Rising Like a Phoenix: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis of the Regeneration Concept in Business Studies

Abstract

In recent years, a significant shift has occurred regarding the role of businesses in achieving sustainable development. This evolving perspective emphasizes a systems thinking approach to business operations, advocating for the transformation of business models to support the restoration and regeneration of natural resources and social systems. This study aims to explore and analyze the scholarly contributions that investigate the role of businesses as an agent of positive impact and growth. Adopting bibliometric systematic literature review (B-SLR) protocols and tools, a solid theoretical framework for regenerative business models (RBMs) is established, contributing to the ongoing discourse on the definition and operationalization of regeneration in business contexts. Using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria in PRISMA flow diagram for SLR, 151 research articles from the Scopus database were deemed eligible for analysis. Co-occurrence analysis with VOSviewer 1.6.8 identified only 10 scholarly papers with conceptual linkages and thematic convergence related to RBMs, providing insights in the field and offering a strong exploratory tool for visualizing and examining the intellectual structure of this scientific area. Subsequently, a content analysis was conducted, to reveal thematic patterns and research trends within the identified clusters. The findings provide valuable insights for both practitioners—by informing strategic decision-making—and academics—by highlighting research progress and outlining future avenues for inquiry to address existing gaps in the literature.

1. Introduction

Mounting ecological degradation and escalating social challenges demand urgent attention. Given the role of business activities in these dynamics, firms increasingly face societal pressure to adopt more sustainable strategies and business models (BMs). Nonetheless, although the notion of business sustainability has its origins in systems thinking and a concern for the degradation and loss of vital ecosystems, its practical application often remains narrowly focused on the organization itself and its internal business logic rather than embracing a systemic perspective (Williams et al., 2017).

More closely grounded in a systems approach to business is the notion of regenerative business, which refers to organizations that improve and thrive by promoting the wellbeing of socio-ecological systems through a co-evolutionary process anchored in the “restore-preserve-enhance” triplet idea (Hahn & Tampe, 2021). Thus, the concept of regeneration can be useful in our attempt to reconceptualize and reorient business sustainability toward its systemic roots (Williams et al., 2017). Regenerative business models (RBMs) go beyond the pursue of “net positive impact”—not just reducing damage but actively restoring ecosystems and societies through a holistic and biocentric approach. Therefore, RBMs are not simply a subset of circular models; rather, they represent an evolution that incorporates circular principles while extending them to the level of purpose, values, and action.

In response to this evolving paradigm, growing research interest has been directed toward the concepts of regeneration, regenerative business, and RBMs. This study intends to apply bibliometric and content analysis to the literature on regeneration and regenerative business/BMs to address the following research objectives (ROs):

RO1:

To identify the most influential papers and authors regarding the concepts of regeneration and regenerative business.

RO2:

To expound upon the important keywords and produce new research trends and ideas on how to advance further research on regenerative business/BMs.

Aligned with these objectives, this study contributes to the research in the regeneration and regenerative business field in multiple ways. First, it traces and synthesizes the existing body of literature that has focused on the idea of regenerative business through a bibliometric systematic literature review (B-SLR) by employing the PRISMA flow diagram and VOSviewer software 1.6.8 to graphically depict and highlight the most influential documents and authors within this research stream, thereby assisting researchers in the domain in identifying key terminology and seminal works. Finally, through content analysis, this study provides guidance to aspiring researchers aiming to advance investigations within the regenerative business concept.

Collectively, this study attempts to enlighten researchers about how this thematic domain has progressed over time and how research structures have expanded. These discussions generate new research trends and ideas for how to advance further. By providing a pioneering, systematic overview of the relevant scientific output on RBMs over the last decade, this article makes a significant contribution to the literature. Combining bibliometric and content analyses, it identifies the most important publications, emerging research trends and thematic clusters, capturing the dynamic evolution of the field and laying the groundwork for future research and practical endeavors.

2. Regeneration and Regenerative Business/Business Models

The Evolution of Regenerative Business Models

BMs describe how organizations create, deliver, and capture value across economic, social, cultural, or environmental contexts. Traditional linear BMs (TBMs) are based on the “take-make-dispose” (T-M-D) principle, which prioritizes short-term profit and value extraction without accounting for environmental or social consequences (Li et al., 2023). This conventional approach often favors efficiency over sustainability, contributing to issues such as climate change, pollution, inequality, and labor exploitation (Hofmann & Jaeger-Erben, 2020). As Johnson et al. (2008) and Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) note, these models typically ignore circularity and systemic resource flows.

In response to this deficiency, there is a growing recognition of the need to shift the prevailing economic paradigm toward sustainable and regenerative alternatives that embed ecological and social concerns at their core (Konietzko et al., 2023; Lozano, 2018; Lueg et al., 2015). Sustainable business models (SBMs) have emerged to address this need (Starik et al., 2016). SBMs integrate the principles of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)—i.e., economic (profit), social (people), and environmental (planet)—into the core logic of value creation, delivery, and capture. (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; Lozano, 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2016). These models adopt a multi-stakeholder perspective, and consider society, the natural environment, and future generations as critical stakeholders (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016; Stubbs, 2017). Furthermore, SBMs adopt a long-term, solution-oriented, and future-focused approach that prioritizes quality of life and resilience. This strategic perspective moves beyond short-term value capture and competitive gains, emphasizing sustained financial and social returns over time (Nosratabadi et al., 2019; Starik et al., 2016; Stubbs, 2017).

Building on this foundation, circular business models (CBMs) aim to close material loops, promote the reuse of resources, and extend product life to decouple growth from natural resource depletion (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). CBMs are characterized by value creation through closed loops, waste monetization, post-use value recovery, mitigation of obsolescence, and prevention of resource leakage (den Hollander & Bakker, 2016; Linder & Williander, 2017; Mentink, 2014; Roos, 2014). While primarily focused on improving environmental performance, circular approaches are increasingly linked to regenerative goals, requiring strong governance mechanisms to prevent superficial efforts or greenwashing (Drupsteen & Wakkee, 2024; Konietzko et al., 2023).

Extending beyond sustainability and circularity, RBMs represent an emerging business paradigm that promotes active ecological restoration and societal flourishing (Drupsteen & Wakkee, 2024; Konietzko et al., 2023; Polman & Winston, 2021). Originating from biology and natural sciences, regeneration refers to the ability of cells, organisms, and ecosystems to renew themselves (Carlson, 2011). In businesses, regeneration describes processes that lead to the restoration or revitalization of the living organisms, ecosystems, or societal structures in which an organization operates (Konietzko et al., 2023). RBMs “focus on planetary health and societal wellbeing. They create and deliver value at multiple stakeholder levels—including nature, societies, customers, suppliers and partners, shareholders and investors, and employees—through activities promoting regenerative leadership, co-creative partnerships with nature, and justice and fairness. Capturing value through multi-capital accounting, they aim for a net positive impact across all stakeholder levels. (They) recognize that nature is an irreplaceable foundation of human health and wellbeing, that human societies are deeply embedded in the biosphere, and that they depend on the health of the biosphere for their own health” (Konietzko et al., 2023, p. 375).

In practice, regenerative businesses develop strategies that move beyond “doing less harm” toward achieving a “net positive impact” (Konietzko et al., 2023). This involves integrating regenerative principles into BMs, value propositions, and supply chains, often in co-creation with communities and natural systems. Therefore, RBMs challenge traditional value creation (by recognizing ecosystems and communities as stakeholders) and are guided by values such as social justice, diversity, collaboration, and empathic leadership (Aoustin, 2023; Du Plessis & Cole, 2011; Konietzko et al., 2023). They prioritize planetary health and multiple stakeholders’ value creation through responsible sourcing, equity, and co-creative relationships with nature (Das & Bocken, 2024; Drupsteen & Wakkee, 2024; Konietzko et al., 2023). Such approaches not only address urgent challenges such as climate change and resource degradation but also open new avenues for innovation and competitive advantage.

The path from sustainable to circular and regenerative BMs is dialectical and evolutionary, reflecting a dynamic framework for addressing the complex 21st-century environmental and social challenges. This conceptual evolution marks a profound shift in how businesses perceive and enact their role within the broader socio-ecological system. While sustainability focuses on minimizing harm and maintaining the status quo, RBMs aim to restore, renew, and enhance natural and social systems through a systems thinking approach that acknowledges the deep interdependence between business and its environment (Mang & Haggard, 2016).

According to Konietzko et al. (2023), the main differences between sustainable, circular, and regenerative business models are:

• SBMs aim to reduce the ecological and social footprint of business activities.
• CBMs strive to close, slow, and narrow resource loops, to create resource-efficient and self-sustaining systems (Bocken et al., 2016).
• RBMs extend beyond both SBMs and CBMs by actively restoring and regenerating ecosystems and communities.

Recent scholarship further clarifies these distinctions. D’Amato et al. (2017) provide a comparative analysis, showing that while CBMs prioritize resource efficiency and closed loops, regenerative models actively enhance ecosystem and community health. Fullerton (2015) introduces the concept of “regenerative capitalism”, grounded in universal principles such as right relationship, holistic wealth, and empowered participation, guiding businesses toward value creation aligned with planetary and social boundaries. Contemporary frameworks stress that transitioning to RBMs requires more than incremental innovation; it demands a fundamental redesigning of business purpose, leadership, and stakeholder relationships. Similarly, Raworth’s (2017) “doughnut economics” paradigm positions regenerative approaches as essential for achieving long-term human prosperity within ecological limits.

To illustrate this progression, Figure 1 presents a “progress pyramid”, based on Konietzko et al. (2023, p. 383), highlighting the evolution from minimizing harm to maximizing socio-ecological regeneration. This visualization demonstrates how RBMs transcend and integrate sustainable and circular approaches through a shift in purpose, values, and systemic intervention.

Despite their promise, RBMs face considerable challenges and risks, which have increasingly attracted scholarly attention since 2020. One significant challenge is definitional ambiguity and the lack of universally accepted metrics, complicating comparative assessments of progress toward regeneration (Konietzko et al., 2023). The term “regeneration” is often used rhetorically without clear targets or accountability mechanisms, leading to concerns over “regenerative washing” being analogous to “greenwashing” (Waddock et al., 2024).

Undoubtedly, RBMs require profound changes in the business DNA: transformation of culture, value chains, decision-making mechanisms, and stakeholder relations. Such changes are complex, costly, and time-consuming, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises or for organizations operating in markets with limited institutional or social support frameworks (Hahn & Tampe, 2021; Laszlo et al., 2021).

Furthermore, there is a theoretical and applied asymmetry between different sectors. While much research focuses on sectors such as hospitality, tourism, or agriculture, the applicability of regenerative models to high-tech, industrial, or financial sectors remains underexplored (Muñoz & Branzei, 2021). Lastly, while frameworks such as multi-capital accounting or planetary boundaries exist, a comprehensive system for assessing “regenerativeness” and measuring regenerative impact across environmental, social, and economic dimensions has yet to be established.

3. Methodological Approach

This study adopts a bibliometric SLR (B-SLR) approach, combining the systematic rigor of PRISMA protocols (Page et al., 2021) with the analytical depth of bibliometric mapping tools such as VOSviewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010), in line with the framework proposed by Marzi et al. (2024). This methodological approach aims “to synthesize and explore existing knowledge paths by spotlighting gaps and interconnections and critically assessing prior literature” (Marzi et al., 2024, p. 2).

Documents were obtained from the preeminent scientific repository Scopus scientific database (Musa et al., 2022) on September 10, 2024. Scopus was chosen because it is a highly regarded database and encompasses a substantial number of journals, along with journals that are only available in Scopus (Herrera-Franco et al., 2020). Before the literature search, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were set for the selecting documents. First, the search terms “regeneration” OR “regenerative” AND “business” (in the title or abstract or keyword field) were used to identify papers for the review. Second, to serve the study’s main objective, it was determined that only the contributions in the field of Business, Management and Accounting should be screened. Third, only English-language documents were included, while it was decided that the paper type should be a research article published in scientific journals. Finally, it was decided that the publication year should concern only the last decade (i.e., 2014–20241). This choice was further justified in the next section by the trend of publications in the regenerative business field.

The flow path that depicts the selection process for papers to be included in this bibliometric analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA flow diagram version: 2020 new SRs v1) statement (Page et al., 2021). based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria to guide the authors in the final number of journal articles to be analyzed according to the research objectives (see Figure 2).

Furthermore, bibliometric assessment facilitated the identification of unique patterns and evolving trends, as well as the investigation of understated evolutionary trends (Mukherjee et al., 2022). Thus, following the PRISMA flow diagram for SLR, 151 research articles from Scopus database were eligible for review. However, the research objectives required co-occurrence analysis to create a network visualization based on the co-occurrence of authors’ keywords, thereby exploring the conceptual landscape of regenerative business research. Therefore, 151 files were imported into VOSviewer (version 1.6.8) to conduct the co-occurrence analysis. At this point, it is worth mentioning that co-occurrence analysis in VOSviewer is defined as a method that determines how often pairs of items (e.g., keywords) occur together in documents. “Items are the objects of interest. Items may for example be publications, researchers, or terms. A link is a connection or a relation between two items.” (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, n.d., p. 8). Items that often co-occur are deemed to be thematically linked and are placed near one another in the final map. This method detects theme patterns inside a research domain, hence providing insight into current topics of study and connections between substantial concepts. Based on co-occurrence and other bibliometric data, this method offers a strong exploratory tool for visualizing and examining the intellectual structure of a scientific area (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010; Van Eck & Waltman, 2023).

Evidently, both bibliometric and content assessments support the accomplishment of the research objectives, the detection of new patterns, emerging trends, and understated future dynamics (Mukherjee et al., 2022). When it comes to the content analysis, a key aspect in strengthening this process is the clear presentation of the specific steps and criteria applied. In this study, the authors first applied a citation analysis and then continued with a cluster identification via keyword co-occurrence analysis (using VOSviewer). Finally, the content analysis followed a thematic coding approach based on article abstracts and full texts, which were manually reviewed. Two researchers independently coded the materials using a predefined framework aligned with Mayring (2014). Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus. Although a formal intercoder reliability index (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) was not computed, coding consistency was assured through iterative cross-validation. Thematic coding was performed to categorize recurring topics, stakeholder perspectives, and methodological approaches. As mentioned before, this process aligns with best practices in qualitative content analysis, as outlined by Mayring (2014) and supported in systematic reviews (Krippendorff, 2018). Enhancing transparency in these steps allows for reproducibility and builds credibility in the findings. Furthermore, to enrich this process, representative case examples and empirical studies were identified within each cluster and integrated into the analysis. For instance, Howard et al. (2019)’s study on regenerative business/BMs provides a practical framework for regenerative supply chains, while Caruso (2023) presents a case study in regenerative hospitality (Hortel) that illustrates the translation of regenerative principles into business practice. Including such cases supports the transferability and practical relevance of the findings.

4. Results

The bibliometric analysis of the 151 research articles imported into VOSviewer revealed important information regarding the studies included. It was found that in the last 10 years, 364 authors have worked in this area, producing 125 papers with at least one citation, which are considered here. Nevertheless, out of a total of 125 articles, only 10 are linked to each other, and out of 364 authors, only 28. Additionally, the frequency of research papers (see Figure 3) attests to the escalation of the relevant academic research (Low & Siegel, 2019). It seems that in the last decade, the number of published papers has been constantly evolving, reaching its peak in 2024 (26 papers). The rise in the number of documents may be linked to the growing exogenous pressure placed on organizations by the ongoing worldwide emphasis on sustainability goals and ethics. These pressures create an intensifying need for communities to adjust their production and consumption systems and for organizations to adjust their BMs and value propositions to various stakeholders.

Next, in line with the study’s ROs, the analysis was conducted based on the following axes: citations (based on documents and authors) and author keywords. In detail:

4.1. RO1: Citations Analysis Based on Documents and Authors

According to RO1, the initial form of analysis was centered on the detection of the documents and authors that scholars consult in developing their profound understanding of the regeneration/regenerative business term and its relevance to society and the business world.

Citations analysis based on documents. 

Table 1. The 10 most influential contributions in the regenerative business research field.

Title	Authors	Citations	Links
1. “The regenerative supply chain: a framework for developing circular economy indicators”	Howard et al. (2019)	136	3
2. “Strategies for Regenerative Business”	Hahn and Tampe (2021)	51	3
3. “Managing the Paradoxes of Place to Foster Regeneration”	Slawinski et al. (2021)	45	1
4. “Regenerative Organizations: Introduction to the Special Issue”	Muñoz and Branzei (2021)	23	2
5. “A Tale of Two Food Chains: The Duality of Practices on Well-being”	Roth and Zheng (2021)	15	1
6. “Recognising the regenerative impacts of Canadian women tourism social entrepreneurs through a feminist ethic of care lens”	Boluk and Panse (2022)	12	1
7. “Navigating Circular Economy: Unleashing the Potential of Political and Supply Chain Analytics Skills Among Top Supply Chain Executives for Environmental Orientation, Regenerative Supply Chain Practices, and Supply Chain Viability”	Bag and Rahman (2023)	8	3
8. “A circularity-based quality assessment tool to classify the core for recovery businesses”	Mishra et al. (2021)	6	1
9. “The Rise of Regenerative Hospitality”	Inversini et al. (2024)	1	4
10. “Broadening the circle: creativity, regeneration and redistribution in value loops”	Palakshappa et al. (2023)	1	1

incorporates the 10 most influential documents in the regeneration/regenerative business research field.

Howard et al.’s (2019) article “The regenerative supply chain: a framework for developing circular economy indicators” is the most cited and linked document (with 136 citations). Additionally, Hahn and Tampe’s (2021) contribution “Strategies for Regenerative Business” and Slawinski et al.’s (2021) work titled “Managing the Paradoxes of Place to Foster Regeneration” are the second (with 51 citations) and third (with 45 citations) most cited and linked papers.

Citations analysis based on authors. To trace the most prominent authors, author analysis was conducted (see Figure 4). Hopkinson P., Howard M., and Miemczyk J. are the most influential authors with 136 citations each. Among the leading authors are Hahn T. and Tampe M. with 51 citations, followed by Mazutis D., Schouten J.W., Slawinski N., Smith W.K., and Winsor B. with 45 citations each. Nonetheless, almost everyone has a single publication, implying that authors in the field do not continuously invest time and effort into empirically investigating themes and ideas in this area.

4.2. RO2: Keywords—Cluster Analysis

Research hotspots can be found by delving into high-frequency keywords, permitting readers to rapidly identify and prioritize research topics and facilitating an in-depth assessment of the included content (Goyal et al., 2023).

To discover the major author keywords, a co-occurrence network analysis was applied to the data set, with at least two co-occurrences, thereby enabling the identification of thematic clusters depending on the frequency of terms occurring together across articles. A threshold of two was selected to capture a wider array of emergent themes in this relatively new field, ensuring that relevant but less frequent concepts were not excluded. This approach allowed the analysis to reflect the fragmentation and novelty of the literature. Every keyword was considered a network node; two nodes linked if they co-occurred in at least one paper. The strength of the link corresponded to the number of shared documents. A similarity matrix was then constructed and used as input to the VOS mapping algorithm, which positions the items in two-dimensional space by minimizing a weighted sum of squared distances between all item pairs, with stronger co-occurrences receiving greater weights in the optimization process (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010, p. 525; Centre for Science and Technology Studies, n.d., p. 11).

Table 2. Co-occurrences and total link strength per keyword.

No	Keyword	Occurrences	Total Link Strength
1.	Sustainability	18	18
2.	Regeneration	16	15
3.	Circular Economy	16	13
4.	Urban Regeneration	9	11
5.	Climate Change	5	12
6.	Community	5	3
7.	Corporate Social Responsibility	4	6
8.	Circular Business Model	4	4
9.	Regenerative Tourism	4	3
10.	Tourism	3	8
11.	Education	3	6
12.	Collaboration	3	3
13.	Gentrification	3	3
14.	Transformation	2	5
15.	Place	2	4
16.	Triple Bottom Line	2	4
17.	COVID-19	2	3
18.	Entrepreneurial Learning	2	3
19.	Business District	2	2
20.	Business Strategy	2	2
21.	Creative Industries	2	2
22.	Strategy	2	2

displays all the keywords that satisfied the occurrence threshold, their overall number of appearances, and the total link strength they shared with other keywords. This shows in numbers which words are most crucial in the discourse of the field. From this type of processing, a pool of 55 words was created. The primary 22 are displayed in Table 2. The analysis demonstrated that sustainability is the most common keyword, with a frequency of 18 and total link strength of 18 with other keywords. The second and third most important keywords are regeneration and circular economy, with 16 occurrences each (total link strength 15 and 13, respectively). This was an expected outcome considering that the concept of regenerative business is an evolution of the sustainable business approach and closely related to the model of “restore, preserve, enhance” (i.e., regenerate).

The final network visualization (Figure 5) represents each keyword as a circle, where the size of the circle reflects the weight of the item—typically the number of occurrences across documents—and the color corresponds to the cluster to which the keyword belongs. The distance between two keywords in the map indicates the strength of their relationship (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, n.d., p. 8). In fact, Figure 5 illustrates four dominant research hotspots (sustainability, circular economy, regeneration, urban regeneration) with 10 clusters: light green (two main keywords: sustainability, collaboration), green (five main keywords: urban regeneration, tourism, place, transformation, creative industries), brown (two main keywords: gentrification, business district), pink (one main keyword: triple bottom line), light purple (one main keyword: community), orange (two main keywords: corporate social responsibility, business strategy), deep purple (two main keywords: strategy, regenerative tourism), deep blue (three main keywords: regeneration, climate change, COVID-19), red (two main keywords: circular economy, circular business model), and light blue (two main keywords: education and entrepreneurial learning). Additionally, content analysis was applied to recognize the research emphasis in the clusters. To be more precise, the research papers in each cluster were carefully studied to conclude on the accurate hotspots and themes relating to the identified clusters.

It is important to note that although only 10 articles were thematically linked in the co-occurrence network, this reflects the early stage of convergence in the field and the high novelty and fragmentation of RBM literature. A higher number of documents would be possible only by lowering the conceptual threshold or diluting the research focus, which would compromise the exploratory aim of our study.

5. Discussion

The four dominant research hotspots, i.e., sustainability, circular economy, regeneration, and urban regeneration, are conceptually distinct yet overlapping, indicating that these approaches do not exist in isolation. As Laszlo et al. (2021) emphasize, businesses must distinguish between three types of sequential and/or parallel innovation impacts if they are to sustain their long-term reliability and legitimacy. First, doing less harm, where the goal is to minimize social inequity and reduce environmental degradation. Second, enhancing incremental positive impact, where the aim is on fostering prosperity, regenerating nature, and advancing wellbeing through targeted initiatives that are typically of limited scope. Third, generating system-wide positive impact, in which scalable business innovations have a discernible capacity to “move the needle” on social and global challenges such as climate change and social equity.

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that the dominant research hotspots emerge as distinct yet interrelated themes, suggesting a level of theoretical and practical convergence in the literature. This overlap is further illustrated by a growing body of research that emphasizes the interconnectedness of these domains. For example, regenerative practices in urban environments are increasingly linked with circular economic models and socially innovative approaches, revealing a holistic framework for transforming production, consumption, and spatial organization (Laszlo et al., 2021). While each cluster contributes a unique perspective, the cross-pollination of ideas—such as the integration of community-based regeneration with sustainable business strategy or the role of education in enabling regenerative entrepreneurship—highlights the relevance of systems thinking as a foundational principle. According to Mang and Haggard (2016), regeneration inherently requires an ecological worldview, where interdependencies among economic, environmental, and social systems are not only recognized but actively leveraged. This multidimensionality is reflected in the literature, indicating a shift from linear, siloed business thinking toward a more circular and regenerative logic that aligns with planetary and societal boundaries.

The light green cluster revolves around sustainability (as the central node) and collaboration, suggesting that business sustainability inherently necessitates coordinated multi-stakeholder engagement. Indeed, achieving sustainability requires inclusive and participatory approaches that engage local communities and other stakeholders throughout the transformation process (Perkins et al., 2023). In this context, regenerative organizing calls for a fundamental rethinking of conventional organizational ideas—such as systems, time, change, scope, and scale—towards models that align more closely with nature and co-evolve with it, rather than seeking to separate from or oppose to it. Slawinski et al. (2021) provide a persuasive case study that illustrates how regenerative organizations navigate place-based tensions in a coastal community devastated by the collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishery. Their work underscores the importance of engaging with such tensions—not by seeking to eliminate them, but by learning to work through them. Building on these insights, the following research questions (RQs) are proposed:

RQ1.

Since regenerative organizing shifts the focus of human organizing to organizing with and for nature, how should conceptions such as systems, time, change, scope, and scale in organizing be reconsidered?

RQ2.

How do regenerative organizations respond to place-based tensions? And how do these responses contribute to regeneration?

The light green cluster is closely associated with the orange and pink clusters, which incorporate keywords such as business strategy, triple bottom line, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Undeniably, the notion that businesses can flourish only through the wellbeing of the socio-ecological environment can be traced back to the early CSR literature. Scholars such as Laszlo et al. (2021) argue that CSR should evolve beyond compliance, urging businesses to adopt a regenerative approach to sustainability. Similarly, Waddock et al. (2024) emphasize that businesses should not merely aim to “do less harm” but instead strive to create net positive social and environmental value. In this context, Muñoz and Branzei (2021) highlight an important research gap concerning the definition, antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes of regenerative organizing—underscoring the need for conceptual and empirical clarity in this emerging field. To address these gaps and advance understanding in the field of regenerative business, we propose the following RQs:

RQ3.

How do sustainable, circular, and regenerative business models overlap, and in what ways are they conceptually and practically distinct?

RQ4.

What are the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of regenerative organizing?

RQ5.

How can businesses report on their regenerative BMs and monitor, report, and communicate progress towards regenerative sustainability?

The red cluster includes studies related to the circular economy and CBMs, emphasizing that the adoption of circular economy principles constitutes a necessary proactive business strategy. This strategy requires the transformation of production, distribution, and consumption processes to promote economic, as well as environmental sustainability at the micro and macro levels (Manniche et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2021; Palakshappa et al., 2023). Restorative strategies based on reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling (3R) have been proposed to maximize value creation and enhance the efficient utilization and restoration of resources (Howard et al., 2019; Hahn & Tampe, 2021). For instance, Singh (2024) explores how businesses are implementing circular supply chains by transforming their processes to reduce waste and extend product life cycles. Tiep et al. (2023) empirically examine the role of entrepreneurship in facilitating circular supply chain management to achieve its sustainability goals. Similarly, Meier et al. (2023) contribute to the discourse by discussing how technological innovation, such as block chain, can enhance circular economy practices, highlighting the importance of data analytics and digital technologies in advancing CBMs.

The light blue cluster incorporates the keywords education and entrepreneurial learning. Studies in this cluster highlight the critical role of learning, experiential learning, unlearning, and structural reforms into management education as key drivers for cultivating a new generation of entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs are expected to possess the skills, attitudes, and mindsets necessary to understand circular economy principles and to steer businesses—and their models—toward more sustainable and regenerative practices (Bag & Rahman, 2023; Cubillas-Para et al., 2024; Vlasov, 2021; Waddock et al., 2024). As the focus of business innovation continues to shift toward regeneration, the role of leadership becomes increasingly vital. However, a gap remains in our understanding of the specific traits, competencies, and mindsets required to lead regenerative transformation effectively. This observation leads to the following RQ:

RQ6.

What traits, skills, competencies, and mindsets should regenerative leaders possess?

The green cluster is centered on the key term urban regeneration and comprises four relevant keywords—tourism, creative industries, place, and transformation—which collectively emphasize a systems thinking perspective on regeneration and the broader need for business and societal transformation. A detailed review of this cluster reveals that it revolves around the role of tourism, arts, and culture in urban regeneration (Mahadevan, 2017; Slawinski et al., 2021). For instance, Delconte et al. (2015) demonstrate how heritage tourism can reinvigorate urban spaces by attracting visitors while preserving cultural identity. Other scholars emphasize the socio-economic benefits of tourism, arguing that tourism projects and cultural entrepreneurial initiatives—when integrated into urban development strategies—revitalize urban areas, fostering community wellbeing and economic development as well (Iliev, 2021; Zhong, 2015; Kim, 2016).

Urban regeneration is also closely linked to keywords such as gentrification, business district (found in the brown cluster), and community (located in the light purple cluster). Studies within these clusters explore the spatial and social restructuring of deprived urban areas, particularly in the context of gentrification. They highlight the significance of community-led urban regeneration and emphasize that regeneration processes must be inclusive and participatory, involving local communities throughout (Shand, 2014; Perkins et al., 2023).

Regeneration is the central node in the blue cluster, which incorporates keywords such as climate change and COVID-19. A review of the studies within this cluster reveals a clear association between the expansion of regeneration-related research and the emergence of climate change and COVID-19 as origin crises. This is perhaps unsurprising, given the significant impact these two global emergencies have had on various industries, including tourism and agriculture (Muñoz & Branzei, 2021). In response to this line of inquiry, Sunny (2021) calls for the integration of the natural environment into management theories to better address the challenges posed by global climate change.

This cluster shows a strong connection to the deep purple cluster that includes the keywords regenerative, tourism, and strategy. Studies within this cluster emphasize the regeneration tourism model, which integrates local communities, environmental systems, and tourism practices to enhance the wellbeing of all stakeholders. This approach promotes holistic harmony and net positive outcomes, replacing the negative impacts commonly associated with traditional mass tourism (Corral-Gonzalez et al., 2023; Inversini et al., 2024). For example, Caruso (2023) provides a case study (“Hortel”) that illustrates how hospitality businesses can adopt RBMs, while Boluk and Panse (2022) explore the role of women tourism social entrepreneurs in advancing regenerative practices in Canada. These considerations give rise to the following RQ:

RQ7.

What is the future of the tourism and hospitality sector (and of other sectors) in relation to the multidisciplinary field of regenerative economy?

The content analysis revealed that most studies in the field remain conceptual or theoretical, with limited empirical evidence on the implementation and impact of RBMs (Sherwood & Pollard, 2023). A noticeable gap exists in sector-specific applications, particularly in SMEs and service industries, along with a lack of standardized metrics to assess regenerative outcomes (Konietzko et al., 2023). Addressing these gaps could yield valuable insights into how regenerative practices can be scaled across industries and cultural contexts.

6. Implications

This study articulates the current state of knowledge in the field of regeneration and regenerative business by synthesizing the body of literature published over the past decade and indexed in Scopus. One of its main strengths lies in the combined use of bibliometric and content analysis. A B-SLR, conducted using the PRISMA flow diagram and VOSviewer software 1.6.8, enabled the identification and graphical mapping of the most influential documents, authors, and keywords. These outcomes provide valuable insights for future researchers by illustrating the evolution of this research stream and the expansion of its structural components, while also offering opportunities for collaboration and networking within the field.

Furthermore, the bibliometric and content analyses identified key research hotspots and gaps, allowing readers to locate and prioritize emerging research topics (Goyal et al., 2023), and facilitating an in-depth assessment of the reviewed content. This study also presents several practical implications for businesses aiming to adopt regenerative sustainability practices. Specifically, it emphasizes the necessity of transforming business models through the integration of regenerative principles. This transformation involves adopting a systems thinking approach to not only sustain but actively restore and regenerate natural resources and social systems. The strategic implications outlined are directly linked to key regenerative orientations discussed earlier—such as regenerative leadership, co-creation with nature, multi-capital accounting, and the redefinition of business purpose toward a net positive impact. By embedding these strategies, businesses can move beyond circular efficiency and toward systemic transformation and long-term socio-ecological value creation.

For business leaders, the findings offer strategic guidance on how to align operations with regenerative sustainability principles. This includes making informed decisions about where and how to implement regenerative practices to maximize their positive impact. Finally, the study identifies future research directions (RQs) that may guide both academics and practitioners in advancing the regenerative sustainability agenda, contributing to the development of innovative methodologies and business practices. Overall, this research enhances our understanding of regenerative sustainability and supports its practical integration into business operations.

7. Limitations and Future Research Avenues

Despite its strengths, this study has several limitations that present opportunities for future research. First, data were collected exclusively from Scopus, thereby excluding articles indexed in other databases, such as Web of Science (WoS), PubMed, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO. Future studies could incorporate evidence from these additional sources, offering novel perspectives and insights into regenerative business that may have been previously overlooked. Second, language bias may have influenced the results, as only English-language publications were included. Future researchers could expand the scope by including studies published in other languages to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the field. Third, the research strategy was limited to three keywords “regenerative,” “regeneration,” and “business”. Future research could benefit from the inclusion of additional relevant keywords such as circularity, urban renewal, and urban transformation, which may allow for a more focused and nuanced analysis of regenerative practices within business management. Finally, the bibliometric analysis was conducted using the VOSviewer software; the parallel use of other tools, such as BibExcel, may produce complementary insights and reveal different patterns.

Beyond the limitations of this review, future research is needed to deepen the empirical validation of regenerative business frameworks and explore sector-specific implementation challenges. Comparative studies across industries (e.g., tech vs. agriculture), and across firm sizes (SMEs vs. multinationals), could offer more granular insights. Additionally, there is a pressing need for standardized measurement tools to assess regenerative impact, tools that could be developed through interdisciplinary collaboration among sustainability scholars, ecologists, and business strategists. Finally, the RQs outlined in the discussion section highlight existing gaps and offer clear direction for advancing research in the regenerative business field.

8. Conclusions

Although this study has certain limitations, it is the first to provide a comprehensive review that combines bibliometric and content analysis techniques to consider the growing importance of regenerative sustainability in business practices. By synthesizing existing knowledge, the study outlines multiple avenues for future research in the field of regeneration as it relates to business and economics. Through a systematic review of the literature, this study identifies key trends, influential scholars, and research clusters, offering valuable insights for both academics and practitioners.

In addition, the study advocates for a necessary shift beyond traditional sustainability and toward the active restoration and regeneration of ecosystems and social systems. It underscores the importance of rethinking BMs through a systems thinking lens to ensure a positive contribution to environmental and social regeneration. By doing so, the research encourages continued exploration and innovation in regenerative business practices.

The findings demonstrate that the concept of regenerative business shifts the conversation beyond sustainability, toward the active restoration and revitalization of natural and social systems through BMs grounded on systems thinking. Therefore, this study provides researchers with a structured “roadmap” of the relevant literature, identifies research gaps, and proposes future research directions, while also offering practitioners practical guidance for integrating regenerative principles into business operations.