Earlier this month, RFSI Europe brought together investors, producers, and system leaders to examine the opportunity to invest in more resilient, regenerative food systems. What emerged wasn’t a single narrative, but a clearer picture of where alignment is forming – and where meaningful gaps remain.
Across conversations, one thing stood out: the question is no longer whether change is needed but whether we intentionally design the interventions to get us there, or simply wait for the impacts to force our hand.
With that in mind, here are five signals we’re taking with us:
Signal #1: The cost of inaction is starting to surface
A notable shift in the conversation is the increasing focus on risk – specifically the risk of doing nothing. Climate volatility, soil degradation, and supply chain fragility are no longer abstract concerns – they are material and compounding. We heard this echoed by nearly all the diverse stakeholders in the room from farmers and entrepreneurs to multi-national corporates to funders and investors. This growing awareness is prompting curiosity and examination of regenerative agriculture and food investment as a lever, but – for now – these risks remain inconsistently priced into financial models and decision-making frameworks. The key advancement is that more actors – and many we heard from at RFSI Europe – are moving beyond recognizing risk to embedding it directly into their P&Ls and balance sheets.
Signal #2: Transition risk is better understood – but still poorly allocated
There is increasing sophistication in how the sector understands transition risk – on-farm, across supply chains, and within portfolios. There is greater understanding around the contextual nuance that comes with geography, crop, and pace of the on-farm transition – how this context can influence the need for and type of transition capital. There is also recognition that not all risks can be addressed at the farm level; many sit in the systems surrounding it. Despite all of this, understanding risk is not the same as absorbing it. Producers continue to carry a disproportionate share, while much of the system still incentivizes maintaining the status quo.
Signal #3: Capital is interested – but constrained by existing structure
There is no shortage of interest from investors in regenerative agriculture and natural capital. The constraint is structural: fragmented data, unclear benchmarks, and a lack of standardized approaches continue to limit capital deployment at scale. Many are still navigating how to translate intention into investable strategies that align with existing approaches. A key area of opportunity is how to innovate in the design of investment approaches. Updates may require adapting mandates, rethinking incentives in the system and within investment vehicles, revisiting how returns are defined, and expanding how financial and impact performance are measured.
Signal #4: Data exists but is not yet decision-grade
A common objection to investing in regenerative agriculture is that “the data doesn’t exist.” What we saw at RFSI Europe challenges that assumption. From Paul McMahon’s opening on the investment case to Anastasia Volkova’s work on data-driven investing, it is clear that both data and case studies are advancing rapidly.
The gap is not only in measurement – but in application, in how practitioners and investors choose to engage it and apply it. There remains a disconnect between what can and has been be measured and what is actually used in underwriting, valuation, and performance assessment. But at least part of this gap lies in the decision to seek out, acknowledge, and apply the data that exists in real decisions – until there is intention in doing this, investment in the space will remain limited.
Signal #5: Collaboration and coordination are being facilitated
No single actor – investor, producer, corporate, or policymaker – can solve these for the barriers to investment in regenerative agriculture alone. But for years calls for collaboration have felt more like empty promises and plays for media buzz rather than a realizable goal.
What felt different this year was evidence of real coordination emerging – from landscape-level efforts like those facilitated by OP2B, to growing momentum around investor alignment. The question now is whether these efforts can scale from pilots to sustained, coordinated action – and who will lead.
What We’re Watching
- How risk gets redistributed: Whether recognition of the risks embedded in the status quo translates into changes in how risk is accounted for—and shared—across the system.
- From available data to applied insight: When existing data, case studies, and frameworks begin to meaningfully influence underwriting, pricing, and investment outcomes.
- Coordination as an accelerant: Whether increased collaboration across sectors, geographies, and investor groups can unlock capital and impact at a scale not yet seen—and how those models can be replicate
A final note: The conversations and connections coming out of RFSI Europe point to a growing readiness for action. Not because it’s a nice to have, not out of moral inclination. But because it’s never been more apparent that intentionally designing how we invest in agriculture and food systems can create value – financially, ecologically, and socially – that far outweighs the cost of inaction.
Sarah Day Levesque is Managing Director at RFSI & Editor of RFSI News. She can be reached here.