What’s behind the ag-data logo? An examination of voluntary agricultural-data codes of practice

Abstract

In this article, we analyse agricultural data (ag-data) codes of practice. After the introduction, Part II examines the emergence of ag-data codes of practice and provides two case studies—the American Farm Bureau’s Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data and New Zealand’s Farm Data Code of Practice—that illustrate that the ultimate aims of ag-data codes of practice are inextricably linked to consent, disclosure, transparency and, ultimately, the building of trust. Part III highlights the commonalities and challenges of ag-data codes of practice. In Part IV several concluding observations are made. Most notably, while ag-data codes of practice may help change practices and convert complex details about ag-data contracts into something tangible, understandable and useable, it is important for agricultural industries to not hastily or uncritically accept or adopt ag-data codes of practice. There needs to be clear objectives, and a clear direction in which stakeholders want to take ag-data practices. In other words, stakeholders need to be sure about what they are trying, and able, to achieve with ag-data codes of practice. Ag-data codes of practice need credible administration, accreditation and monitoring. There also needs to be a way of reviewing and evaluating the codes in a more meaningful way than simple metrics such as the number of members: for example, we need to know something about whether the codes raise awareness and education around data practices, and, perhaps most importantly, whether they encourage changes in attitudes and behaviours around the access to and use of ag-data.

What's Cooking: Digital Transformation of the Agrifood System

“…These analytic devices would become required content under a code of practice where government at all levels would require reporting and in return supply its own data for use in the support tools. Sanderson, Wiseman, and Poncini (2018) evaluate two such national level codes of practice for agricultural data (in New Zealand and the United States), which both focus on "consent, disclosure, transparency and, ultimately, the building of trust" (p. 3). In both cases, upward communication to higher level policy was emphasized by links to laws on business operation and privacy, while downward links enabled the use of a trademark by commercial firms certified according to the code of practice.…”

Ethics of Digital Animal Farming

“…Moreover, the contracts are nonnegotiable, so the farmers have to either take it or leave it, reducing their level of trust and confidence in what they sign up for. One method to increase the clarity of data sharing, ownership, consent and disclosure, is to implement agricultural-data codes of practice (Sanderson, Wiseman and Poncini, 2018). It is the ethical responsibility of all parties involved to protect not only the animals, but also the farmer, especially as there is a huge division of power between the large multinational technology corporations compared to those to contribute to the data (Jakku et al, 2019).…”

Trust in farm data sharing: reflections on the EU code of conduct for agricultural data sharing

“…19 The implementation of such codes is thought to enhance and guide data mobility practices. Generally, data codes aim to guide the practices on the consent, disclosure and transparency of data sharing (Sanderson et al 2018). The European Commission itself reinforced the Regulation's call for codes and aims to accelerate their development by highlighting that with codes, EU citizens and service providers will engage in unambiguous and clear practices when transferring data between service providers (European Commission 2017).…”

“…30 While this goal is laudable in itself, there are reasons to doubt if and to what extent it will be able to realize its eventual purpose, which is to foster trust in the data sharing network and foster agtech innovations. Of course, these principles signify the EU Code is targeting the outcomes arising out of ag-data practices, such as trust, rather than formulating enforceable rules (Sanderson et al 2018). But apart from that, a contractarian perspective can only tell part of the story about trust, which needs to be supplemented by another approach which takes into account the contextual and social interactions in which trust-relationships historically generate.…”