“Regenerative” is the new “sustainable.”
Globally, mentions of the word have gone up by 43 percent in online news stories
and 282 percent on social media in the last year. Increasingly favoured by
brands and companies to describe their positive approach to environmental
challenges, regenerative is being stuck on everything from
architecture
to
fashion,
tea,
travel,
skincare and even
leather.
But what does it really mean? Originally, it was mostly used to describe an
approach to agriculture. Regenerative
farming
is about producing food while restoring degraded soils and depleted wildlife
populations and plant species. In this context, the use of the word
‘regenerative’ makes sense — it’s about keeping living ecosystems in balance.
Metrics exist to measure tangible outcomes, like an increased percentage of
organic matter in the soil or an upswing in insect numbers. We can track change.
Things become trickier when we apply the term ‘regenerative’ to human systems.
What does a regenerative
economy
look like and how do we judge its success? As things stand, the term remains too
broad-brush to be able to answer these questions in a consistent and meaningful
way.
When applied to
economics,
it bears many similarities to the idea of a wellbeing economy — which is about
healing, recovery and recuperation. However, the use of the word ’wellbeing’
offers much greater clarity because an existing suite of metrics exists to
enable measurement of both healthy people and a healthy planet.
For example, the World Health
Organization
provides global figures on life expectancy and mother-and-child mortality rates.
Likewise, for the animal world, the International Union for Conservation of
Nature updates a red list of wildlife at
threat of extinction. Plant and tree species numbers can similarly be tracked;
no equivalent exists for the descriptor ‘regenerative.’
To guarantee genuine progress, we need a universal set of principles
underpinning regenerative economics and a standardised way of quantifying
success. Otherwise, the ‘regenerative’ epithet will lose its meaning and become
just another empty badge exploited by greenwashers and climate deniers alike.
For those of us working in communications, this means — as ever — being careful
with our use of
language.
We mustn’t decide that the word ‘sustainable’ is no longer important or
relevant. Its meaning is critical but remains widely misunderstood with many
aligning it to the environment only — when it’s about building an inclusive and
resilient future for both people and the planet.
The United Nations
defines sustainable as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;’ and we won’t achieve
that without the repair, renewal and regeneration of our natural world.
We can’t let ‘regenerative’ become the latest trend — a label that’s stuck on
anything as a way of making it sound positive and reassuring. Those who want to
use words such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘regenerative’ must always ally them with
real substance, thought and impact. Words are important and what they stand for
matters to us all.
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Amanda Powell-Smith is Chief Executive of Forster Communications — a UK-based firm at the forefront of sustainability communications and working with multinational businesses, financial institutions, utility companies and the wider B Corp community to turn social and environmental change ambitions into reality.
Published Jul 14, 2023 11am EDT / 8am PDT / 4pm BST / 5pm CEST