Organic and Regenerative: Building momentum with a welcoming approach

Regenerative viticulture is moving quickly from niche conversation to mainstream priority, and with good reason. Growers are dealing with harsher drought patterns, soil erosion, tighter margins, and greater disease pressure, all while being asked to demonstrate real environmental progress.

A report for The Drinks Business by Andrew Neather about a recent forum hosted by regenerative winemaker Domaine Lafage in Roussillon highlighted a wider (and healthy) debate in the sector about entry points.

Should regenerative programs require organic certification as a gateway, or should regenerative be accessible to growers who are ready to commit to measurable change, even if organic certification isn’t feasible (yet) in every site and season? It’s a useful moment to step back and look at what helps change happen at scale.

The discussion has been framed in some coverage as a “rift”, but we see it more simply as a sign that the movement is maturing, and that the sector is getting serious about what “regenerative” should mean in practice.

The overarching sentiment is coalescing around a more inclusive, actionable approach that the broader sustainability movement can appreciate: Regenerative viticulture must be credible, but it must also be achievable beyond a small, well-resourced minority. It cannot—indeed must not—become an “elite club”.

Who gets to define regenerative?

Let me be clear, this is not a dismissal of organic. As a longtime Organic farmer myself, I am keenly aware of the benefits of a more ecological approach. The organic movement has driven huge progress over decades, and many organic growers are already doing outstanding regenerative work. But viticulture especially is highly regional and pressure points vary dramatically by site: coastal humidity, downy mildew risk, extreme weather swings, or the economics of losing a crop during conversion.

In other words, what’s achievable—and when—is not uniform. There is no “one size fits all” solution. The concern of many in the sector is that if regenerative is locked behind a single-entry requirement, it may limit participation to those in the easiest contexts, rather than accelerating practical trials, shared learning, and measurable improvement across the wider vineyard landscape.

A Greener World

This is exactly why Certified Regenerative by A Greener World (AGW) was designed the way it was. From the outset, we’ve been clear about two things:

• Regenerative must be credible: to avoid greenwashing and abuse, it needs structure, evidence, and accountability, not just good intentions.
• Regenerative must be inclusive: the climate and nature challenges we face won’t be solved by a small minority doing the “perfect” version.

That’s why Certified Regenerative by AGW does not require organic certification as a precondition. Instead, the program is built around a practical pathway:

• A detailed five-year plan tailored to the farm’s starting point and local conditions.
• Clear commitments to adopt key regenerative practices and demonstrate progress through measuring and monitoring.
• Robust, independent annual inspection and follow-up, so claims are backed by sound science and firm evidence.

This is what we mean by meeting people where they are. We are not lowering the bar but creating a way in that enables more committed growers to start, learn from others, improve, and keep moving forwards.

Complementary to organic, not competing

We see ourselves as partners with our colleagues in the organic sector. We already work with countless farms and vineyards where organic certification is an important part of their identity and market, and where our various certification programs—including regenerative—sit alongside it.

A good example is Maison Mirabeau in Provence, which has shown that regenerative progress can work in the context of established certification, and that programs can complement each other in practice.

Some growers will be certified organic already; others will be working towards it; others may want to prioritize regenerative outcomes first and revisit organic certification later as confidence, conditions, and economics allow. We believe this decision sits firmly with the grower.

But the ultimate destination is shared. Healthier soils, more resilient systems, stronger biodiversity, and better long-term viability for growers and rural communities. The question is how we build the widest, most credible pathway to get there.

Scale is the point

It is tempting for the sector to reduce this all to labels and logos. But the underlying issues are far more urgent than that.

We need regenerative methods to spread beyond early adopters into mainstream viticulture, across regions with different disease pressures and climate risks, and across supply chains that are actively looking for credible progress.

That will not happen if regenerative becomes something only a small minority can access. It also won’t happen if the term becomes vague or unverified, opening the door to greenwashing and undermining market trust.

We need both:

• Rigour (clear expectations, solid evidence, robust inspections), and
• Reach (a pathway that growers can enter and improve through, wherever they’re starting from).

That balance between credible and scalable is the space Certified Regenerative by AGW exists to serve.

So, if you’re a vineyard, winery or supply chain partner trying to work out how to make regenerative progress real and meaningful without getting stuck in a single “one size fits all” route, we’re happy to talk. Because the goal isn’t to win an argument about definitions or labels. The goal is to move the needle, at scale, in vineyards and farms across the world. That’s something we can all agree on.