What does regeneration actually mean?

And how can we reclaim its true power?

The concept of regeneration has grown rapidly in the public imagination in recent years. The energy around topics like regenerative agriculture, regenerative finance, regenerative medicine, and regenerative capitalism have exploded–as have criticisms of many of them. So what does regeneration really mean? And is it a useful concept to guide us forward? 

The term regeneration originated from biology, where it refers to the ability of certain organisms to recreate parts of their body after being damaged. In ecology, it refers to a similar thing: the ability of an ecosystem (and those living within it) to restore and regenerate themselves. The ability to do this is called ‘regenerative capacity.’ This powerful image of a system that stays in balance by renewing itself has expanded to include the way we think about our social, political, and economic systems. If we were to think regeneratively about all of these systems together, it would mean that we would have to follow principles that put life–both human and nonhuman–at the center of all of our actions.

Regeneration also emerged from criticism about the term sustainability. The mainstream approach to sustainability today is incremental in nature; it aims to reduce the levels of harm from emissions to levels that do not threaten life on Earth (something we are already failing to do). It uses approaches like net-zero and emissions reduction targets to accomplish this. It does not, however, challenge the underlying systems that led to this situation in the first place, including commodification, neocolonialism, neoliberalism, financialization, or other ideas and worldviews that contribute to the idea that humans are separate from nature. In other words, it doesn’t challenge the underlying system, but rather attempts to find a way to mitigate its worst effects. Based on the complexity of the challenges ahead of this, incremental approaches like these are seeming more and more insufficient. 

Regeneration, in the true sense of the word, is meant to address these root causes, rather than the symptoms. Climate change is not only caused by emissions that must be cut down. It’s a byproduct of deeper problems such as ecological overshoot, endless growth, overconsumption, and extraction—all of which are hallmarks of the capitalist system we live in. The concept of regeneration also must be political in order to be effective; it must challenge global injustice and the deep power imbalances between countries in the Global South and Global North, and work to undermine the false belief that market-driven solutions will solve all of our problems. However, it’s also important to recognize that the term has also been misused in a variety of contexts, straying from this meaning.

The Danger of ‘Sustainability 2.0’ 

Companies often jump on the bandwagon around new terms like regeneration to seem forward-thinking and socially responsible–a kind of Sustainability 2.0. The problem with this is that, in using the term improperly, corporations are de-politicizing the word. It’s used to refer to narrow things like soil carbon storage at a micro-scale without addressing wider-scale societal transformation, which weakens the power of the concept. True regeneration is necessarily political–it asks questions about power, distribution, morality, and our relationship with the earth. But how do we differentiate between cases where the word is being used in bad faith, versus cases where it’s not? 

In 2020, Walmart announced it would become a “regenerative company.” In their words, this means that they’d have a “net-positive impact on people and the planet through our business.” What that means in practice, however, is unclear. A company that engages in union-busting, pays wages so low their employees must live on welfare, offers poor healthcare and working conditions, depresses local economies while destroying small businesses, and contributes a culture of overconsumption can hardly be called regenerative. 

Walmart is not alone. The World Economic Forum is abuzz with conversations about “regenerative capitalism.” Nestle, PepsiCo, and other companies have made similar announcements about their regenerative goals in recent years.  All of this calls into question the intention behind these commitments. Being truly regenerative means recognizing that there are inherent trade-offs between private profit and the public good, which none of these companies are able to do under our current regime of shareholder primacy. If that is the case, then their use of the term regenerative is less to signal their alignment with regenerative principles than it is to co-opt the term so that it can be used to maintain the status quo. 

The appropriation of this term is nothing new. Regenerative agriculture has come under fire for co-opting what are originally Indigenous agricultural techniques, rebranding them, and then privatizing and profiting from them through courses without giving credit or compensation to the original knowledge holders. This has led a lot of people to sour on the term, which has become synonymous in some circles with whitewashing and the commodification of knowledge. 

A recent Regenerative Agriculture summit in the Netherlands was criticized because it did not include a single farmer but did include sponsors like Nestlé, Syngenta, and Cargill–not exactly the poster children for regenerative principles. Activists organized a counter-summit to discuss “real regeneration,” away from the greenwashing of the original summit. 

All of these examples demonstrate the work that must be done to reclaim–and repoliticize–the concept of regeneration. 

What Would a Regenerative Future Look Like? 

A truly regenerative society would mean different things across sectors. Above all, it means re-embedding the economy within broader social and natural systems, and recognizing that markets are inherently limited in what they can achieve. A regenerative economy would have to protect and steward the global commons, which would mean that the linear, extractive model we have now would need to be replaced with one that is circular and restorative. The economy would have to remain within planetary boundaries–not taking more than can safely be regenerated while ensuring that the benefits are distributed such that human flourishing is achieved. Regeneration means protecting and enshrining Indigenous rights, as outlined in this just transition guide by Indigenous Climate Action. Regeneration also means reclaiming our democracies from vested interests, and investing in public solutions to public problems. Thinking regeneratively at a societal level would be a total paradigm shift from the way we think now. 

Regeneration attempts a more radical reimagination of these underlying systems, proposing creative ways in which human beings can live embedded within the earth’s systems, rather than trying to fight or control them. Thinkers like Kate Raworth, the economist who proposed Doughnut Economics, or Jason Hickel, who wrote Less is More, explain how our current economic system can be transformed to remain within planetary boundaries while actually doing a better job of meeting our needs. They question the merits of pursuing economic growth at the expense of other social goals and argue that a world where resources are distributed more equitably could actually advance human and ecological well-being.

Illustration of the visual framework for the “Doughnut Economy.” © Kate Raworth

New terminology is almost always fraught with discussions about its true meaning, its utility, and its misuse. It’s part of the difficulty with language in general – words have different contextual meanings for different people and communities, and none of us can control how they are used or misused. But through all of this discourse around words, a common meaning will eventually emerge. We must ensure that the meaning of regeneration that we eventually settle on is explicitly political and evokes the necessary questions about the systems we currently live in.

As an organization, we chose the name not only because of the focus on root causes and moving beyond sustainability, but also because of the generational aspect of systemic change. As young people, we will be the ones to shape our future, so the term reminds us what we must strive for. Although we cannot unilaterally define a word as pluralistic as regeneration, we wanted to define it for ourselves–and for this space–so it can guide our work together.

But regardless of how that discourse plays out, new words–like utopian visions–are useful as they expand our sense of the possibilities before us. They prompt us to ask whether our only option is simply a less harmful version of our current system, or whether something truly different is possible. What would it look like for our society, our economy to not only be sustainable but actually regenerative? Who should be making the decisions around it? What would be different from how things are now? Is this the future we want? The imaginative potential of the term is part of its usefulness; it breaks us out of our patterns of linear and path-dependent thinking. And right now, this imagination is some of the most important work of all.

1. The report ‘A People’s Orientation to a Regenerative Economy’ by the Indigenous Environmental Network guides us towards a sustainable future where Indigenous sovereignty and values are front and center.

2. The ‘Strategic Framework for a Just Transition’ from the Justice & Ecology Project of Movement Generation outlines what it looks like to move from an extractive to a regenerative economy.

3. This Guardian feature of Kate Raworth explains her approach to economics that takes into account planetary boundaries and human and ecological wellbeing.

4. The documentary Tomorrow showcases “alternative and creative ways of viewing agriculture, economics, energy and education.” By showing the actions people are taking around the world to combat the crisis we’re in, the film shows what regeneration looks like in practice.

---

This post was written by Thea Walmsley and edited by Gareth Gransaull.