Regenerative Business Model Canvas

TOOL GUIDE VERSION 1.1 Regenerative Business Model Canvas Build a viable enterprise that helps its place thrive. For founders, business leaders and teams developing or redesigning an enterprise. Allow 90-120 minutes with people who operate, use and are affected by the offer. What business is worth building here? Use this Canvas to make an enterprise's value, commercial logic and intended contribution explicit. Leave with a model you can explain, its most important uncertainty and a decision about what to test next. 01 Ground the ambition Name one decision and a specific place. Start with sections 1-3: its strengths, people and potential, and the conditions you hope to help renew. 02 Make the business work Use sections 4-6 to connect the offer, payment unit, delivery capacity, costs and cash needs. Separate the customer, user and payer where they differ. 03 Examine the terms Use sections 7-9 to test whether ownership, decision rights and finance support the purpose. Include people who carry costs and compare a credible alternative. 04 Choose evidence and action Mark key entries K = known, A = assumed or ? = to explore; add a source and date. Agree an owner, a test, a decision rule and a review point. Keep disagreement visible. Regeneration needs more than an intention. Name how the enterprise could strengthen the ecological functions, relationships and capabilities that sustain its place. Establish a baseline and judge change with people affected over time. Higher revenue, lower harm or completing this Canvas is not proof of regeneration. Use page 2 as your worksheet; pages 3-5 explain a fictional example. Page 6 gives evidence prompts and sources. Print the Canvas at A3 landscape, or type brief notes into its 16 fields. Save a copy, reopen it and check your entries. Keep supporting evidence in a separate record. Refuture Africa | Canvas v1.1 | 20 October 2026 1 / 6

FILLABLE WORKSHEET VERSION 1.1 Regenerative Business Model Canvas Connect place, customer value, renewal, commercial logic and the terms that make them possible. Enterprise and decision Place and planning period People and date 01 / Context, people and intended renewal 01 / Place and purpose What place and living systems does the enterprise depend on? What distinctive potential could it help develop? Name the boundary and a future worth working towards. 02 / People and value Who uses, pays, benefits and bears costs? What do they value? Whose knowledge or influence is missing? Separate customer value from wider effects. 03 / Renewal and evidence Which ecological functions, relationships or capabilities should strengthen over time? How could the business help? Name a baseline, evidence and who judges progress. 02 / Offer, delivery and commercial logic 04 / Offer and relationships What exactly is offered, to whom, in what unit and on what terms? How do access, payment, reliability and complaints work? What assumption needs testing? 05 / Delivery and partners Which activities, assets, people and agreements make the offer work? Check capacity, dependencies, local capability and who can maintain or adapt the service. 06 / Money and viability Connect price, sales volume, capacity and full costs. Who pays when? What cash and capital are needed? Test a quieter period and show what is still uncosted. 03 / Ownership, capital and limits 07 / Ownership and decisions Who owns assets, sets terms and can challenge decisions? What authority do affected people hold? Agree how the enterprise will be governed before choosing a structure. 08 / Capital and shared value Who supplies finance, receives returns and bears risk? How will upkeep and replacement be funded? Do ownership and funding terms support the intended contribution? 09 / Tradeoffs and limits What could worsen or be displaced, where and for whom? Which limits must hold? Compare an alternative. What evidence would make you pause, redesign or stop? Priority assumption Evidence and decision rule Owner and participants Review point and trigger Refuture Africa | Canvas v1.1 | 20 October 2026 2 / 6

TEACHING CASE VERSION 1.1 Solar irrigation as a service Could better irrigation create more value without exhausting its source? Read this as a design exercise. A fictional teaching venture. All participants, prices, volumes, costs and test thresholds are invented. No field results or Refuture project are represented. The decision Should a local operator run a bounded paid trial before committing to equipment finance? The place and participants Twenty neighbouring growers each cultivate a quarter-acre vegetable plot: five acres in total. The proposed service uses an existing shared water source in an unnamed Kenyan farming area. Access rights, available water and system capacity still need checking. The offer and customer value Growers pay for metered supplementary irrigation delivered to their plots, rather than buying a pump. The proposed operator supplies the equipment, scheduling, operation and maintenance. Growers continue to choose and manage their crops, with agreed crop-water advice. The commercial proposition is better crop quality, more reliable production and improved crop margins after fees. Stronger soil health and local capability are longer-term intentions that require deliberate practice and separate evidence. The tension to design around A fee for each cubic metre makes the service simple to explain, but can reward selling more water. A viable enterprise must work inside an agreed water budget. If the price or funding model requires over-pumping, redesign the model. The teaching model assumes demand; it does not establish willingness to pay, water availability, legal permission, kit capacity, agronomic suitability or financeability. These are decisions to investigate, not facts to fill in later. Refuture Africa | Canvas v1.1 | 20 October 2026 3 / 6

WORKED EXAMPLE VERSION 1.1 Regenerative Business Model Canvas Fictional solar irrigation service. All entries are proposals or assumptions; no outcomes are demonstrated. Enterprise and decision Solar irrigation service / decide whether to trial Place and planning period 20 plots + shared water source / one crop-cycle trial People and date Proposed team / confirm roles and dates 01 / Context, people and intended renewal 01 / Place and purpose A proposed service for 20 neighbouring quarter-acre vegetable plots in an unnamed Kenyan farming area. Aim: better crop quality, reliable production and farmer income, alongside stronger soil-water care and local operating capability. The shared water source connects this site to other users. 02 / People and value Growers are both users and paying customers. They seek better crop quality and crop margins after fees. The operator needs dependable demand and payment. Include women growers, tenants, workers and other water users when agreeing access; their participation is not yet secured. 03 / Renewal and evidence Proposed pathway: coordinate irrigation with farmer-led soil-water care and train local operators. Establish soil-cover, infiltration, source-condition and capability baselines with local advisers; review over seasons. Farm margin and water use are separate measures. No renewal has been demonstrated. 02 / Offer, delivery and commercial logic 04 / Offer and relationships Supplementary irrigation delivered to participating plots, including scheduling, metering, operation and maintenance. Illustrative price: KES 50 per m³ (1,000 litres), billed against recorded delivery. Agree service times, payment, outages, allocation limits and complaints before a paid trial. 05 / Delivery and partners The operator would own or lease the solar pump, storage, pipes and meters, and employ a local operator. A farmer committee and other water users help agree allocation; a technician and agricultural adviser support maintenance and crop-water planning. Survey the source, size the system and confirm approvals first. 06 / Money and viability Four-week planning assumption: 20 growers × 80 m³ × KES 50 = KES 80,000 revenue. Variable costs: KES 20,000; fixed operating costs: KES 40,000. KES 20,000 remains before finance, tax and capital recovery. At 12 growers the operating shortfall is KES 4,000. See page 5; this is not a forecast. 03 / Ownership, capital and limits 07 / Ownership and decisions Proposed operator owns or leases equipment; growers retain control of their plots and crops. Agree who sets fees, allocates water, pauses pumping and resolves complaints, including other users' rights. Compare operator ownership with a cooperative before selecting a legal structure; no terms are agreed yet. 08 / Capital and shared value Obtain equipment, lease and maintenance quotes. Compare finance terms and seasonal cash needs before borrowing. Price wages, training, replacement and source monitoring into the full model. Agree use of any genuine surplus after obligations; no investor, funding commitment or surplus distribution is assumed. 09 / Tradeoffs and limits Charging by volume can reward over-pumping. Set an independently informed water budget with affected users and the relevant authorities; stop on a breach or source-risk trigger. Compare a capped service fee and lower-water-demand options. Solar energy does not establish water sustainability or regeneration. Priority assumption Growers gain enough value after all crop costs and irrigation fees to pay again. Evidence and decision rule One crop cycle: median crop margin +10% AND 8/10 pay again; no water-limit breach. See page 6 for the full rule. Owner and participants Proposed trial lead, growers, agricultural adviser and water-allocation group. Confirm roles before starting. Review point and trigger After the crop cycle and next-cycle purchase decision. Pause sooner on a water-limit breach, unsafe operation or unexpected harm. Refuture Africa | Canvas v1.1 | 20 October 2026 4 / 6

TEACHING CASE / ARITHMETIC VERSION 1.1 Does the model hold? Use a consistent unit and period; make the missing costs visible. The price is KES 50 per cubic metre (1 m³ = 1,000 litres). Each active grower is assumed to buy 80 m³ in a four-week planning period. These are invented demand and price assumptions, not agronomic advice, an approved allocation or market quotes. A four-week budget is not a crop cycle. Four-week illustration 20 active growers 12 active growers Volume sold 1,600 m³ 960 m³ Revenue at KES 50/m³ KES 80,000 KES 48,000 Variable cost at KES 12.50/m³ KES 20,000 KES 12,000 Fixed operating costs KES 40,000 KES 40,000 Operating remainder / (shortfall) KES 20,000 (KES 4,000) The remainder is before finance, tax and capital recovery; it is not net profit or cash available to distribute. Obtain quotes and specify whether costs cover wages, maintenance, meter checks, training, monitoring, losses and replacement. Budget seasonal cash gaps separately. What the arithmetic changes With these assumptions, each m³ contributes KES 37.50 towards fixed costs. Operating break-even is about 1,067 m³ per four weeks, or 14 growers at the assumed volume, before finance, tax and capital recovery. This does not show that the source or equipment can supply that volume. A water limit is a design condition. Determine the water budget and source-risk triggers with appropriate local expertise, other users and the relevant authorities before a trial. If safe allocation cannot support the economics, change the offer, price, costs or finance; do not increase pumping to close the gap. Budget a capped learning trial separately. Ten participating growers do not establish the economics of a 20-grower service. Refuture Africa | Canvas v1.1 | 20 October 2026 5 / 6

EVIDENCE, LEARNING AND USE VERSION 1.1 Test the value. Keep learning. One bounded test before a larger commitment Trial one full crop cycle with 10 consenting growers and matched plots or a credible baseline. Record output, crop quality, revenue, all crop costs, fees and water delivered. The percentage rule requires positive comparison margins; otherwise agree an absolute gain in KES beforehand. Record comparison limits; differences alone do not establish causation. Illustrative rule, agreed before starting: at least 10% median improvement in crop margin after all crop costs and fees AND 8 of 10 growers actually pay for another cycle. All water and safety limits must hold. These are teaching thresholds, not validated benchmarks. Review after the crop cycle and next-cycle payment decision; redesign if the combined rule is missed. No trial result is supplied. Evidence of renewal takes longer With growers and appropriate advisers, define how soil cover, infiltration, source condition and local operating capability should change over seasons. Establish initial measures and review dates. An operator should be able to maintain the kit, explain allocation rules and act on a source-risk trigger. Keep these outcomes distinct from sales, farmer margin and pumping energy. Sources and attribution Research foundation Isaac Jumba (2026). Designing for Regeneration: A Venture Studio Model to Build Regenerative Ventures in Africa, section 5.1 and appendices G, I and X. This Canvas applies a place-based, capability-building approach to enterprise design. Business modelling Osterwalder and Pigneur / Strategyzer. Business Model Canvas. A reference for making an enterprise's value and commercial logic explicit. Refuture uses its own prompts and a different nine-section layout. Read the original source online Further conceptual reading Upward, A. and Jones, P. (2016). An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 97-123. Read the original source online Irrigation context FAO (12 April 2018). Positive prospects for solar-powered irrigation systems, accompanying The benefits and risks of solar-powered irrigation: a global overview. It explains both opportunities and the need to guard against unsustainable water withdrawal. This sector evidence does not validate the fictional venture or its numbers. Read the original source online Original Refuture Africa wording and layout. Use this tool in projects and workshops with attribution; retain the version and source notes. Third-party works keep their own terms. Share feedback at refutureafrica.com/resources. Imagine otherwise. Build differently. Refuture Africa | Canvas v1.1 | 20 October 2026 6 / 6