Big Food's Regenerative Agriculture Report Card: Investors Find Fewer Hard Targets and Not One Pesticide Pledge

The world's biggest food companies talk about regenerative farming more than ever. The number that back the talk with hard targets just went down. On 29 June, the FAIRR investor network released its new study of 78 listed food and agriculture companies. In 2023, 35% of them had quantified regenerative agriculture targets. That figure is now 28%. Fewer of the world's biggest food companies have hard regenerative farming targets today than three years ago.

FAIRR is a network of institutional investors that tracks risk in the global food system. The companies in its study sell a combined $3.3 trillion of food and drink a year, and the list includes Nestlé, Danone, PepsiCo, General Mills and Conagra Brands. FAIRR's verdict is blunt: there is a "widening credibility gap" between what companies say about regenerative farming and what they can show.

More measuring, fewer promises

On the surface, the report carries good news. The share of companies measuring regenerative agriculture outcomes jumped from 16% in 2023 to 54% today. More than half now connect regenerative farming to their Scope 3 emissions plans, up from 24% three years ago. Then comes the catch. Only 4% of companies have set outcome-based targets. More companies than ever say they measure results, and almost none promise one. Most of that measurement also sits at the project level, a field here and a pilot there. Very little covers the whole company. That makes it nearly impossible for an outsider to judge the real scale of any programme.

The pesticide contradiction

The sharpest finding is about chemicals. 52% of the companies name cutting agrochemical inputs as a goal of their regenerative programmes. Not one of the 78 companies has set a target to reduce pesticide use. The reason is awkward. Popular regenerative practices such as cover crops and reduced tillage often rely on herbicides to work at scale. Only four companies, Conagra Brands, Danone, Nestlé and Sysco, even measure herbicide use in their programmes. FAIRR's María Montosa Ródenas put it plainly: "potential is not the same as progress," and companies "cannot credibly claim to be restoring nature while deploying practices that undermine that goal."

A rulebook arrived the same week

The timing makes the report sting more. Four days earlier, on 25 June, the industry launched its answer to exactly this problem. SAI Platform, the sector's main sustainable farming body, unveiled its Regenerating Together Programme at its annual event in Saskatoon, Canada, with a livestream into London Climate Action Week. More than 40 food and agriculture businesses signed a declaration of intent to scale regenerative agriculture, including Nestlé, Danone, Unilever, Arla, Diageo, McCain Foods and Louis Dreyfus Company. The framework is the first of its kind to include guidance for independent third-party verification and benchmarking. Four days before the scorecard landed, the industry got its first common rulebook for proving regenerative claims.

Who came out well, and why targets vanish

FAIRR did hand out some praise. General Mills was cited for being clear about the scope of its programme. PepsiCo was noted for farmer payment schemes that pay for outcomes rather than activity. But the direction of travel worries the people holding the shares. Arthur van Mansvelt of Achmea Investment Management, a FAIRR member, said investors "are still struggling to assess the credibility of initiatives." Some of the retreat is legal caution, since green-claims rules and eco-label lawsuits have made loose environmental language expensive. Investors read a dropped target as a tell. Pledges shrank just as delivery dates drew near.

What happens when proof becomes possible

Regenerative agriculture now sits where organic food sat decades ago: a story anyone can tell, about to become a standard only some can pass. Verification changes the economics of the claim. When proof becomes possible, unproven claims turn into a liability. For operators, verified regenerative supply could earn the shelf access and pricing power that organic certification once delivered. For investors, the 4% of companies with outcome-based targets is a ready-made screen. For buyers, every supplier deck that says "regenerative" now deserves one question: verified by whom? The next reporting season will show who treats proof as a budget line and who treats it as a slogan.