Regenerative agriculture isn’t just a nice-to-have anymore as brands and customers begin waking up to the fashion industry’s environmental hangover.
Vague green claims won’t cut it anymore, as evidenced by a 2020 study from the European Commission, which found over half of environmental claims were insubstantial, misleading or unfounded. A fashion sector-specific report from the Changing Markets Foundation, meanwhile, found 60 percent of sustainability claims by European fashion giants to be “unsubstantiated” and “misleading.”
Related Stories
The question becomes: how can the industry ensure regenerative agriculture’s meaning retains value?
Textile Exchange’s latest guide was designed to help address this credibility gap—and effectively elevate the work of those already invested and committed to regenerative outcomes. The sustainability-focused multi-stakeholder group has shared the free “Guide to Credible Regenerative Agriculture Claims” to support brands and producers overcome such challenges.
“Regenerative agriculture is place-based and context-specific, which means it doesn’t have a single ‘one-size-fits-all’ definition,” the organization said. “This can make it challenging to communicate claims accurately and effectively and as such there is rising concern that the promise of regenerative is being diluted.”
So, for the purposes of this guide, “a regenerative agriculture claim is defined as words and/or images that differentiate a product, process, business, or service in a way that promotes some aspect of regenerative agriculture,” the guide reads, using the term “claim” to cover both specific claims and general communications.
The free resource outlines three main claim types—commitment, action and performance—explaining the increasing complexity of evidence needed for each, with performance claims requiring robust data and independent verification.
“Regenerative agriculture can deliver critical benefits for climate, nature, people and animals,” the guide reads. “Despite this potential and the growing interest in the textile industry, its widespread adoption remains limited because of a range of challenges.”
Commitment claims are those that publicly declare an organization’s intent or transition toward regenerative practices. They should specify who is committing, what will change, the scale of change, include time-bound actions and clear targets, and allow for accountability. Examples include targets to reduce GHG emissions or transition a percentage of materials to regenerative sourcing by a specific year.
Action, or practices, claims focus on the specific steps being implemented, such as partnerships and farming methods, to achieve regenerative outcomes. These claims should detail the scope, scale, intended change and timing of actions, with links to intended performance outcomes. They should also include details on co-funders, partners and monitoring systems, with information being publicly accessible.
Lastly, performance, or outcomes, claims demonstrate measurable progress toward regenerative goals. These are often the most challenging claims to make credibly, per the guide, given the complexity of measuring ecosystem-level outcomes over long timeframes with various contributing factors.
“If using the term ‘regenerative’ in a claim, it’s important to provide descriptive language that clearly defines the meaning and scope of regenerative agriculture as it applies to that claim,” the guide reads. “Claim makers need to strike a balance: Providing enough information to avoid ambiguity without overwhelming details that could confuse the audience.”
Beyond the lack of a universal definition, the guide addresses challenges associated with the risks of greenwashing and greenhushing.
“Brands have the opportunity to raise consumer awareness and interest in regenerative agriculture so that consumer purchasing habits support the scaling of regenerative systems. however, greenhushing, the deliberate decrease of external communication, is on the rise,” the guide reads. “This is because of the concern or fear of making erroneous claims and receiving backlash, the uncertainty around legislation, and the lack of guidance on credible communication.”
The guide also provides practical “dos-and-don’ts” alongside highlights from the evolving legislative landscape.
“Do qualify how regenerative agriculture is being defined—what aspects or outcomes are in scope,” the guide reads. “Don’t make broad generic statements about regenerative agriculture.”
The 51-page resource boils down the key principles that stakeholders should follow to make claims clear, accurate—and relevant—supported by “transparent and robust systems.”
Clear communications should be easily understood, in plain language and free from misleading information, with limits and scope clearly stated. And those statements must be truthful, based on substantiated evidence and an accurate interpretation of that evidence.
“As claims move from commitments to action/practices and performance/outcomes, there is an increasing complexity of information needed to support evidence-based claims,” the guide reads. “This means the need for transparency, substantiation, and verification increases.”
On the topic of relevance, communications should address issues material or significant to the product or business, be proportional to actions taken and contextualized with a clear scope. Any information supporting the claim, its scope, and, if applicable, verification, should be easily, freely and publicly available. Finally, a strong system must be in place to control claim usage and define criteria, as well as to ensure ongoing monitoring and verification.
“These claim types are also not mutually exclusive,” the guide continues. “Brands that take a holistic approach should ensure that commitment claims are directly linked to tangible actions and measurable performance outcomes, providing transparency through accessible supporting information and verification mechanisms.”
The principles included are equally applicable to credible marketing and product claims, while the guidelines are focused on marketing and communication claims.
By following this guide, per Textile Exchange, brands can avoid reputational risks and enhance customer confidence—ultimately, helping increase awareness of effective regenerative systems.
“Communicating commitments, actions and emerging outcomes is essential to build trust among consumers and other stakeholders,” Textile Exchange said. “When the claims are made and communicated in a credible way it can be a key enabler in unlocking regenerative agriculture’s full potential and driving positive systemic change.”
