The Economics of Resilience

Over the past month or so, I’ve had the opportunity to meet with several multinational consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies and supply chain partners. This week at Groundswell in the UK, one of the more interesting conversations was with our friends at Wildfarmed around their partnership with Nestlé to supply regenerative wheat for the iconic KitKat wafer.

Although each discussion had its own context, one theme surfaced repeatedly.

How do we build more resilient supply chains?

Interestingly, very few of those conversations began with regenerative agriculture itself.

They began with consistency.

I believe the next major shift in agriculture will be driven less by ideology and more by economics.

For decades, agriculture has largely optimized around maximizing production. Increasingly, however, the broader food system is asking a different question:

How do we produce more consistently in an increasingly unpredictable world?

Food companies don’t simply purchase commodities. They purchase confidence.

They need confidence that growers can continue delivering quality products despite weather variability, disease pressure, shifting markets, labour challenges, geopolitical uncertainty, and countless other variables that influence modern agriculture. Global sourcing helps diversify risk, but it cannot eliminate production risks when environmental pressures affect multiple growing regions at once.

One of the convictions these conversations have continued to reinforce is that we may need to rethink how broad adoption actually happens.

Within regenerative agriculture, many of us can point to a genuine “light bulb” moment—a deeper understanding of soil biology, plant health, or ecosystem function that fundamentally changed how we viewed farming. Those experiences are real, valuable, and often life-changing.

But perhaps we’ve unintentionally assumed that the destination is also the entry point.

Most farmers don’t begin by asking how they can become regenerative farmers. They begin by asking how they can build a more profitable, resilient business that will continue supporting their families for generations.

If improved soil function helps manage water more effectively, improves nutrient efficiency, reduces production risk, or creates greater consistency over time, then regenerative agriculture ceases to be simply an environmental philosophy. It becomes a practical business decision.

Ironically, that practical decision may be what ultimately leads many producers to embrace the broader principles of regenerative agriculture. The destination and the entry point are not always the same.

If we want to see regenerative principles adopted across global agriculture, we must understand what motivates change at scale.

Whether you’re a farmer, lender, processor, retailer, or multinational food company, every major decision is ultimately evaluated through an economic lens. If regenerative systems can consistently demonstrate greater profitability, resilience, and reduced production risk, that may prove to be the single greatest catalyst for widespread adoption.

This is also why I continue to emphasize that the solution is only as good as the accuracy of the data.

Agriculture is wonderfully complex. Every field, every crop, every season, and every management decision introduces new variables. We should be cautious about making sweeping promises, because resilience cannot simply be declared—it must be measured.

Precision nutrition, accurate diagnostics, and evidence-based agronomy remain fundamental, because better decisions begin with better information.

You may also have noticed recent developments in the United States, including a new Executive Order encouraging greater federal support for regenerative agriculture alongside the gradual return of several USDA and NRCS conservation initiatives. Those developments are encouraging and may create additional opportunities for some producers. They also represent an important signal that regenerative agriculture and soil health are increasingly being recognized within broader agricultural policy.

However, public policy should be viewed as an accelerator rather than the foundation of change.

Agricultural policy changes with administrations. Funding priorities evolve. Grant programs come and go. Even access to traditional operating capital has become less certain for many producers in today’s financial environment.

Long-term resilience cannot depend solely on external incentives.

It must ultimately rest on stronger farm economics.

Perhaps the next chapter of regenerative agriculture will not be written primarily by changing minds, but by demonstrating measurable results. If healthier soils, stronger biology, and better agronomy can consistently improve profitability while reducing production risk, regenerative agriculture no longer needs to be sold primarily as an ethical or environmental choice.

When resilience becomes good economics, adoption no longer depends on ideology—it becomes a rational business decision.

That, I believe, is the real economics of resilience.