Ethical code

2 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 NOVASOIL INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Grant agreement ID: 101091268 DELIVERABLE 4.4: CODE OF ETHICS Project NOVASOIL Project title INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Work Package 4 Deliverable 4.4 Period covered M32-M36 Publication date 31/10/2025 Dissemination level PU – Public Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this report UNIPI Authors Barbora Nohlová, Greta Winkler, Francisco Jose Blanco Velázquez, Alexandra Langlais, Lisbeth Dries, Daniele Vergamini, , Luciano Pagano, Fabio Bartolini. Contributors All Ref. Ares(2025)9374356 - 31/10/2025 3 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 4 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES This document has been circulated among the broader NovaSoil consortium, including their key stakeholders, to ensure the delivery provides up-to-date information, contains no mistakes, and aligns with the multidisciplinary views of all who participated in the NovaSoil project. The following table shows the reviews conducted during the validation process. TABLE REVISION HISTORY DELIVERABLE Ro w Version Date Reviewers Description 1 V0.1 13.09.2025 UNIPI, UNIFE A presentation of the code´s structure and included information 2 V0.2 22.10.2025 All The final draft of code was presented to the wider consortium 3 V.3 24.10.2025 All The draft was circulated among the consortium partners and the sister project for feedback and more information. 5 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Project Consortium Nº Participant organisation name Countr y 1 EVENOR TECH SLU ES 2 LEIBNIZ-ZENTRUM FÜR AGRARLANDSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG GE 3 ZEMNIEKU SAEIMA LV 4 NEW BULGARIAN UNIVERSITY BU 5 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS FR 6 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 7 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN GE 8 ASSEMBLEE DES REGIONS EUROPEENNES FRUITIERES LEGUMIERES ET HORTICOLES FR 9 ISTITUTO DELTA ECOLOGIA APPLICATA SRL IT 10 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI FERRARA IT 11 WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY NL 12 EESTI TAIMEKASVATUSE INSTITUUT EE 13 UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID ES 14 UNIVERSITA DI PISA IT 15 ASOCIACION AGRARIA JOVENES AGRICULTORES DE SEVILLA ES 16 UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS GB 6 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Table of contents 1 Summary 7 2 Introduction 7 2.1 Background 8 2.2 Rationale for a code of ethics 10 2.3 Objectives 11 2.4 Nature and scope 12 2.5 Target audience 12 3 Theoretical and conceptual foundations 12 3.1 Operationalisation of the frameworks 13 3.2 Definition of an ethical business model for soil health 14 4 Process of developing the code 14 4.1 Data sets and data creation process 15 4.2 Analysis process 17 4.3 Case studies overview 18 5 Results 20 5.1 Values from the existing codes 20 5.1.1 Observed patterns 21 5.2 Values derived from the empirical data 21 5.2.1 Observed patterns 22 6. Implications: the ethical business model for soil health 23 7. Conclusions: case studies-specific ethical considerations for business models for soil health 24 6 Final ethical considerations 25 7 References 25 8 Acknowledgment 28 7 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 1 Summary The ambition of this code is to provide ethical guidance in soil management governance. At the heart of its focus lies an ethical business model for soil health. Using case studies from across Europe, this research explored various dimensions of soil-health-oriented land management to determine which practices will benefit soil, ecosystems, landscapes, and human actors across the entire land management chain. The process of creating this code began with reviewing the existing ethical frameworks (e.g., codes of conduct and ethics) present in prominent European and international soil management-related policies. The aim was to map the ethics-related landscape within existing policies and incentives, and to explore guiding ethical principles for navigating contemporary healthy-soil-oriented land management practices. However, the ultimate goal of this document was to provide guidelines for a corporate governance strategy for healthy soil management that would also align with the daily realities of various stakeholders across soil management businesses (e.g., agriculture, forestry, etc.). Therefore, it has also been grounded in a co-creative, participatory approach that focused on mapping the ethical values, principles, and considerations of all enrolled stakeholder groups across a couple of dozen workshops, focus groups, and multiplier events. This code does not provide any definite legal binding steps. Instead, it aims to guide the reader through a rich portfolio of various ethical considerations linked to sustainable soil management. Its goal is to underline that soil health, especially conceived through various business operations, is a process rather than a variable, extending far beyond biophysical indicators and embracing ideas of soil, human, environmental, and ecosystem rights. As such, it has constantly been co-created in the never-ending process of human-nature interaction. As such, we hope to raise awareness of the ethical dimension of soil management and encourage farmers, policymakers, researchers, foresters, businesses, and all actors involved in soil management to continue our work, to co-create, re-design, cooperate and explore new dimensions of social and environmental justice in their daily work to establish a new paradigm for the socially and environmentally just soil-management practices for soilheath oriented business models. 2 Introduction This code of ethics was developed through a co-creative, participatory process under the NOVASOIL project. The code aims to create a shared vision grounded in the values and principles of soil health, forming the basis of a strategy for sustainable corporate land management governance for a wide range of stakeholders across the soil management sectors. 8 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 The ambition of the code is to develop a holistic approach and introduce a wide range of values that will serve as a basis for informed decisions. The NOVASOIL project focuses on the societal and environmental benefits of investing in soil health by developing a toolbox for analysing, categorising, and promoting business models that generate economic value through sustainable soil management. Building on examples from across Europe and beyond, NOVASOIL co-develops soil-health–based business models with key stakeholders (public and private sectors: farmers, land managers, policymakers, researchers, etc.) and tests incentive mechanisms that reward practices that improve soil functions. Through an experimental and transdisciplinary approach that combines policy innovation, codevelopment, and a digital toolbox, the project seeks to make sustainable soil management profitable, socially inclusive, and aligned with international and European strategies, such as the Green Deal, Farm to Fork, and the EU Soil Strategy, including the Soil Monitoring Law (Novasoil project proposal). 2.1 Background This code centres on the ethics of sustainable soil use. At the heart of its focus are ethical considerations linked to business models for soil health. Generally speaking, the ethical considerations of soil health management focus on balancing human land management needs (e.g., social and economic) with ecosystem integrity (e.g., biodiversity support, carbon sequestration) and long-term sustainability (e.g., implementing practices promoting soil health) while maintaining: 1) A reasonable price and the sound quality of products while ensuring the ethicalness of the product (e.g., by certification) for consumers, and; 2) Economic benefits for farmers and other actors in the food supply and the land management chain; 3) Provision of environmental public goods; 4) Ecosystem services linked to forestry sites and urban sites. Sustainable soil management is now recognised as essential to supporting a projected 9.5 billion people by 2050 (Lal et al., 2014), indicating that unsustainable practices are not just environmentally destructive, but also fundamentally unethical. Recognising soil as a living system (as the basis for ecological stability and human prosperity) calls for integrating the ethical dimension into landuse decision-making. Acknowledging and promoting responsible soil management is not only an environmental concern but also a moral commitment to sustaining life, preserving livelihoods, and ensuring fair distribution of the benefits and responsibilities of soil use (Hansjurgens et al., 2018). Ethical soil management and stewardship mean that the long-term viability of business models, with the potential of promoting stable food systems and rural economies, is inseparable from the health of the soil itself. 9 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 In this light, investing in soil health becomes both an economic opportunity and a moral obligation towards societal and planetary needs. (Thomson, 2017). Soil health is critical, as it serves as a dynamic living system that needs to be preserved to provide essential ecosystem services and support food production, making it fundamental to productivity (Handayani et al., 2022). Specifically, healthy soils: 1. Sustain plant and animal production; 2. Control nutrient availability; 3. Support biodiversity; 4. Reduce erosion; 5. Enhance water and air quality; 6. Accumulate soil carbon. Soil health is interlinked with plants, trees and crop health, with microorganism diversity playing a crucial role (Singh et al., 2024). Sustainable production depends on maintaining soil health, which requires holistic management strategies that preserve its multiple critical functions (Doran & Zeiss, 2000). Investing in soil health not only promotes crop productivity but also enhances the soil´s resistance to climate impacts, strengthens biodiversity, retains water, and supports the livelihoods of rural communities (Hannam et al., 2025). While the soil-health-oriented investments may not show immediate returns, the long-term benefits demonstrate that sustainable soil management is a reasonable and strategic asset rather than a cost (Paustian et al., 2016). The evidence shows that unsustainable soil management practices pose multiple ethical implications: first, they threaten the soil’s “telos” or natural purposefulness, by which they violate the soil’s right to maintain its physical, chemical, and biological cycles (van Mansvelt et al., 2021). The consequences, such as soil degradation in the form of erosion, nutrient depletion, and organic matter reduction, directly undermine the soil’s capacity to support productivity and environmental quality (Karlen et al., 2015). This creates a chain of interrelated socio-ecological injustices and ethical dilemmas, ultimately harming both the natural and human worlds. Soils require comprehensive protection because they are critical to a wide range of functions supporting the life of ecosystems and human biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and food and crop production (Boer et al., 2014). According to Alblas et al. (2025), the gap in sufficient soil health protection stems from the fact that, while laws require a uniform approach, soils do not exist in a homogeneous form and, most importantly, are still not fully understood. In short, there is a need for additional legal instruments that provide comprehensive protection for soil health and support its irreplaceable role in human survival and environmental sustainability (Nwapi et al., 2015). 10 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Since soil health is a critical condition for environmental and ecosystem stability and human prosperity, the loss of soil functions represents not only a biophysical degradation but also a failure to preserve an essential condition for the survival of present and future generations (Montanarella et. al., 2016). Therefore, soil health promotion and protection pose a collective ethical responsibility to embrace ecological and environmental integrity and social justice as core pillars of sustainable land management. 2.2 Rationale for a code of ethics Integrating the ethics dimension with soil management practices is essential for addressing human productive needs alongside the intrinsic ecological value of soil ecosystems (IPBES, 2018). The evidence suggests that in order to address these needs, a holistic approach that respects both production and natural soil systems is needed (van Mansvelt et al., 2021). To integrate ethics with these preconditions, it is important to treat soil as a nonrenewable resource, valuing its preciousness while also acknowledging the responsible and participatory human dimensions of its management (De Corato et al., 2023). The need for ethical guidelines is framed by the urgency of soil degradation in Europe, which could severely impact food security and rural livelihoods in the future. Several international and European frameworks already exist to guide ethical behaviour in agricultural and food production systems. However, they remain fragmented, as they do not provide comprehensive (and cross-cutting) ethical guidance that addresses both the socio-ecological and environmental dimensions of soil health. Some of the most prominent of these are as follows: 1) EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices primarily addresses the ethical considerations related to food production, nutrition, consumer transparency, and responsible marketing within the agri-food supply chain; 2) The UN Convention to Combat Desertification Code of Conduct addresses land degradation and desertification risks through a policy and land-restoration optics. 3) The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Code of Conduct focuses on phytosanitary standards and the prevention of pest spread in the trade. 4) The FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (VGSSM) provide a technical framework for soil conservation and ecosystem service protection, emphasising sustainability and stewardship. 5) The FAO International Code of Conduct for the Sustainable Use and Management of Fertilisers focuses on minimising pollution and promoting responsible input use. 6) National soil science society codes (e.g., in the UK, Australia, and the US) focus on promoting professional integrity and scientific responsibility. 17 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Figure 3: The links between the prominent EU and international soil management policies; source: authors. The empirical data set comprised data collected through interviews and participatory workshops, involving over two hundred stakeholders across a couple of dozen workshops, focus groups, multiplayer events and individual interviews. The participating stakeholder groups included farmers, representatives of farmer associations, policymakers, researchers, and actors from the agricultural, forestry and business sectors. 4.2 Analysis process Both data sets (codes of ethics and conduct and empirical data created during interviews, stakeholder workshops, focus groups and multiplayer events) were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. The analysis was based on inductive open coding in MAXQDA 2024. We analysed codes using two interpretative text analysis methods: literal reading, which focused exclusively on values explicitly stated in the text, and thematic reading, which identified implicit value structures and patterns across the documents. Through this process, core values were identified. The empirical data (interview transcripts and workshop, multiplayer events and focus group notes) were also inductively coded to identify values and ethical considerations related to soil and land use expressed by stakeholders. This analytical process enabled an assessment of the normative values present in existing ethical frameworks and of empirically derived stakeholder views on ethics. After analysing these two datasets individually and interpreting the results, we compared the outcomes and identified crossovers and differences. The shared and context-specific values emerging from both datasets provided the empirical and conceptual foundation for the ethical guidelines developed in this code. 18 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 4.3 Case studies overview 2 The empirical part of the research was grounded in the case studies, which provided a rich platform (and context) for all the stakeholder interactions. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of all of them. Integrated production in the vineyards (NBU) The case study’s overarching aim is twofold: first, to improve soil conditions in commercial vineyards by reducing erosion, enhancing soil organic matter, and stabilising yields; and second, to translate these biophysical improvements into tangible economic value through product differentiation, certification of traditional products, and alliances with wine tourism. Integrated production in Estonia (METK) Estonia’s integrated production case revolves around METK, a state R&D institute under the Ministry of Rural Affairs. METK breeds crops, produces certified seed across ~1,100 ha, and, among others, runs applied research on how catch crops, tillage systems and fertilisation affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of soils. CiRAA LTEs on conventional and organic agriculture: Payment for Ecosystem Services (UNIPI) The case study’s ambition is to translate this scientific evidence base into a practical Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) architecture that rewards farmers for verified improvements in soil condition while maintaining commercially viable farming operations. Rather than asking farmers to adopt soil-friendly practices based on goodwill alone, the model creates clear financial incentives tied to measurable environmental outcomes, backed by credible long-term data that reduce risk for both farmers and paying agencies. District of the Sands: Carbon Credits (DELTA & UNIFE) Strategically, it seeks to turn that stewardship into cash flow through a Sustainability District, an integrated model that blends carbon farming with certification/production standards and value-chain signalling for coastal horticulture. The District is conceived not as a single project, but as a portfolio: multiple farms, coordinated practices, shared monitoring and an institutional backbone that lowers costs and raises credibility. Rueda, Organic vineyards: Integrated production Economically, holdings stack a predictable public base with small but reliable top-ups, while saving on inputs through composted by-products and shared kits. Institutionally, the case shows how IP certification + eco-schemes + light, result-based MRV can be woven into a coherent, low-friction offer that is credible to buyers, workable for administrators and usable for growers. 2 This subchapter was derived from the text of delivery 1.4. 19 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Integrated Production in Andalusian Olive Groves (ASAJA) Integrated Production (IP) in Andalusian olive groves is one of the best examples of a reliable, profitable business model that simultaneously promotes soil health. Since its implementation in 2005, this system has expanded significantly in area, covering both table olive and olive oil groves. Its central objective is to combine productivity with sustainability, offering a product with added environmental and social value through the official Integrated Production label. Bodenfruchtbarkeitsfonds: Payments for Ecosystem services (TUM) Overall, farmers perceived the Soil Fertility Fund as a practical, trust-based, and empowering initiative. It gives them both the freedom and the professional support needed to implement soil-building practices effectively. Compared to public programmes, the fund was viewed as more holistic, less bureaucratic, and more focused on the soil itself rather than on narrow carbon metrics. This combination of ecological conviction, practical support, and social learning explains the high level of satisfaction and engagement among participating farms. Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Tamarguillo Park The Tamarguillo Park is an ample urban green space where soils have been exposed to contamination and constant pressure from housing, traffic and planning decisions. Framed within NOVASOIL as a Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) pilot, the case addresses two connected challenges: the biophysical degradation of urban soils (contamination, low SOM, compaction and sealing) and the institutional gap between the park’s management budgets and the public benefits those soils provide (run-off control, cooling, biodiversity, recreation and property-value uplift). CS: ZSA DIH System (ZSA) The Latvian case study builds on the integration of soil data and soil management practices into a digital mapping service hosted within the ZSA Digital Innovation Hub (DIH). It aims to address gaps in information exchange among state and local authorities, landowners, and the general public on soil health and management practices, with the sole aim of increasing the adoption of soil-friendly practices that would improve soil health, especially organic matter. A model for multifunctional and sustainable local development of marginal areas: Value chain (UNIPI) This case study originated from an integrated supply chain project funded under the European Union's rural development policy, which brought together a collaborative network of research centres, private companies, farmers, and public administrations. The project's fundamental insight recognises that marginal areas cannot compete with more productive lowland regions through conventional commodity cereal production alone. 20 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Instead, the strategic approach involves transforming existing agricultural systems by introducing perennial medicinal and aromatic plants (particularly lavender) while simultaneously transitioning from conventional to organic farming. 5 Results 5.1 Values from the existing codes Across the analysed codes of conduct and ethics, we identified the following groups of values: 1. Human rights-related values (e.g., respect for human dignity, equality); 2. Virtues-related values (e.g., respect, humility); 3. Social and relational values (e.g., inclusion, transparency); 4. Environmental values (e.g., stewardship); 5. Performance-related values (e.g., excellence). The following table shows all of the identified values clustered under the abovementioned categories: Table 1: Values categories with their definition and values identified in the existing codes; source: authors. Value category Values Definition 1. Human rights-related values Respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law, respect for human rights (including rights of minorities) Values addressing fundamental freedoms and the inherent worth of a human being. They refer to decisions and practices that embrace justice, participation, and nondiscrimination in accordance with universal human rights principles. 2. Virtue-related values Open-mindedness, tolerance, integrity, respect, responsibility, humility, humanity Values that guide ethical behaviour. They reflect virtues such as honesty, empathy, accountability, and the ability to act with moral excellence toward others and nature. 3. Social and relational values Inclusion, fairness, transparency, and information confidentiality Values related to relationships between individuals, communities and institutions. They are linked with trust, equity, accountability, and mutual respect in collaborative governance and decisionmaking. 21 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Value category Values Definition 4. Environmental values Stewardship Values linked with the intrinsic worth of nature and the human duty to care for, protect, and regenerate natural systems. 5. Performancerelated values Professional knowledge, Excellence Values linked with competence. They refer to evidence-based practice, innovation, quality outcomes, and a commitment to high standards in managing soil and agricultural systems. 5.1.1 Observed patterns Across the codes, we observed several patterns. Firstly, the identified categories of values (human-rights related, environmental, etc.) cover both dimensions of sustainable soil management (environmental and social), indicating a trend towards a holistic approach to the soil-health-related practices. However, these values appear across various documents (and are not unified under a single framework), indicating that a unified, cross-cutting ethical framework guiding sustainable soil management (and, subsequently, ethical business models) is currently missing. Secondly, the observed patterns that can be generalised (and thus serve as a basis for a more unified framework suggest the following: 1) Access to soil and its benefits must be equitable and inclusive. This reflects emphasis on the distributive dimension of justice, emphasising the fair distribution of the costs and benefits of sustainable soil management, as well as inclusion of all the relevant stakeholders (both on the individual and community level) into all the stages of land management governance. 2) Sustainable soil management should be centred around collaboration and shared stewardship. This suggests a proposal for participatory decision-making that invites all relevant stakeholders to co-create and sustain solutions. 3) Knowledge-sharing should be an ethical imperative to achieve fair governance. This stresses the need for transparent communication and capacity-building. 4) Transparency and social accountability reflect the emphasis on reliable and verifiable practices, transparent reporting, and mechanisms that ensure trust between various groups of stakeholders. 5.2 Values derived from the empirical data The key value categories identified based on the empirical data were the following: • Accountability and transparency-related values (e.g., integrity); 22 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 • Collective responsibility-related values (e.g., cooperation along the supply chain); • Working conditions-related values (e.g., recognition of the farmers´ work importance). Table 2 demonstrates all of the identified values clustered under the abovementioned categories: Table 2: Values categories with their definition and values based on the empirical data; source: authors. Value category Values Definition 1. Accountability and transparencyrelated values Transparency, accountability, responsibility, scientific credibility, trust, proportional income, longterm commitment, and precaution against greenwashing. These values refer to the need for verifiable evidence, transparent communication, and consistency between claims and actions. 2. Collective responsibilityrelated values Community cooperation, knowledge sharing, inclusion, social responsibility, territorial governance, environmental stewardship, cohesion, shared value-chain commitment, resilience. These values refer to the cooperation and coordinated action among farmers, policymakers, businesses, and consumers. 3. Working conditionsrelated values Fair treatment, recognition of farmers’ work value, equity in working standards, a safe working environment, and individual well-being. These values refer to the human dimension of sustainable soil management. 5.2.1 Observed patterns One of the first notable patterns among the values and categories identified from the empirical data was a strong orientation towards working conditions and the work process. While the values present in the existing codes covered a wider portfolio of themes, the Straightforward orientation towards more “daily-reality „oriented values was evident in the empirical data. Secondly, unlike the values identified in the existing codes, the empirically based values reflected the socio-economic dimension of sustainable soil management much more than the environmental one. This, once again, underscores the need to integrate ethical considerations with the lived realities of the relevant stakeholders. 23 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 6. Implications: the ethical business model for soil health The ethical frameworks within European and international agricultural policies indicate an orientation towards a more universal business model for soil health, grounded evenly in both dimensions of sustainable land management: the environmental and the social. However, empirical data indicate that a viable business model for soil health that reflects stakeholders' needs (and thus has the potential to be implemented and sustained) spans across multiple dimensions and stages of sustainable soil management. Based on the empirical data, the ethical business models for soil health need to: 1) Be credible and science-based, preventing misleading practices (e.g., greenwashing) and supporting public confidence and legitimacy regarding soil-related incentives and investments. Accountability and transparency in such a model serve as safeguards against exploitation (as, for example, in the case of a carbon credit business model and result-based business incentives that could measure effective soil health improvement) and ensure that economic benefits are distributed based on measurable contributions to soil improvement, including the focus on individual farm performance. 2) Promote interdependence and collaborative responsibility for maintaining soil functions for the common good. This means active support for participatory governance, shared learning, and collective investment in soil regeneration and sustainable practices, rather than practices promoting competitiveness or individualistic approaches. In this case, the creation of an institution that would help the farmers with the monitoring and support them in transition towards soil regeneration (also providing the technical and informational support and funding) would be vital. 3) Focus on the social dimension of sustainable soil management by promoting dignity, safe working conditions, and fairness for the people who manage the soil and depend on it. This also relates to the call to acknowledge the value of farmers' work by recognising their contributions to society and ensuring their fair compensation and safety. Based on the identified patterns, an ethical business model for soil health should serve as a governance framework grounded in fairness, shared responsibility, and stewardship. This means it should ensure inclusive access to land-based benefits, protect and include marginalised stakeholder groups, and enable participation in decision-making processes. 24 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Business operations under such a framework need to promote collaboration rather than competition along the whole supply chain. Knowledge exchange and fair benefit-sharing should be institutionalised to prevent power asymmetries and ensure that risks and rewards are fairly distributed. Furthermore, soil must be treated as a living system, requiring long-term investment that safeguards ecosystem functions and food security for present and future generations. Transparency and social accountability should be mandatory aspects of soil-related business models, including regular reporting and participatory monitoring, to ensure the legitimacy and ethical integrity of soil health investments. An ethical business model for soil health should ensure environmental integrity and shared responsibility among all stakeholders. Such a model should actively prevent the abuse of incentives by requiring compliance and accountability from both public and private actors. Finally, ethical soil-health business practices must also encourage consumer responsibility, acknowledging that market demand plays a critical role in shaping land management outcomes. With this in mind, the model should prioritise the moral obligation to support vulnerable landscapes and the farmers who manage them, ensuring that their work is valued and recognised and their working conditions are fair and safe. This means a stewardship-based approach promoting interdependence and longterm sustainability. 7. Conclusions: case studies-specific ethical considerations for business models for soil health The case studies demonstrated that, from the perspective of local stakeholders, a successful sustainable soil-health business model relies heavily on active stakeholder participation, well-targeted incentives, and context-specific support. Identifying and using more effective stimuli to encourage farmer participation in research was essential, particularly for testing carbon farming and privately funded soil biodiversity promotion and protection schemes. Participatory workshops were recognised as a vital tool for communication and cooperation, in which actors had the chance to co-develop solutions, in line with principles of inclusion, transparency, and shared stewardship as ethical cornerstones. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of empathy from project partners and the need to ensure that proposed business models are accessible for all the “users”. The promotion of traditional crop varieties, cultural identity, and territorial values was recognised as a strong motivator for stakeholder engagement. 25 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 For example, actors expressed willingness to adopt agroecological practices when these practices aligned with local values and provided clear benefits for the local communities. This reflects relational values and intergenerational responsibility, indicating the need to conceive the land not just as a “production asset,” but also as cultural and ecological heritage. The ethical concerns included high certification costs, low consumer awareness, and unequal access to policy support for small or unregistered producers, as identified systemic injustices. Additionally, some universal EUlevel practices were not perceived as suitable for local climates, underscoring the importance of context sensitivity. 6 Final ethical considerations We dedicate this section to the final ethical considerations that arose throughout the code-creation process: 1) For the ethical soil management and governance to be truly socially just, it must be grounded within the existing property rights systems, therefore promoting the balance between the legitimate public interests and the autonomy of landowners to address both the collective and individual rights. 2) At the same time, it is crucial to protect the interests of farmers (and any other relevant stakeholder groups on the individual and collective levels), as they should have equal access to transparent information, technical support and the ability to formulate (and participate in the process of taking and implementing) the informed decisions. 3) The ethical dimension of soil management also encompasses the power position of researchers, policymakers, and other experts in shaping soil-related decisions within the decision-making processes to prevent the generation of power asymmetries and the exclusion of some actors from any relevant processes. 4) Embedding ethics into research practice must promote a culture of responsibility, humility, and (self)reflexivity, and the protection of the enrolled stakeholders, as they provide much of their data, must be ensured.. 7 References Agyeman, J., Bullard, R. D., & Evans, B. (2002). Exploring the nexus: Bringing together sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space & Polity, 6(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570220137907. Alori, E. T., & Nwapi, C. (2015). The international legal regime for sustainable soil. In R. Ako & D. Olawuyi (Eds.), Food and agricultural law: Readings on sustainable agriculture and the law in Nigeria (pp. 98–114). Afe Babalola University Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2641138. Alblas et al. (2025). Bridging Law and Soil Science to Promote Soil Health. European Journal of Soil Science, 76(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.70127. 26 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Arias-Arévalo, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., & Pérez-Rincón, M. (2018). Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environmental Values, 27(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513. De Corato, U. (2024). Impact of the sustainable agricultural practices for governing soil health from the perspective of a rising agri-based circular bioeconomy. Applied Soil Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.10519. Dawson, A. & Knowles, O. (2018). To grid or not to grid – a review of soil sampling strategies. In: Farm environmental planning – Science, policy and practice. (Eds L. D. Currie and C. L. Christensen). Doran, J. W., & Zeiss, M. R. (2000). Soil health and sustainability: Managing the biotic component of soil quality. Applied Soil Ecology, 15(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2023.105199. Gamajunova, V. V., Kuvshinova, A. O., Kudrina, V. S., & Sydiakina, O. V. (2020). Influence of biologics on water consumption of winter barley and sunflower in conditions of the Ukrainian Southern Steppe. Innovative Solutions in Modern Science, (6 (42)), 149–176. 10.26886/2414-634X.6(42)2020.9. Handayani, I. P., & Hale, C. (2022). Healthy soils for productivity and sustainable development in agriculture. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1018(1), 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/17551315/1018/1/012038. Hannam, J. A., Harris, M., Deeks, L., Hoskins, H., Hutchison, J., Withers, A. J., Harris, J. A., Way, L., & Rickson, R. J. (2025). Developing a multifunctional indicator framework for soil health. Ecological Indicators, 175, 113515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113515 Hansjürgens, B., Lienkamp, A., & Möckel, S. (2018). Justifying soil protection and sustainable soil management: Creation-ethical, legal and economic considerations. Sustainability, 10(10), 3807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103807. Ines, R. (2023). Clay-induced permeability decline in sandstone reservoirs. Applied Clay Science, 240, 106905. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03756505(23)00138-4. IPBES (2018): Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on land degradation and restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. R. Scholes, L. Montanarella, A. Brainich, N. Barger, B. ten Brink, M. Cantele, B. Erasmus, J. Fisher, T. Gardner, T. G. Holland, F. Kohler, J. S. Kotiaho, G. Von Maltitz, G. Nangendo, R. Pandit, J. Parrotta, M. D. Potts, S. Prince, M. Sankaran and L. Willemen (eds.). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 44 pages. Karlen, D. L., & Rice, C. W. (2015). Soil degradation: Will humankind ever learn? Sustainability, 7(9), 12490–12501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912490.