Search

Digital food systems promise to connect farms, processors, logistics providers, retailers, regulators, and consumers through continuous data exchange. In this vision, production conditions, quality records, traceability events, safety alerts, inventory signals, and sustainability indicators move across the food chain as shared informational infrastructure. Yet the operational reality remains far less integrated, with food data often fragmented across systems that cannot easily communicate. The central problem is that existing debates frequently treat interoperability as a technical matter of software connection, data standards, or platform implementation. Such accounts understate the systemic, organizational, and political conditions that make data exchange difficult even when digital technologies are available. The result is a persistent gap between the promise of farm-to-fork data continuity and the practical experience of disconnection. This article develops a theory of data frictions in digital food systems. Data frictions are conceptualised as points of resistance, incompatibility, and disconnection that interrupt data flow between heterogeneous food system actors. The objective is to explain why interoperability fails across farms, processors, retailers, and regulators despite growing investment in digital agriculture, traceability systems, blockchain platforms, and data governance frameworks. The article adopts a conceptual theory-building approach based on a synthesis of 26 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2017 and 2025. It draws on information systems, food supply chain management, agricultural data governance, platform studies, and organizational theory. The synthesis does not present new empirical data but uses existing evidence to construct a theoretical explanation of interoperability failure. The theory identifies four interrelated categories of data friction: technical, semantic, organizational, and political. These frictions manifest differently across the farm-processor-retailer-regulator nexus but jointly undermine coordination, traceability, accountability, and digital transformation. The article argues that data frictions are not peripheral glitches but structural features of digital food systems, requiring governance innovation, shared standards, and incentive alignment across the chain.

Smart farming is increasingly promoted as a pathway for improving agricultural productivity, resource efficiency, climate responsiveness, and data-driven decision-making. Its core technologies include sensors, digital platforms, machine learning, remote sensing, robotics, automation, and decision-support systems. These tools are often presented as mechanisms for making agriculture more precise, predictable, and adaptive. However, smart farming is not only a technical shift in agricultural tools. It also changes how knowledge is produced, how decisions are justified, how risks are distributed, and how farmers interact with platforms, advisers, suppliers, regulators, and markets. A critical review perspective is therefore needed to examine the social, institutional, political, and ecological consequences of agricultural digitalization. This article critically reviews smart farming as a socio-technical transformation rather than a purely technical modernization process. It examines how datafication, digital governance, farmer adoption, platform dependency, power asymmetry, and sustainability tensions shape the meaning and consequences of smart farming. The central argument is that smart farming should be evaluated through its effects on data control, farmer agency, institutional accountability, and ecological responsibility. The review synthesizes scholarship on digital agriculture, precision agriculture, smart farming, data governance, adoption barriers, farmer-centered challenges, sustainability claims, and responsible innovation. It does not treat technology adoption as a simple matter of farmer willingness or technical readiness. Instead, it situates adoption within broader arrangements of infrastructure, affordability, trust, knowledge, governance, and market pressure. The article contributes a critical synthesis of smart farming evidence and develops a forward-looking agenda for research and governance. It argues that smart farming futures should be designed around transparency, participation, interoperability, accountable digital systems, social equity, and ecological care. The review therefore reframes smart farming as a contested transformation whose benefits depend on how digital systems are governed, adopted, and made accountable.

Smart farming increasingly depends on data generated by sensors, machinery, farm management systems, remote monitoring tools, digital platforms, and decision-support applications. These data flows support agronomic decision-making, resource efficiency, traceability, automation, advisory services, and supply-chain coordination. As farm operations become more data-intensive, farm data becomes a strategic resource rather than a neutral technical by-product. Farm data creates governance challenges because its production, interpretation, exchange, and reuse are distributed across multiple actors and technical systems. Farmers, technology providers, platform operators, agribusiness firms, advisors, researchers, regulators, and supply-chain actors may each hold different forms of access, control, and responsibility. This creates ambiguity around ownership claims, interoperability obligations, privacy safeguards, consent practices, accountability pathways, and farmer agency. This article develops a layered conceptual framework for farm data governance in smart farming ecosystems. The framework conceptualizes farm data governance as an interaction among data production, technical interoperability, ownership and control, privacy and consent, accountability mechanisms, platform governance, institutional oversight, and farmer agency. It argues that these layers must be analysed together because weaknesses in one layer can undermine governance capacity across the ecosystem. The article synthesizes scholarship on digital agriculture, smart farming, data ownership, interoperability, privacy, accountability, platform governance, farmer agency, and responsible innovation. Rather than treating farm data governance as a purely legal or technical matter, it develops a socio-technical model of how data flows, governance responsibilities, and institutional safeguards interact. This approach supports a more integrated understanding of responsible data governance in smart farming. The proposed framework explains how farm data governance can be organized across technical, organizational, legal, ethical, platform, and institutional layers. It highlights the need for interoperable systems, transparent contracts, meaningful consent, privacy-sensitive data practices, accountable platforms, institutional oversight, and farmer participation. The article contributes a farmer-centered governance model for smart farming ecosystems that are data-driven, trustworthy, and accountable.

Precision agriculture is increasingly organized around farm-generated data, connected machinery, remote sensing, digital advisory tools, analytics platforms, and data-sharing arrangements that reshape how decisions are made, value is created, and responsibility is distributed across agricultural systems. This article develops an original policy framework for farm data sovereignty in precision agriculture, treating sovereignty not as a simple ownership claim but as a governance condition shaped by farmer rights, access, control, consent, portability, transparency, interoperability, benefit-sharing, accountability, and institutional oversight. The framework approach is conceptual and literature-grounded, focusing on how farm data move through platform-controlled infrastructures, service contracts, advisory networks, cooperatives, research systems, and commercial analytics environments. The central policy problem is that farmers may generate data essential to precision agriculture while lacking practical ability to understand, access, transfer, audit, contest, or benefit from data and data-derived services. The article identifies key governance dimensions for fair, transparent, and interoperable farm data ecosystems, including contract fairness, platform accountability, data stewardship, privacy, cybersecurity, algorithmic transparency, dispute resolution, and collective governance. Its contribution is to provide a structured policy framework that helps policymakers, farm organizations, cooperatives, technology providers, advisory services, researchers, and platform developers diagnose governance gaps and design data policies that protect farmer agency while enabling responsible data sharing and innovation in precision agriculture.

Precision agriculture generates expanding volumes of sensor, machinery, remote-sensing, weather, soil, crop, livestock, operational, input-use, resource-use, and farm-management data. Although these data are commonly collected for immediate production purposes, they may also support sustainability reporting, environmental accountability, agricultural finance, insurance, and risk assessment. Such secondary use creates the possibility of a circular data economy in which curated farm data are responsibly reused across several applications and subsequently improved through feedback. This article proposes an original conceptual architecture for organizing these reuse pathways while preventing circularity from becoming uncontrolled extraction, opaque scoring, or unequal value capture. The architecture connects farm data generation and collection with quality and provenance review, metadata curation, consent and purpose limitation, data stewardship, interoperability, production analytics, sustainability reporting, finance and insurance applications, farmer protection, auditability, and feedback updating. It distinguishes analytical usefulness from implementation readiness and places governance gates before each consequential reuse pathway. Production reuse is treated as conditional decision support rather than a productivity guarantee; sustainability reuse is treated as bounded evidence rather than automatic reporting accuracy; and finance or insurance reuse is subject to data-quality, bias, fairness, transparency, and dispute requirements. The principal contribution is a structured circular data economy architecture that clarifies how agricultural data may circulate across domains while preserving farmer agency, contextual integrity, accountability, and explicit legal, financial, insurance, and deployment boundaries.

Artificial intelligence is becoming embedded in precision agriculture through data-intensive monitoring, predictive models, digital platforms, advisory systems, robotics, and automated machinery. These arrangements complicate accountability because consequential outputs may result from interactions among data providers, model developers, platform operators, advisors, machinery manufacturers, system integrators, service providers, and farm operators rather than from a single actor or technical component. This article proposes a conceptual accountability framework for examining AI liability issues across agricultural AI systems without treating accountability mapping as a substitute for legal interpretation. The framework begins with agricultural use-case definition and stakeholder-role mapping, then examines data-level duties concerning quality, provenance, access, control, privacy, cybersecurity, and governance. It further maps model-level responsibilities for documentation, validation, robustness, bias assessment, explainability, uncertainty communication, and drift monitoring. Platform and advisory layers are addressed through governance, interface design, monitoring, escalation, human review, professional interpretation, and farmer-autonomy requirements. Machinery, automation, and operational risks are incorporated through control-system responsibilities, sensor-to-actuator traceability, supervisory control, fail-safe design, maintenance, incident reporting, and operational boundaries. The framework also identifies liability gaps created by fragmented evidence, unclear validation ownership, platform ambiguity, ineffective human oversight, and incomplete traceability. Its contribution is a structured method for clarifying responsibility pathways, evidence needs, decision boundaries, and governance gaps across interconnected agricultural AI layers. The framework is conceptual and does not determine legal liability, establish compliance, certify safety, allocate blame, or demonstrate deployment readiness.