At the same time, food quality is declining—micronutrient levels are plummeting, and exposure to harmful chemicals and heavy metals in our diets is on the rise. Diet-related diseases have become the leading cause of death globally, threatening to bankrupt our healthcare system. Add to this the mounting pressures of climate change—disruption of water cycles, longer, hotter growing seasons, and increasingly extreme weather—and the picture of our modern food system is bleak, unsustainable.
Enter McKinsey & Company’s recent report on regenerative farming, which claims to offer a roadmap for revitalizing agriculture while sustaining economic balance sheets. On the surface, it’s an appealing vision: no-till farming, cover crops, and carbon markets promising a win-win for farmers and the environment. However, a closer look reveals a different story. McKinsey’s proposals offer incremental improvements to the existing industrial paradigm of monocropping, falling far short of the transformative changes needed to restore soil health, regenerate ecosystems, and secure global food sovereignty. Instead, the report risks becoming a blueprint for corporate greenwashing, allowing agribusiness giants to appear sustainable while maintaining practices that degrade our planet.
To challenge McKinsey’s vision, let’s expose its flaws and offer a truly regenerative path forward—one that prioritizes ecological resilience, farmer empowerment, and systemic reform over profit-driven quick fixes. The time for bold, transformative action is now. Let’s explore why.
II. The McKinsey Perspective: Key Assumptions
1. Monocrop Agriculture is Here to Stay
McKinsey's report operates on the assumption that the monocrop farming model—the backbone of industrial agriculture—can be "fixed" with minimal adjustments. Practices like no-till farming and cover cropping are presented as tools to enhance soil health while maintaining the current monocultural framework. However, monocropping inherently depletes soil biodiversity, creates pest and disease vulnerabilities, and requires heavy chemical inputs. These systemic flaws cannot be remedied with surface-level changes.
By not challenging the dominance of monoculture, the report avoids addressing the broader ecological impacts of single-crop systems, such as water cycle disruptions and nutrient imbalances.
2. Regenerative Agriculture as an Add-On
Rather than reimagining agricultural paradigms, McKinsey frames regenerative practices as supplementary tweaks to existing systems. No-till farming and cover cropping are introduced as optional "enhancements" rather than essential components of a holistic redesign. For instance, cover crops are often terminated prematurely in monocrop systems to avoid competition with cash crops, minimizing their benefits to soil health and biodiversity.
This add-on mentality reflects an unwillingness to disrupt the status quo without fundamentally changing their operations. True regenerative agriculture requires an overhaul of industrial farming, incorporating crop rotation, polycultures, agroforestry, and integrated livestock systems—none of which are mentioned in McKinsey's report.
3. Carbon Markets as the Primary Incentive
McKinsey heavily emphasizes carbon markets and the monetization of ecosystem services as the driving forces behind regenerative agriculture. While carbon credits can provide financial incentives for farmers to adopt no-till practices or plant cover crops, this narrow focus risks reducing complex ecosystems to mere commodities.
Carbon markets often serve as an escape valve for corporations, allowing them to offset emissions without making substantive changes to their operations. For example, agribusiness giants could claim sustainability credentials by funding regenerative practices while continuing to degrade ecosystems through deforestation, excessive water use, and monoculture expansion.
4. Corporate-Led Solutions are Sufficient
McKinsey’s recommendations imply that large-scale corporate players—agribusinesses, multinational food companies, and industrial farmers—are best positioned to drive adoption of regenerative practices. However, this reliance on corporate solutions marginalizes the contributions of smallholder farmers, indigenous communities, and local cooperatives, who often lead in regenerative and agroecological innovations.
Transformative change requires empowering farmers at every scale, particularly those in marginalized and resource-limited contexts, to adopt regenerative practices tailored to their unique landscapes and communities.
Conclusion
McKinsey’s report reflects a piecemeal approach to regenerative agriculture, rooted in the preservation of industrial monocrop systems, corporate control, and market-driven incentives. It avoids addressing the systemic issues that have created today’s agricultural crisis, leaving critical opportunities for ecological restoration and food system reform unexamined.
III. What McKinsey Gets Right
1. Acknowledgement of Regenerative Potential
One of the strengths of McKinsey’s report is its recognition of the value that certain regenerative practices, such as no-till farming and cover cropping, can bring to agriculture. These practices, when implemented thoughtfully, have demonstrated the ability to improve soil health, reduce erosion, and enhance water retention. For example:
No-Till Farming: By minimizing soil disturbance, no-till farming preserves soil structure, reduces runoff, and allows for the accumulation of organic matter. These benefits contribute to healthier soils that are more resilient to climate extremes such as droughts and floods.
Cover Cropping: The inclusion of cover crops can promote biodiversity, fix nitrogen in the soil, and suppress weeds, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers and herbicides. When left to grow for extended periods, cover crops can significantly improve the soil’s capacity to retain nutrients and carbon.
This acknowledgment by McKinsey represents an important step in bringing these regenerative practices into mainstream agricultural discourse. It sends a signal to farmers and policymakers that these methods are not only viable but also beneficial for long-term farm productivity.
However, while these practices are commendable, their potential is constrained within McKinsey’s monocrop-focused framework. To truly unlock the regenerative potential of agriculture, these practices need to be integrated into diverse cropping systems and complemented by more comprehensive strategies like agroforestry, crop rotations, and livestock integration.
2. Economic Incentives for Change
Another positive aspect of the report is its emphasis on aligning financial incentives with regenerative goals. McKinsey identifies mechanisms such as carbon markets and ecosystem service payments as ways to make regenerative practices economically attractive to farmers. This focus on financial incentives acknowledges a critical barrier to adoption: the up-front costs and perceived risks associated with transitioning to new farming methods.
For example:
Carbon Credits: By monetizing the carbon sequestration potential of no-till farming and cover cropping, farmers can generate additional income streams that offset the costs of implementing these practices.
Ecosystem Service Payments: Payments for services such as improved water quality, biodiversity enhancement, and soil conservation create a direct economic rationale for adopting regenerative practices, particularly in regions where market forces alone may not drive change.
These incentives represent an important attempt to bridge the gap between environmental goals and economic realities. Farmers, especially those operating on narrow margins, often need immediate financial benefits to justify long-term investments in soil health and ecosystem restoration. By framing regenerative agriculture as not just environmentally beneficial but also economically viable, McKinsey helps to make the case for wider adoption.
Conclusion
McKinsey’s recognition of the regenerative potential of no-till farming and cover cropping, along with its emphasis on economic incentives, are notable contributions to the conversation around sustainable agriculture. These points provide a foundation for progress, but their impact is limited by the report’s failure to address the deeper structural issues in the food system. By expanding on these strengths and integrating them into a broader vision of agricultural transformation, we can move closer to a truly regenerative future.
IV. Where McKinsey Falls Short
1. Failure to Challenge the Industrial Agriculture Paradigm
Critique: McKinsey’s report avoids addressing the fundamental flaws of the industrial agriculture model. The reliance on monocropping—planting the same crop on vast tracts of land year after year—has devastating ecological consequences, including soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, and an overreliance on synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. This system depletes soil nutrients, weakens natural pest resistance, and disrupts the water cycle. Instead of challenging these systemic issues, McKinsey’s recommendations aim to patch up the existing framework with incremental changes, such as no-till farming and cover cropping, while maintaining the same harmful production paradigm.
Alternative View: True regenerative agriculture requires a shift away from monoculture and toward diversified cropping systems, agroecology, and perennial agriculture. Agroecology integrates ecological principles into farming systems, fostering biodiversity, enhancing soil health, and reducing dependence on synthetic inputs. Perennial agriculture, which includes crops like fruit and nut trees or deep-rooted grains, restores ecosystems and improves resilience to climate change. These practices challenge the industrial model by prioritizing long-term ecological health over short-term productivity.
2. Perpetuation of Corporate Interests
Critique: McKinsey’s recommendations closely align with the interests of large agribusiness corporations that profit from the current system. For example, practices like no-till farming often rely on herbicides to suppress weeds, creating continued demand for chemical inputs. Similarly, the report’s focus on maintaining centralized supply chains benefits large food processors and distributors, while sidelining more localized and equitable food systems.
Alternative View: Decentralized, farmer-led innovation and cooperative models must take center stage in regenerative agriculture. Smallholder farmers and local cooperatives are more likely to prioritize practices that benefit ecosystems and communities. By investing in farmer education, research, and shared resources, we can empower farmers to experiment with regenerative methods tailored to their specific environments. This approach not only challenges corporate dominance but also builds resilience at the community level.
3. Superficial Use of Cover Crops
Critique: McKinsey’s report treats cover cropping as a secondary or temporary practice, often terminating these crops early to prevent competition with cash crops. This undermines the full regenerative potential of cover crops, which need time to establish deep roots, cycle nutrients, and provide habitat for beneficial organisms. The premature termination of cover crops reduces their ability to sequester carbon, build organic matter, and improve soil structure.
Alternative View: Cover crops should be integrated into diverse, year-round rotations to maximize their ecological benefits. Instead of viewing cover crops as a placeholder, farmers should allow them to reach full maturity, contributing to long-term soil health and resilience. When paired with other regenerative practices, such as crop rotations and polycultures, cover crops can play a transformative role in rebuilding degraded soils and restoring biodiversity.
4. Carbon Credits as a Distraction
Critique: McKinsey places undue emphasis on carbon credits and ecosystem service payments as the primary economic incentives for adopting regenerative practices. While carbon markets can provide short-term financial benefits, they often serve as superficial fixes. Corporations can purchase carbon offsets to meet sustainability targets while continuing business-as-usual practices that degrade ecosystems. This approach reduces complex ecological functions to a single metric—carbon sequestration—ignoring other critical aspects of regeneration, such as water cycle restoration, biodiversity enhancement, and community well-being.
Alternative View: The focus should shift from market-driven offsets to systemic changes that address the root causes of agricultural and climate crises. This includes reducing the dominance of industrial meat production, which drives deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging shifts toward plant-forward diets that require fewer resources. Policy changes, such as redirecting subsidies away from industrial monocultures and toward regenerative practices, can also play a key role in driving meaningful change.
5. Neglect of Smallholders
Critique: McKinsey’s corporate-centric framework marginalizes small-scale and indigenous farmers, who often lead in regenerative practices. Smallholders are disproportionately affected by climate change and environmental degradation but are also some of the most innovative practitioners of agroecology and traditional knowledge systems. By focusing on large-scale solutions that benefit corporate agribusiness, the report fails to recognize the vital contributions of these smaller players.
Alternative View: Elevating the role of smallholders and indigenous farmers is essential for creating a truly regenerative food system. This requires providing equitable access to resources such as land, financing, and education. Additionally, smallholders should be included in the development of policies and programs that promote regenerative practices, ensuring that solutions are locally adapted and culturally relevant. By empowering these farmers, we can build a more decentralized and resilient food system that values diversity—in crops, ecosystems, and communities.
Conclusion
McKinsey’s report falls short by reinforcing the existing industrial agriculture model and focusing on market-based solutions that prioritize corporate interests. To address the interconnected crises of soil degradation, climate change, and biodiversity loss, we must adopt a holistic, systems-based approach that challenges the status quo. This means shifting away from monocultures, reducing reliance on centralized supply chains, and investing in farmer-led innovation and local food systems. Only through these transformative changes can we create a regenerative food system that truly serves people, the planet, and future generations.
V. The Danger of Greenwashing
Greenwashing refers to the practice of creating a false or exaggerated appearance of environmental responsibility to mislead stakeholders, including consumers, investors, and regulators. McKinsey’s recommendations, while framed as sustainable, risk enabling corporations to maintain their current practices under the guise of adopting regenerative agriculture. By focusing on incremental adjustments—such as no-till farming, cover cropping, and participation in carbon markets—McKinsey provides corporations with a toolkit for meeting sustainability targets without addressing the systemic flaws in industrial agriculture.
These recommendations offer a convenient narrative for corporations: they can claim to be engaging in regenerative practices while continuing harmful operations, such as monocropping, reliance on synthetic inputs, and exploitation of natural resources in the Global South. In this way, McKinsey’s approach risks becoming a roadmap for corporate greenwashing, allowing businesses to benefit from the rising demand for sustainability without making meaningful changes.
VI. Proposing a Transformative Vision
The challenges posed by our industrial food system—soil degradation, climate change, and biodiversity loss—require a transformative approach to agriculture. Incremental improvements cannot repair the deep systemic damage already done. Instead, we must reimagine agriculture and food systems from the ground up, integrating ecological principles, empowering farmers, and prioritizing resilience over profit-driven efficiency.
1. Reimagine Agriculture
To address the flaws of industrial agriculture, we need to move away from monocropping and toward diversified, integrated systems that mimic natural ecosystems.
Shift from Monocropping to Diversified Systems: Monocultures create ecological deserts, depleting soil, encouraging pest outbreaks, and necessitating chemical inputs. Instead, regenerative agriculture should focus on crop diversity, which enhances soil health, reduces pest pressure, and improves resilience to climate extremes.
Incorporate Livestock: Livestock can play a critical role in regenerative systems by providing manure to enrich soil, controlling weeds through grazing, and completing natural nutrient cycles. However, this must be done within integrated systems, not industrial feedlots.
Adopt Agroforestry and Perennial Crops: Agroforestry systems, which integrate trees with crops or livestock, offer multiple benefits: increased biodiversity, enhanced water cycling, and carbon sequestration. Similarly, perennials like nut trees, fruit trees, and deep-rooted grains can stabilize soils and store carbon over decades.
2. Empower Farmers
Farmers—especially smallholders and indigenous communities—are central to the success of regenerative agriculture. Yet they are often excluded from resources and decision-making processes.
Support Smallholders and Indigenous Practices: Smallholder and indigenous farmers have been practicing forms of regenerative agriculture for generations, often rooted in traditional knowledge systems. Recognizing and integrating these practices into broader frameworks is essential.
Ensure Fair Access to Technology and Financing: Regenerative transitions require upfront investments in tools, training, and infrastructure. Financial systems must provide equitable access to loans, grants, and subsidies for small-scale farmers, not just industrial-scale operations.
Promote Farmer-Led Innovation: Farmers must be active participants in the development of regenerative solutions. Participatory research programs that involve farmers in testing and refining practices can lead to more effective, localized solutions.
3. Rebuild Food Systems
A transformative vision for agriculture must extend beyond the farm. Food systems need to be restructured to prioritize local resilience, reduce waste, and shift consumption patterns.
Localize Supply Chains: Shortening supply chains reduces emissions, strengthens local economies, and reconnects consumers with the sources of their food. Farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture (CSA), and cooperative distribution models should be prioritized.
Reduce Food Waste: Approximately one-third of all food produced globally is wasted. Tackling waste at every stage—from production to consumption—can significantly reduce the environmental footprint of food systems.
Shift Consumption Patterns Toward Plant-Based Diets: Industrial meat production is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water use. Encouraging a shift toward plant-forward diets can reduce pressure on ecosystems and support the transition to regenerative agriculture.
4. Focus on True Regeneration
Regenerative agriculture is about more than carbon sequestration—it must restore ecological balance and address social inequities within the food system.
Restore Water Cycles: Healthy soils play a critical role in the water cycle by retaining moisture and reducing runoff. Regenerative practices that rebuild soil organic matter can improve water retention, recharge aquifers, and reduce the risk of flooding and drought.
Enhance Biodiversity: Industrial agriculture has drastically reduced biodiversity, both on farms and in surrounding ecosystems. Regenerative systems that incorporate diverse crops, pollinator habitats, and natural pest controls can reverse this trend.
Address Social Equity: Regenerative agriculture must prioritize social equity by ensuring fair wages for farmworkers, equitable land access, and inclusive decision-making processes.
Conclusion
A transformative vision for agriculture demands that we go beyond surface-level adjustments and embrace systemic change. By reimagining agriculture, empowering farmers, rebuilding food systems, and focusing on true regeneration, we can create a food system that is not only sustainable but also resilient, equitable, and capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. This is not just a vision for the future—it is an urgent necessity for the present.
