As environmental and social challenges intensify, regenerative practices in supply chain management (SCM) are emerging as a transformative approach, shifting focus from sustainability to the active restoration of socio-ecological systems. The present study analyses how regenerative principles, including poly-rhythmicity, proportionality, and reciprocity, enhance supply chain resilience through systemic renewal. A comprehensive review of 33 high-impact articles (2010–2024) has identified six key regenerative practices: supply chain plasticity, ecological restoration, circular measures, sustainable resource management (SRM), reshoring, and restorative topophilia. These practices address ecological degradation, economic volatility, and social inequities, all while promoting adaptability. Whilst circularity and SRM predominate in industry applications, there is considerable potential in niche practices such as restorative topophilia, which combines place attachment with ecological restoration. The combination of reshoring and circular principles has the potential to reduce emissions by 30% and stimulate local economies. However, it is important to note that 40% of reshoring initiatives are unsuccessful, resulting in the relocation of production activities that are associated with increased environmental impact. Supply chain plasticity has been demonstrated to exhibit operational resilience; however, it frequently neglects ecological reciprocity, thereby highlighting an evident implementation gap. It is imperative to emphasise the pivotal role that stakeholder engagement, notably from communities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), plays in transcending the divide between sectors. The present study proposes a framework for “regenerative intelligence” that integrates ecological, social, and supply chain objectives. The study validates institutional redundancy (policy-market synergy) and emphasises poly-rhythmicity as an unexplored lever for resilience. The study provides practical insights for transitioning from protective to proactive regeneration, and it notes two limitations: potential interpretive biases and a focus on academic literature. The study suggests that future research should explore metrics, cultural contexts, and decision-support tools. This work reframes supply chains as catalysts for systemic renewal, advocating for strategies that restore rather than merely sustain.