Guest blog: Placing ‘factory earth’ first remains crucial for the fate of all business sectors
Bastien Sachet, CEO, Earthworm Foundation, offers a key view on why companies need to be more focused than ever on delivering sustainability policies at a time when there is industry lobbying pressure on watering down incoming measures amid economic turbulence
Over the last 50 years, our consumption has placed unbearable pressures on the earth, demanding more from it at faster speeds. As the backlash against net zero policies gathers pace and some companies might retreat from their sustainability commitments. Our guest blogger outlines the compelling business case – as well as ecological case – for companies to reinvest in the earth, just as they would a factory.
Recently, it was reported that the Bezos Earth Fund has stopped supporting the SBTi (the Science Based Target Initiative), a globally renowned body that monitors companies’ climate commitments. The move followed news that the world’s biggest asset manager, BlackRock, had withdrawn from the Net Zero Asset Manager initiative, a coalition of investors committed to reducing emissions through their investments.
A corporate executive recently expressed some of the logic underpinning this trend when he explained the drastic cuts to his company’s funding for decarbonisation. “Cash is king,” he told me, adding with a sigh: “What will keep our CEO motivated to continue their Net Zero journey if investors are backing off?” “Consumers aren’t ready to absorb the cost of sustainability, so there will be no one left to pay.”
Since 2020, companies have taken the bull by the horns to tackle climate change, with premiums being paid for lower carbon footprint raw materials and emission reductions being incentivised. This triggered investment at all levels of the supply chain, from effluent ponds to treat methane emissions in palm oil mills to transitioning to green energy sources or investing in reforestation or regenerative agriculture. It also generated widespread public enthusiasm.
Now, the tide is turning. In the quest for more freedom and less bureaucracy – which I completely understand – climate objectives seem to be sacrificed because they are supposedly “anti-business” and “useless”.
One could complain, be resentful, or be upset, but there is no need to waste energy. Instead, I believe we can navigate this disruption and also challenge ourselves. If people don’t see regenerating Nature as something that creates value—economic value in particular, as well as social and environmental value —our efforts to protect the natural world won’t last anyway, regardless of who is in power. So, it’s in our hands to change that perception. Let’s prove that regenerating soils and forests creates value in a way everyone understands.
“Factory Earth” needs reinvestment
Every industry knows that every 20 years or so, they need to upgrade, renovate, and modernise their factories. It’s not even something that needs to be discussed. It’s more about when and how. The investment is signed off and then depreciated every year. It’s not a cost. It’s a re-investment.
If one adopts the language of industry and finance and applies it to the Earth, then we could see it as a “factory” that produces the food we need to sustain ourselves – our corn, barley, cotton, milk, wood, etc. “Factory Earth” is basically the Soil + Plant system, where humus, water, CO2 and minerals are the raw materials; bacteria, fungi and insects are the workers; and Photosynthesis is the process. It’s super productive, but now, it’s really, really tired. It desperately needs renovation.
Over the last 50 years, we have asked ‘Factory Earth’ to produce more, faster, without reinvesting in it. Organic matter levels in soils have plunged, forests have been harvested at rates that don’t allow them to grow back, biodiversity levels have plummeted, and we have polluted our rivers and oceans. The asset managers of those factories—farmers and plantation companies—have been unable to reinject any capital in their farms or plantations because of constant low prices and value chains that have systematically decapitalised them.
Take the example of cocoa. Its price surged in April 2024 to historically high levels. It’s not just a blip. It’s structural. Plantations are old and sick. For decades, there has been little reinvestment in cocoa plantations in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Everyone enjoyed low prices. Today, though, with most of the world’s cocoa production concentrated in West Africa, climate change and a widespread cocoa disease mean prices will likely remain high for the coming years.
Is paying four times the price of your ingredient good business? No. It’s a massive raw material price increase that will probably wipe off any gains made during low prices. It could even cause bankrupt businesses.
The case for reinvestment can be made for every single raw material supply chain. To simply have a ‘Factory Earth’ tomorrow able to produce and ensure supply to businesses around the world that need raw materials, there will need to be reinvestment, independent of who is in power.
Regeneration = working with nature = reducing costs = good business
A recent McKinsey study shows that regenerative agriculture is very profitable for farmers. In a changing climate, yields increase, costs are reduced, and farmers can make USD 20 to USD 60/ha of additional revenue. However, before farmers break even, an average of 3 years of investment (for cover crops, machinery, and technical training, among other things) needs to be made.
I am not talking about climate, sustainability, environment, Nature, or any of the words that have—unfortunately—become synonymous with bad business, loss of freedom, and pain in the a** to some. I am talking about making more money while at the same time enjoying all the co-benefits that come along: biodiversity, emissions reduction, farmer pride, etc.
It’s not really a surprise: you get earthworms to plough the land for you, it costs less than using a tractor, fuel and worker’s time….But to learn back how to produce more with earthworms than with a plough, we need to relearn, try, fail….in a word: reinvest.
Who should do it?
I believe corporates are ideally placed to do so. Their challenge, though, will be to: Justify to their boards of investors and shareholders that significant amounts of money should go back into farmers’ hands, lowering profit margins for a while. If they accept this, their mission is to convince their investors that it’s a temporary reinvestment, not a long-lasting cost increase. They can use examples showing the cost of not doing it (see the above example on cocoa or coffee).
Take the risk of reinvesting in an asset that doesn’t belong to them. Corporations don’t own the farms of ‘Factory Earth’ like they own their factories. But by creating long term purchase agreements with farmers and cooperatives, they can mitigate the risks of seeing their investment benefit another corporation.
Examples exist
All the above is not just a pipedream. Major companies have started to do it by reconnecting with their farmers and suppliers. Nestlé, for example, through its responsible sourcing programs, which ask for traceability, no deforestation, regenerative agriculture, and the restoration of millions of hectares of forests, recently announced 20.8% emissions reductions compared to last year in its non-financial report (https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2025-02/non-financial-statement-2024.pdf).
In France, to take another example, the Vivescia cooperative – one of the country’s largest wheat collectors – has brought together companies like Heineken, Tereos, Roquette, Avril around the table to reinvest more than 40’000’000 EUR in helping 1000 farmers transition to regenerative agriculture in the East of France over three years.
These are real examples that show a way forward. So, while some companies’ commitment to the defining environmental challenges of our time fades, others are growing stronger. They understand there’ll be no business tomorrow if we don’t renovate ‘Factory Earth’. And I believe this is just the beginning.
