creating new forms of dependency on consultant classes. Soil carbon verification might require $3,000-5,000 per farm in testing costs, plus technical analysis farmers can't perform themselves.

Metric Imperialism: Imposing standardized outcome measurements across vastly different ecological and cultural contexts, erasing local knowledge systems that have sustained landscapes for generations. A farmer in Guatemala managing a polyculture system refined over generations is told their practices don't count unless they can produce laboratory data proving soil organic carbon increases.

Carbon Colonialism: Binding farmers to monitoring contracts and land-use restrictions in exchange for promised payments that often fail to materialize, while carbon financiers profit from the commodification of soil carbon. Farmers sign 10-20 year contracts with data sharing requirements and land use restrictions, while carbon credit buyers capture the value without the risk.

This represents a profound inversion: systems designed to restore relationship with land end up extracting data, autonomy, and agency from those who work it daily.

The most insidious aspect is how this extraction is marketed as empowerment. Farmers are told they're "participating in climate solutions" and "earning additional income" while signing away data rights and land autonomy to organizations that will profit from their compliance.

✦ The Corporate Performance Theater ✦

There is a profound disconnection between corporate sustainability rhetoric and implementation reality. Companies promote "regenerative agriculture cookies" while having no idea what regenerative agriculture actually requires. Supply chains claim traceability they cannot prove. Carbon accounting models assume outcomes that no one verifies.

The people driving these initiatives—executives and consultants—often operate "stochastic parrots," repeating sophisticated-sounding frameworks without understanding their implications or caring about their coherence. They've learned the language of sustainability without inhabiting its meaning.

When someone raises concerns about implementation feasibility, measurement challenges, or farmer welfare, they're dismissed as "focusing on the negative" or "not understanding the bigger picture." The system has become immune to feedback because feedback threatens the performance.

This is how greenwashing evolves beyond intentional deceit into systemic simulation—where no one knows what they're actually doing, but everyone agrees it sounds virtuous. The metrics become more important than the reality they're supposed to measure. The performance becomes more real than the thing being performed.

✦ The Technology Trap: When AI Automates Deception ✦

We are entering an era where the already-limited ability to examine regenerative agriculture claims is giving way to opaque, black-box systems—algorithms, proprietary software, machine learning models, and artificial intelligence tools that promise soil health insights but deliver faith-based governance.

The High-Tech Promise: Solving Measurement with Magic

High-tech solutions are being marketed as the answer to regenerative agriculture's measurement challenges. Drones and remote sensing promise to measure GHG emissions and soil organic carbon with "better precision than current laboratory techniques." Satellite imagery claims to detect soil health changes in real-time. AI algorithms offer to analyze vast datasets and provide actionable insights for farmers.

These technologies sound revolutionary. They promise to solve the cost, scale, and complexity problems that have plagued regenerative agriculture verification. But they create an even more dangerous problem: algorithmic authority without accountability.

The Black Box Problem

These high-tech solutions risk becoming black boxes that very few understand and almost nobody can audit. This is because they rely on:

• Complex proprietary technology controlled by specialized consultant companies
• Machine learning algorithms (neural networks, deep learning) where we cannot retrace the exact nature of calculations
• Proprietary datasets and calibration methods that are trade secrets
• Multi-layered modeling where remote sensing data is processed through multiple algorithmic filters

When a drone company claims their system can measure soil carbon sequestration from aerial imagery, who can verify that claim? The algorithms are proprietary. The calibration datasets are secret. The processing methods are trade secrets.

The Validation Impossibility

While it might seem possible to validate high-tech solutions against on-site measurements, this creates validation challenges that are practically impossible to solve:

First, laboratory measurement chaos: If you take five soil samples from one location and send them to five different laboratories, you will get five different results. Even more problematic—if you take five samples from the same location and send them to the same laboratory, you will still get different results. And this is only for a given protocol; there are many different sampling protocols (depth, coarse fragments inclusion, seasonal timing, etc.).

Second, the signal-to-noise problem: The impact of regenerative agriculture practices in year one are extremely small—often within the margin of error of measurement systems. It takes years before measurable impacts emerge above the natural variation in soil systems.

Given the enormous variety of site conditions (moisture, fertility, soil type, climate, management history), the quantity of sampling required to validate high-tech estimates would be astronomical. We would need thousands of validation points across different soil types, climates, and management systems to have confidence that remote sensing accurately captures soil carbon changes.

The statistical reality: It is unlikely we will ever have sufficient confidence that high-tech solutions accurately measure GHG emissions and carbon sequestration, at least not in the timeframes that corporate sustainability targets demand.

The Verifier Capitulation

Even more problematic is that third-party verifiers are also jumping on-board the digital train. They market this conversion as a positive transformation that will reduce costs and increase integrity. Yet we know that high-tech solutions will become black boxes that cannot be fully audited.

Instead of maintaining verification standards, verifiers will, at best, check to see if the process that is said to be used is actually the process used—maybe checking a few basic equations for consistency. Once they have confirmed that "garbage in equals garbage out," they will automate the verification process to rubber-stamp the estimates.

But when complex machine learning and AI algorithms come into play, you literally cannot retrace the steps involved in arriving at a carbon estimate. Highly complex transformer models operate through invisible layers that no human can interpret or audit. The mathematical operations happen in high-dimensional spaces that are fundamentally opaque.

Verifiers will be stuck accepting high-level assumptions, having to bend the knee to algorithmic authority rather than confronting the signal-to-noise ratio required to validate machine estimates against on-site measurements. Knowing that such validation is impractical—requiring thousands of expensive field measurements across diverse conditions—they face a choice: become the bottleneck that stops "progress," or find ways to approve the technology.

Not wanting to become the cul-de-sac of innovation, verifiers will code accuracy as a "pass" if some arbitrary minimal threshold is achieved. They'll create verification protocols that check whether the AI system is running, whether it produces numbers within expected ranges, and whether its outputs are formatted correctly—while having no meaningful way to verify whether those numbers reflect ecological reality.

The result: Digitization of the verification process will only add opacity and dehumanization to "regenerative" practices. No human, besides the farmer, will have any real understanding of how well big corporations are "regenerating" land that was made "ill" by conventional farming in the first place.

The verification industry—once positioned as a critical check on corporate environmental claims—becomes another layer of technological theater, providing the appearance of oversight while surrendering the substance of accountability to algorithmic black boxes that no one can meaningfully audit.

The Authority of Complexity

But here's the insidious part: the complexity itself becomes the selling point. When farmers, regulators, or consumers question regenerative agriculture claims, corporations can respond: "Our AI-powered soil carbon monitoring system uses advanced machine learning algorithms trained on satellite imagery and validated against field measurements."

That sentence sounds so sophisticated that most people assume it must be accurate. The technological complexity creates an aura of precision that masks fundamental uncertainty.

When Black Boxes Become Standard Practice

Once regenerative agriculture data pipelines, soil carbon calculations, and biodiversity metrics are encoded inside AI-assisted dashboards—systems no one fully understands—we will lose even the illusion of oversight.

Incompetency will no longer be a human trait. It will be baked into the code.

A proprietary algorithm will estimate your farm's soil health improvements. A neural network will approve your regenerative certification. An AI assistant will generate your annual regenerative agriculture impact report.

And if the foundation is flawed? If the model is trained on biased data? If the algorithm has been gamed to favor certain practices over ecological outcomes? If the remote sensing calibration is wrong?

You'll never see it.

Fuzzy Concepts Beget Fuzzy Solutions

Despite all these challenges, flaws, and improbabilities, we will see more and more sustainability claims like "nature positive due to regenerative agriculture" being made simply due to the usage of high-tech solutions.

Fuzzy concepts beget fuzzy concepts for fuzzy-thinking systems—and that is exactly what regenerative agriculture has become.

When the fundamental definitions are unclear, the measurement methods are uncertain, and the validation is impossible, high-tech solutions become perfect tools for sophisticated greenwashing. They provide the appearance of scientific rigor while operating in a realm beyond meaningful scrutiny.

The question is not whether AI will run regenerative agriculture assessment. The question is: Whose values will it encode? And who will be brave enough to challenge its outputs when they contradict ecological reality—or when no one can even understand how those outputs were generated?

Because if we do not fight for clarity now, we may awaken one day in a world where planned incompetency in regenerative agriculture is no longer just tolerated—it is automated, algorithmic, and unauditable.

✦ Corporate Regenerative Agriculture Under Fire ✦

Academic researchers, agroecologists, and indigenous agriculture experts are mounting serious critiques against large-scale implementation of regenerative agriculture by multinational corporations and governments, arguing that corporate co-optation strips away transformative potential while maintaining harmful industrial systems.

The emerging consensus suggests that top-down, standardized approaches fundamentally contradict regenerative principles, with experts proposing radically different pathways centered on food sovereignty, traditional knowledge systems, and bioregional adaptation rather than corporate-controlled scaling.

This critique spans multiple expert communities who argue that while regenerative agriculture contains valuable practices, its appropriation by large institutions represents a dangerous form of "greenwashing" that prevents genuine agricultural transformation. The scale mismatch between regenerative principles and industrial agriculture creates fundamental contradictions that cannot be resolved through corporate implementation, leading experts to recommend completely different approaches based on democratic participation and ecological adaptation.

Academic evidence reveals fundamental scale mismatches

The most comprehensive academic critique comes from Ken Giller and colleagues at Wageningen University, whose landmark research in Outlook on Agriculture identifies critical problems with scaling regenerative agriculture beyond farm-level applications. Their analysis reveals that regenerative practices promoted "with little regard to context" are "unlikely to lead to the benefits claimed in all places," emphasizing that success depends entirely on local agroecosystem conditions.

Research published in PeerJ found that while regenerative systems showed benefits at farm scale, they came with 29% lower grain production and were highly dependent on specific soil types and climate conditions, suggesting fundamental difficulties in meeting global food demand through large-scale implementation.  Peter Newton at University of Colorado Boulder discovered that only 51% of academic articles using "regenerative agriculture" provided any definition, with definitions varying dramatically between corporate and practitioner sources.

The academic consensus identifies several critical barriers: resource limitations in nutrient-depleted regions that require increased rather than decreased external inputs; biophysical constraints where soil carbon storage depends entirely on soil texture and starting conditions; and economic viability challenges where regional variation makes universal scaling impossible.

Andy McGuire at Washington State University questions whether regenerative agriculture "can deliver all of the positive environmental benefits as well as the increase in global food production that is required," calling for evidence-based assessment rather than accepting "extraordinary claims."

Corporate co-optation strips away transformative potential

Agroecology and food sovereignty experts argue that corporate adoption of regenerative agriculture represents dangerous co-optation that maintains existing power structures while using progressive language for marketing purposes. Miguel Altieri and Clara Nicholls warn of "enormous risk that agroecology will be co-opted, institutionalized, colonized and stripped of its political content" when corporations embrace regenerative approaches.

La Via Campesina, which originated the food sovereignty framework, emphasizes that corporate approaches reduce transformative agroecology to "a few more tools for the toolbox of industrial agriculture" rather than challenging fundamental inequalities. The Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA) documents how corporate regenerative agriculture focuses on technical solutions while ignoring the social movements and democratic participation essential for genuine transformation.

Research reveals three distinct types of regenerative agriculture: "Philosophy RA" representing genuine holistic approaches, "Development RA" involving well-intentioned but top-down NGO programs, and "Corporate RA" focused on public relations rather than systemic change. Food sovereignty advocates argue that only bottom-up, farmer-led approaches can address the structural inequalities that create both social injustice and environmental degradation in agriculture.

Traditional knowledge systems offer proven alternatives

Indigenous and traditional agriculture systems provide fundamentally different paradigms based on bioregional adaptation, community sovereignty, and millennium-old sustainable practices that predate corporate regenerative agriculture by thousands of years. Traditional Ecological Knowledge represents "cumulative knowledge evolved through adaptive processes and handed down through generations," emphasizing place-based solutions that cannot be standardized or scaled through corporate systems.

Australian Aboriginal communities managed landscapes sustainably for 65,000+ years through systematic burning and landscape management, while Amazonian agroforestry systems helped establish current Amazon biodiversity through sophisticated change management. North American Indigenous polycultures like the Three Sisters system demonstrate complex intercropping refined over millennia, where corn provides natural trellising, beans fix nitrogen, and squash acts as living mulch.

These systems fundamentally challenge corporate approaches through "seven-generation thinking" that considers impacts centuries into the future versus quarterly profit cycles, ecosystem integration that works within natural cycles rather than imposing external inputs, and cultural-ecological integration where practices are embedded in spiritual and social systems. Indigenous food sovereignty emphasizes self-determination and relationship-based approaches that recognize land as "living relative" rather than resource for extraction.

Documented failures expose implementation problems

Specific corporate initiatives demonstrate systematic failures in large-scale regenerative implementation, with companies using regenerative language while maintaining harmful industrial practices. Friends of the Earth analysis found that Bayer promotes regenerative agriculture while simultaneously promoting RoundUp/glyphosate as for regenerative practices, offering farmers $12/acre for "regenerative practices" that include "sustainable use of herbicides."

Analysis of 79 global agri-food companies worth $3 trillion found that 63% mention regenerative agriculture in sustainability strategies, but only 36% have quantified targets and only 8% provide financial support for farmers. The FAIRR Initiative concludes there are "more promises than progress" with significant greenwashing risk due to lack of definitions and accountability mechanisms.

The pesticide industry's co-optation represents particularly problematic contradictions, with 93% of no-till corn and soy acreage using synthetic herbicides representing 33% of total US pesticide use. Friends of the Earth IFOAM Programs promoted as "regenerative" actually increase chemical dependency while producing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 11.4 million cars annually from fossil-fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers.

Bioregional and food sovereignty alternatives

Experts recommend fundamentally different approaches based on bioregionalism, food sovereignty, and territorial agroecology rather than corporate scaling. Bioregionalism organizes agricultural systems around naturally defined watersheds, soil types, and ecological zones rather than economic markets, emphasizing local knowledge systems and cultural integration adapted to specific places.

Peter Rosset's territorial framework emphasizes "scaling up" through horizontal peasant-to-peasant knowledge sharing, vertical policy changes supporting agroecology, and territorial scaling that builds local food systems with community control. This approach directly contrasts with corporate scaling that seeks standardized practices applicable across regions regardless of ecological or cultural context.

La Via Campesina promotes building "agroecological territories" characterized by peasant autonomy over land, seeds, and markets; biodiversity conservation; local food systems with short supply chains; solidarity economy relationships; and collective political organization. These territories prioritize democratic participation and ecological adaptation over market-driven solutions that maintain existing inequalities.

Policy alternatives reject corporate dependence

Successful alternative policy frameworks center democratic participation, land redistribution, and public food systems rather than corporate partnerships. Brazil's Landless Workers' Movement (MST) has successfully settled over 1 million families on 23 million hectares, with studies showing land reform beneficiaries earn more than before settlement and adopt increasingly agroecological practices.

Municipal food security models like Belo Horizonte's elimination of hunger through 20 interconnected programs using only 2% of city budget demonstrate effective alternatives to corporate approaches. These programs link local producers directly to consumers through integrated approaches to production, distribution, and access rather than relying on corporate supply chains.

Experts recommend corporate accountability frameworks including conflict of interest rules excluding companies with vested interests from food governance, mandatory reporting with quantified targets and measurable outcomes, and legal mechanisms for compensation when corporate practices cause harm. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control provides a model for applying public health approaches to food and agriculture corporations.

Systemic transformation requires structural change

Researchers consistently argue that genuine agricultural transformation requires addressing power structures and inequality rather than technical fixes within existing systems. Recommended approaches include land reform redistributing control to small-scale producers, market restructuring creating local and regional food systems, public procurement supporting sustainable local production, and research reorientation toward farmer needs rather than corporate interests.

Alternative frameworks emphasize regulatory reforms including pesticide reduction, antitrust enforcement breaking up corporate concentration, subsidy reallocation from industrial to agroecological practices, and trade agreement revisions protecting local food systems. Implementation principles prioritize transparency, participatory democracy through farmers' councils, intersectional justice addressing inequalities, and ecological integrity over short-term productivity.

The evidence suggests that the most effective path forward involves supporting indigenous-led initiatives, protecting traditional knowledge from appropriation, and developing bioregional approaches that honor ecological and cultural boundaries rather than attempting to scale or standardize practices developed within specific contexts.

✦ Pathways Toward Authentic Regeneration: From Critique to Construction ✦

While the corporate co-optation of regenerative agriculture must be resisted, we must also build and support the systems that can replace it. The path forward does not lie in reforming the flawed corporate model, but in creating parallel structures rooted in integrity, transparency, and ecological reality.

Develop Open-Source, Regionally-Adapted Standards

The corporate embrace of "definitional ambiguity" is a strategic choice that serves marketing, not ecology. The alternative is to develop clear, rigorous, and regionally-adapted standards from the bottom up. This involves:

• Practitioner-Led Councils: Establishing regional councils of experienced regenerative farmers, indigenous knowledge keepers, agroecologists, and soil scientists to define what regenerative means in their specific bioregion.
• Open-Source Frameworks: Making these standards and verification protocols public and open-source, preventing their capture by proprietary consultants or certification bodies. This would allow for multiple, competing standards (like FSC and CSA in forestry) that are all built on a foundation of transparency.

Champion 'Patient Capital' and Transitional Finance

The transition to regenerative agriculture is a multi-year process that often involves initial yield dips and significant upfront investment. Corporate models fail because they ignore this reality. A true regenerative financial system would:

• Fund Transitions, Not Just Outcomes: Offer grants, low-interest loans, and "patient capital" that support farmers through the 3-5 year transition period, without demanding immediate, quantifiable carbon or biodiversity outcomes.
• De-risk for Farmers: Create public-private insurance pools or guarantee funds that protect farmers from crop failures or revenue loss directly attributable to the transition, shifting the risk from the farmer to the system that benefits from the ecological services.

Pilot Radical Transparency in Supply Chains

The "supply shed" model is a fiction designed to obscure a lack of traceability. The antidote is to build new supply chains designed for radical transparency. This could start with:

• Demonstration Projects: Focusing on a single ingredient (e.g., wheat for one brand of bread) and building a fully traceable supply chain from farm to shelf. This would prove it can be done and create a new benchmark for integrity. It would also serve to demonstrate the level of challenges that need to be overcome, if possible, to scale up.
• Consumer-Facing Verification: Using QR codes on packaging that link directly to a database showing the farm of origin, the practices used, and the independent verification reports. This empowers consumers and holds brands accountable in a way that ESG reports never can.

Build Practitioner-to-Practitioner Knowledge Networks

The current model relies on consultants who have a "relationship with spreadsheets." True expertise comes from a "relationship with land." We must invest in scaling peer-to-peer knowledge sharing through:

• Funding Farmer Networks: Directly funding organizations and platforms (both digital and in-person) where farmers can share successes, failures, and practical advice on regenerative techniques relevant to their specific climate and soil type.
• Integrating Scientific and Traditional Knowledge: Creating forums where agroecologists and soil scientists work alongside indigenous leaders and long-time farmers to co-create knowledge, respecting all ways of knowing as valid and essential.

✦ Conclusion ✦

The Choice Before Us: Standards or Simulation

The evidence presented in this analysis reveals that regenerative agriculture has reached a dangerous crossroads. The choice is stark: develop meaningful standards that protect farmers and ecosystems, or allow strategic ambiguity to serve only those who profit from confusion.

Corporate regenerative agriculture, as currently implemented, represents sophisticated greenwashing that transforms genuine ecological practices into performance metrics, carbon credits, and ESG compliance theater. It doesn't just fail to support real regeneration—it actively undermines it by prioritizing measurement over meaning, compliance over relationship, and carbon accounting over ecological wisdom.

What Authentic Regeneration Requires

True regenerative agriculture cannot be imposed through corporate mandates, verified through algorithmic black boxes, or measured through standardized metrics applied across vastly different ecological contexts. It emerges from:

Farmers' lived relationship with land rather than consultants' relationship with spreadsheets. Those who touch the soil daily, understand seasonal patterns through direct observation, and develop ecological literacy through years of careful attention to place-specific conditions.

Community sovereignty over agricultural decisions rather than corporate control over supply chains. Food sovereignty frameworks that prioritize democratic participation, land redistribution, and bioregional adaptation over market-driven solutions that maintain existing inequalities.

Multiple competing standards adapted to regional contexts rather than definitional ambiguity that serves corporate interests. Clear, verifiable criteria with independent certification bodies, transparent supply chain tracking, meaningful consumer labeling, and protection against exploitation—similar to how Forest Stewardship Council and Canadian Standards Association provide different but clear approaches to forest certification.

Traditional knowledge systems that have sustained landscapes for millennia through place-based wisdom rather than top-down technological solutions. Indigenous and small-scale farming practices that embody genuine regenerative principles through polycultures, agroforestry, and integrated management systems developed through generations of careful observation.

The Path Beyond Corporate Co-optation

Academic consensus and expert analysis point toward fundamentally different approaches based on food sovereignty, territorial agroecology, and bioregional frameworks rather than corporate scaling:

Horizontal peasant-to-peasant knowledge sharing that respects cultural and ecological contexts rather than standardized practices imposed regardless of local conditions.

Democratic participation through farmers' councils rather than sustainability consultants making decisions about agricultural practices from conference rooms.

Public food systems and land reform that redistribute control to small-scale producers rather than concentrating power in corporate supply chains.

Regulatory frameworks that address power structures including conflict of interest rules, antitrust enforcement, subsidy reallocation, and trade agreement revisions that protect local food systems.

The Spiritual and Political Dimensions

The regenerative agriculture movement's co-optation represents a deeper pattern of how capitalism captures and commodifies resistance. Just as "organic" was transformed from a holistic philosophy into checkbox compliance, regenerative agriculture risks becoming another brand rather than a living way of working with land.

This commodification serves specific interests: it allows corporations to claim environmental leadership while maintaining extractive business models, enables financial institutions to profit from soil carbon without supporting farmer transitions, and permits governments to appear climate-progressive while avoiding structural agricultural reforms.

Breaking free requires recognizing that agricultural transformation is inherently political. It involves questions of land ownership, democratic participation, corporate power, and relationship to place that cannot be resolved through better measurement protocols or more sophisticated carbon accounting.

A Call to Remembrance, Not Reform

This analysis is not a call to reform corporate regenerative agriculture—the system is working exactly as designed, generating profits and ESG credentials while extracting value from farmers and ecosystems. Reform assumes the framework can be fixed when the framework itself is the problem.

Instead, this is a call to remember what regenerative agriculture was before its capture: reverence for soil communities, care for watershed health, responsibility to future generations, and relationship with land as living being rather than commodity.

Such remembrance requires:

• Character over credentials - choosing practitioners over performers, depth over visibility, relationship over measurement.
• Humility over heroism - acknowledging agriculture as imposition while seeking to minimize harm rather than claiming to heal what we continue to wound.
• Place-based wisdom over scalable solutions - understanding that ecological relationships cannot be standardized across bioregions, climates, and cultures.
• Farmers over frameworks - supporting those who work land daily rather than those who develop metrics about land from distant offices.

The Stakes

The stakes extend far beyond agricultural practices. How we resolve the regenerative agriculture crisis will determine whether environmental movements can resist corporate capture or whether every ecological practice will eventually be transformed into performance metrics for ESG compliance.

If regenerative agriculture becomes another sustainability simulation—sophisticated enough to convince consumers and regulators while changing nothing fundamental about how corporations relate to land—we will have lost more than farming practices. We will have normalized the systematic conversion of ecological relationship into market commodity.

But if we can protect and support authentic regenerative practices while exposing corporate co-optation, we preserve the possibility that humans can learn to work with land rather than against it. We maintain space for the humility, patience, and place-based wisdom that genuine ecological restoration requires.

The Land Is Calling

The choice ultimately comes down to this: Will we serve the soil or the simulation? Will we prioritize relationship or reporting? Will we choose farmers or frameworks?

The land is calling for our return—not to measurement protocols and carbon models, but to the soil itself. To relationship. To remembrance of what it means to be accountable to place rather than profit, to ecosystem health rather than ESG metrics, to the more-than-human world rather than corporate sustainability targets.

Everything else is performance. And the earth can tell the difference.

Those ready to answer this call will find themselves part of a growing movement that spans continents and cultures—indigenous communities protecting traditional knowledge, small-scale farmers developing place-based practices, researchers documenting corporate failures, and consumers demanding authentic alternatives to greenwashed products.

This movement doesn't need corporate partnerships or government funding. It needs character, humility, and commitment to the long work of learning to live well within the ecological relationships that sustain all life.

The regenerative agriculture the world needs cannot be bought, sold, or certified. It can only be lived, one farm, one season, one relationship at a time. And it begins with saying no to the systematic simulation and yes to the sacred work of caring for soil as if our lives depend on it.

Because they do.

This work is ad-free, corporate-free, and freely given. But behind each post is time, energy, and a sacred patience. If the words here light something in you—truth, beauty, longing—consider giving something back.

Your support helps keep this alive.