What’s behind the ag-data logo? An examination of voluntary agricultural-data codes of practice
Main Article Content
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.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit articles to this journal from 31st March 2014 for publication, agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Open Access Citation Advantage Service). Where authors include such a work in an institutional repository or on their website (ie. a copy of a work which has been published in a UTS ePRESS journal, or a pre-print or post-print version of that work), we request that they include a statement that acknowledges the UTS ePRESS publication including the name of the journal, the volume number and a web-link to the journal item.
d) Authors should be aware that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License permits readers to share (copy and redistribute the work in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the work) for any purpose, even commercially, provided they also give appropriate credit to the work, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. They may do these things in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests you or your publisher endorses their use.
For Issue: "Occasional Papers" and before, the following copyright applied:
Authors, upon submission, communicate their acceptance of the following conditions:
The work, upon publication, becomes the property of the International Journal of Rural Law and Policy.
Upon publication, the work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial_No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions for subsequent publication/reprint and/or derivative works must be obtained from the Editors of the Journal of Rural Law and Policy
References
Australian Productivity Commission, Data Availability and Use, Inquiry Report No. 82 (31 March 2017).
Baldwin, Robert, Martin Cave and Martin Lodge, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2012).
Barham, Elizabeth, ‘Towards Theory of Values-Based Labelling’ (2002) 19(4) Agriculture and Human Values 349.
Barnard-Wills, David, ‘The Technology Foresight Activities of European Union Data Protection Authorities’ (2017) 116 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.032
Bartley, Tim, Sebastian Koos, Hiram Samel, Gustavo Setrini and Nik Summers, Looking Behind the Label: Global Industries and the Conscientious Consumer (2015, Indiana University Press).
Black, Julia, ‘Decentring Regulation: Understanding the Role of Regulation and Self-Regulation in the “Post-Regulatory” World’ Current Legal Problems 54(1) 103.
Black, Julia, ‘Forms and Paradoxes of Principles-Based Regulation’ (2008) 3(4) Capital Markets Law Journal 425, https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmn026
Black, Julia, Principles Based Regulation: Risks, Challenges and Opportunities (2007, London School of Economics and Political Science).
Braithwaite, John, ‘Responsive Regulation in Australia’ in Business Regulation and Australia’s Future, Peter Grabosky and John Braithwaite (eds), (1993, Australian Institute of Criminology).
Brécard, Dorethée, ‘Consumer Confusion over the Profusion of Eco-Labels: Lessons from a Double Differentiation Model’ (2014) 37 Resource and Energy Economics 64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.10.002
Chinkin, Christine, ‘The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law’ (1980) International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 850.
Chon, Margaret, ‘Marks of Rectitude’ (2009) 77 Fordham law Review 2311.
Coble, Keith, Ashok Mishra, Shannon Ferrell and Terry Griffin, ‘Big Data in Agriculture: A Challenge for the Future’ (2018) 40(1) Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 79, https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppx056
De Pelsmacker, Patrick, Wimm Janssens, Ellen Sterckx, Caroline Mielants, ‘Consumer Preferences for the Marketing of Ethically Labelled Coffee’ (2005) 22(5) International Marketing Review 512, https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510624363
Eppler, Martin, and Jeanne Mengis, ‘The Concept of Information Overload: A Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines’, (2004) 20(5) The Information Society 325.
Friedman, Lawrence, Impact: How Law Affects Behaviour (2016, Harvard University Press).
Garrod, Brian and David Fennell, ‘An Analysis of Whalewatching Codes of Conduct’ (2004) 31(2) Annals of Tourism Research 334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.003
Gugerty, Mary, ‘Self-regulation and Voluntary Programs among Non-profit organizations’ in Matthew Potoski and Aseem Prakash (eds). Voluntary programs: A club theory perspective (MIT Press, 2009), pp, 250-278.
Gunningham, Neil and Joseph Rees, ‘Industry Self‐Regulation: An Institutional Perspective’ (1997) 19(4) Law & Policy 363.
Hatanaka, Maki, Carmen Bain, and Lawrence Busch, ‘Third-Party Certification in the Global Agrifood System’ (2005) 30(3) Food Policy 354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.006
Haufler, Virginia, A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self-regulation in a Global Economy, (Carnegie Endowment, 2013).
International Accreditation Forum, The Value of Accredited Certification: Survey Report (May 2012).
Kamilaris, Andreas, Andreas Kartakoullis, and Francesc Prenafeta-Boldú, ‘A Review on the Practice of Big Data Analysis in Agriculture’ (2017) 143 Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.09.037
Kolk Ans and Rob Van Tulder, ‘The Effectiveness of Self-Regulation: Corporate Codes of Conduct and Child Labour’ (2002) 20(3) European Management Journal 260, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00043-9
Lawson, Charles and Jay Sanderson (eds), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World (2016, Routledge).
Lewis, David and Andrew Weigert, ‘Trust as a Social Reality’ (1985) 63(4) Social Forces 967, DOI: 10.2307/2578601
Luhmann, Niklas, Trust and Power (1979, Wiley).
Mitchell, Vincent-Wayne, and Vassilios Papavassiliou, ‘Marketing Causes and Implications of Consumer Confusion’, (1999) 8(4) Journal of Product & Brand Management 319, https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429910284300
O’Rourke, Dara, ‘Multi-Stakeholder Regulation: Privatizing or Socializing Global Labor Standards?’ (2006) 34(5) World Development 899, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.020
Page, Alan, ‘Self-Regulation and Codes of Practice’ (1980) 24(1) Journal of Business Law 30.
Perrett, Ed, Richard Heath, Anne Laurie, and Lucy Darragh, Accelerating Precision Agriculture to Decision Agriculture – Analysis of the Economic Benefit and Strategies for Delivery of Digital Agriculture in Australia (2017) Australian Farm Institute and Cotton Research and Development Corporation.
Pettigrew et al., Simone, ‘Tick Tock: Time for a Change?’ (2016) 27 Health Promotion Journal of Australia 102, https://doi.org/10.1071/HE15084
Potoski, Matthew, and Aseem Prakash (eds). Voluntary programs: A club theory perspective (MIT Press, 2009).
Ruggie, John, ‘How to Marry Civic Politics and Global Governance’, in Andrew Kuper (ed.) The Impact of Corporations on Global Governance (New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs).
Scott, Colin, ‘Private Regulation of the Public Sector: A Neglected Facet of Contemporary Governance’ (2002) 29(1) Journal of Law & Society 56.
Sherman, Brad, ‘Reconceptualising Intellectual Property to Promote Food Security’ in Charles Lawson and Jay Sanderson (eds), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World (2016, Routledge), pp. 33-54.
Spijker, Arent Van't, The New Oil: Using Innovative Business Models to Turn Data into Profit (2014, Technics Publications).
Wiseman, Leanne and Jay Sanderson, The Legal Dimensions of Digital Agriculture in Australia: An Examination of the Current and Future State of Data Rules Dealing with Ownership, Access, Privacy and Trust. Griffith University, USC Australia and Cotton Research and Development Corporation, (2017, Australia).
Wiseman, Leanne, Jay Sanderson and Lachlan Robb, ‘Rethinking Ag Data Ownership’ (2018) 15(1) Farm Policy Journal 71.
Wolfert, Sjaak, Lan Ge, Cor Verdouw and Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt, ‘Big Data in Smart Farming–A review’ (2017) 153 Agricultural Systems 69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023
Zhang, Airong, Isaac Baker, Emma Jakku, and Rick Llewellyn, Accelerating precision agriculture to decision agriculture: The needs and drivers for the present and future of digital agriculture in Australia. A cross industries producer survey for the Rural R&D for Profit ‘Precision to Decision, (P2D) project. (2017) CSIRO and Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Australia.
Legislation
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK).
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth).
Other
Accelerating Precision Agriculture to Decision Agriculture (P2D project), Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Rural R&D for Profit ‘Precision to Decision, (P2D) project. CSIRO and Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Australia.,
Ag Data Transparent, Certified Companies,
American Farm Bureau Federation, Farm Bureau Survey: Farmers Want to Control Their Own Data (11 May 2016),
American Farm Bureau Federation, Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data (‘Principles for Farm Data’),
Bowcott, Owen and Alex Hern, ‘Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Face Class Action Lawsuit, The Guardian (10 April 2018),
CGIAR, Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets; CGIAR, Open Access and Data Management Policy.
Climate Fieldview, Innovating at the Intersection of Agriculture and Technology,
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, The Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014).
Cosgrove, Emma, ‘John Deere Obtains Ag Data Transparent Certification Adding New Fuel to the Slow Burning Cert’, AgFunder News (1 March 2018),
Farm Data Accreditation Ltd, New Zealand Farm Data Code of Practice, version 1.1, Clause 4,
Ferrell, Shannon, Technology in Agriculture: Data-Driven Farming, United States Senate (14 November 2017),
Janzen AgLaw, Ag Data Transparent: Information about the Project to Bring Transparency to Ag Data,
Janzen AgLaw, Is Your Tech Provider Ag Data Transparent?,
Janzen, Todd, Technology in Agriculture: Data-Driven Farming, United States Senate (14 November 2017),
John Deere, John Deere receives Ag Data Transparent seal of approval, News Release (26 February 2018),
Keogh, Mick, Data—The New Productivity and Competition Catalyst, 21 May 2017,
Moran, Jenny, (Chairman), Technology in Agriculture: Data-Driven Farming, United States Senate (14 November 2017),
National Farmers’ Federation, National Farmers’ Federation Pre-Budget Submission 2018-19, 22 December 2017.
New Zealand Farm Data Code of Practice, Accredited Organisations,
NZ Farm Data Code of Practice, Become Accredited - Demonstrate Excellence, Provide Assurance,
Ryan, Claudine, ‘Healthy heart tick is being retired, so what worked and what didn't about our most well-known food logo?’, ABC News (online), 17 December 2015,