The European Union promotes increased data sharing to foster economic growth and innovation across various sectors, including agriculture. Data-driven advancements promise improved sustainability through optimized resource use and reduced waste. However, data sharing necessitates safeguards against potential harms, such as privacy infringements. The EU addresses this through legislation like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for personal data and the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation, which encourages voluntary codes of conduct for non-personal data. The EUCC, introduced in 2018, is one such code, designed to govern agricultural data sharing. Despite industry agreement, its practical reception and implementation remain unclear, particularly given the emergence of the EU Data Act in 2024, a horizontal legal framework for data sharing. This study aims to assess the EUCC's current status and propose improvements for its future role alongside the Data Act.

The EUCC, while not legally binding, provides five key principles for responsible data sharing: data rights (ownership), data access, control and portability, transparency and data protection, privacy and security, and liability and intellectual property. However, the literature highlights several criticisms. The voluntary nature of the EUCC is a major concern, leading to concerns about enforceability. Inadequacies in addressing data lock-in and ensuring portability are also noted. The concept of 'data ownership' is debated, with arguments favoring inalienable data access rights over transferable ownership rights to prevent power imbalances. Finally, a lack of trust in the sector, fueled by ambiguity regarding data rights, unequal bargaining power, and privacy concerns, is highlighted as a significant challenge for the EUCC's effective implementation. The Data Act's introduction further complicates the picture by providing a horizontal framework that may have limitations in addressing sector-specific agricultural data issues.

The research employed a qualitative methodology using six workshops held across Europe (Netherlands, Belgium, Romania, France, Finland, and an EU-wide online workshop). A total of 89 stakeholders participated, representing farmers, farmer associations, agri-businesses, data-sharing initiatives, ICT service providers, researchers, government bodies, and societal parties. Workshops used a two-step small group process. First, participants verified or rejected findings from the literature review on the EUCC. Second, recommendations for the EUCC's future were generated and compared to the literature. Supplementary feedback was gathered from consortium partners, member state representatives, a stakeholder committee, and an advisory board, furthering the insights from the workshops.

The workshops revealed varying levels of awareness regarding the EUCC across different European countries and stakeholder groups. While many were aware of its existence, few had used it in practice. Participants largely confirmed the literature's criticisms, highlighting the EUCC's voluntary nature, lack of enforceability, and difficulty in addressing data lock-in and power imbalances. The complexity of the EUCC's legal jargon was also identified as a barrier. Regarding data rights and ownership, participants called for clearer distinctions between data types and more attention to situations where data is co-generated. Mistrust remained a major obstacle, stemming from concerns about government oversight, misuse of data, and increased costs. Regarding the EUCC's future alongside the Data Act, opinions ranged from deeming the EUCC obsolete to advocating for substantial updates that align with the Data Act's terminology and include practical agricultural examples, model contracts, and improved enforcement mechanisms.

The research indicates that while the EUCC provides a valuable framework, its effectiveness hinges on addressing its limitations. The Data Act, while creating a horizontal framework, does not fully address sector-specific challenges in agriculture, such as data rights and access when using shared machinery. Therefore, abandoning the EUCC is not optimal. A more effective approach involves updating the EUCC to align with the Data Act, clarify terminology, provide practical examples and model contracts, and improve enforcement. Focusing on the EUCC as a sectoral framework that complements the Data Act is pragmatic, providing guidance in the interim and offering a more tailored approach to agricultural data governance.

The EUCC remains a relevant document for the agricultural sector, but requires significant updates to align with the Data Act and address stakeholder concerns. Improvements should include practical examples, model contracts, clarification of GDPR concepts, a functional enforcement mechanism, and enhanced interoperability and trust-building initiatives. Dissemination and awareness-raising efforts are crucial for the effective implementation of the updated EUCC. Further research is needed to explore how to translate the Data Act's implications for the agricultural sector and how to address the gap in awareness regarding the EUCC.

The study's findings might not be generalizable to all EU countries due to the limited geographic scope of the workshops. The reliance on self-reported data from workshops might introduce biases. The study focuses on the EUCC's reception and implementation; further research is needed to thoroughly evaluate its actual impact on data-sharing practices.