Beyond ACDC: Operationalising Fair Practice

A Structural Question Beyond One Dispute

The dispute between ACDC and DOX concerns specific events between two organisations.

However, the issues it raises extend well beyond this individual case.

They invite a broader discussion about transparency, accountability and governance within the Dutch cultural funding system.

The purpose of this chapter is therefore not to revisit the facts of this dispute.

Rather, it asks whether the current system sufficiently protects artists whose work forms part of publicly funded cultural programmes.

The Fair Practice Code

The Dutch cultural sector has taken important steps in recent years through the introduction of the Fair Practice Code.

Today, adherence to the Fair Practice Code forms part of the governance framework expected of organisations receiving structural funding from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW).

The Code is founded upon five core values:

These principles have played an important role in improving awareness of fair employment practices, responsible commissioning and good governance throughout the cultural sector.

The objectives of the Fair Practice Code deserve broad support.

This paper is therefore not a criticism of the Fair Practice Code itself.

On the contrary.

We believe the Code represents an important milestone in the development of a healthier cultural sector.

The question is whether one of its central principles—transparency—has been sufficiently translated into practical governance.

From Principles to Practice

The Fair Practice Code deliberately establishes principles rather than detailed legal rules.

That flexibility has advantages.

Different organisations operate in different artistic disciplines and require room to implement the principles in ways appropriate to their own circumstances.

At the same time, principles only become meaningful when they are reflected in day-to-day organisational practice.

Concepts such as trust, solidarity and transparency cannot be assessed simply by asking whether an organisation believes it acts fairly.

They require processes that make those principles visible, consistent and verifiable.

Good governance is ultimately demonstrated through behaviour rather than intention.

A System That Creates Gatekeepers

Many public funding programmes require organisations to demonstrate several years of organisational continuity, governance structures, financial history and an established track record before becoming eligible for significant public funding.

These requirements are understandable.

Public authorities have a legitimate interest in ensuring that public resources are entrusted to organisations capable of managing them responsibly.

However, these same requirements also create an unintended consequence.

Emerging artists and newly established cultural organisations often cannot access public funding directly.

Instead, they must collaborate with established institutions that already satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Those institutions therefore become the gateway to public funding.

Collaboration itself is not the problem.

The challenge arises when transparency within those collaborations depends primarily upon trust rather than upon transparent governance processes.

An Imbalance of Information

Within institutional collaborations, the applicant organisation necessarily controls:

The collaborating artist generally controls only the artistic work.

As a result, institutions possess complete visibility of how collaborative projects are presented to public funders, while artists may possess only their own correspondence and recollection of events.

This imbalance does not necessarily indicate misconduct.

Nevertheless, it creates circumstances in which artists may be unable to verify how their own work, organisations or artistic programmes have been represented throughout the funding process.

Transparency should not depend exclusively upon trust.

It should be capable of independent verification.

The Accountability Gap

The formal legal relationship surrounding public funding generally exists between the funding body and the applicant institution.

Collaborating artists are often not parties to that relationship, even where their work forms a significant component of the funded programme.

Consequently, institutions retain the documentary record of the funding process, while collaborating artists may have no structured means of reviewing the representations made concerning their own contribution.

This creates an accountability gap.

Such an imbalance benefits nobody.

It exposes institutions to unnecessary suspicion, artists to unnecessary uncertainty and public funders to avoidable disputes.

Greater transparency protects all participants.

Operationalising Transparency

In virtually every sector where public money is administered, transparency is supported by documented procedures, audit trails and verifiable administrative controls.

Financial accountability relies upon accounting systems.

Data protection relies upon documented compliance procedures.

Corporate governance relies upon internal controls and independent oversight.

The cultural sector should be no different.

If transparency is regarded as one of the core values of publicly funded cultural governance, it should also be reflected in practical administrative processes.

The challenge is therefore not that the Fair Practice Code contains the wrong principles.

The challenge is that those principles are not yet sufficiently operationalised.

Good governance is achieved not only by adopting values, but by embedding those values in transparent, auditable and verifiable processes.

Only then can fairness be demonstrated rather than merely declared.

Proposed Structural Improvements

The purpose of #RespectArtists is not merely to identify shortcomings.

It is to contribute practical proposals that strengthen trust between artists, cultural institutions and public funders.

1. Make the Fair Practice Code Legally Enforceable

The core principles of the Fair Practice Code, particularly transparency and fair collaboration, should not exist solely as aspirational standards where public funding is involved.

Artists whose work materially forms part of publicly funded programmes should be able to rely upon those principles as enforceable standards governing collaborative relationships.

Transparency should become a legal right rather than a matter of institutional discretion.

2. Mandatory Notification of Collaborating Artists

No artist, artistic company or cultural organisation should be included in a public funding application without being formally notified.

Notification should identify:

This should include a right of veto.

It simply ensures that collaborators know when they have become part of a publicly funded proposal.

Such notifications could be generated automatically through an existing government platform such as MijnOverheid, creating transparency with minimal additional administrative burden.

3. A National Register of Publicly Funded Collaborations

Artists should be able to consult a secure digital register identifying every public funding application in which they have been materially included.

The information already exists within the application process.

Making it accessible to collaborating artists would significantly strengthen accountability while imposing only limited additional administrative obligations.

4. A Statutory Right of Inspection

Artists whose work forms a material part of publicly funded projects should have a statutory right to inspect those sections of funding applications, budgets and reports that relate directly to their own contribution.

This is not about controlling institutional funding.

It is about verifying the accuracy of representations made concerning one's own work.

5. Independent Transparency Review

An independent reporting and review mechanism should enable artists and institutions to raise concerns regarding transparency before disagreements escalate into litigation.

The objective should not be punishment.

It should be early intervention, dialogue and constructive resolution.

6. Direct Access to Public Funding for Emerging Artists

Transparency alone cannot solve structural dependency if emerging artists remain unable to access public funding independently.

Dedicated funding programmes should therefore be established for cultural organisations that have existed for less than three years.

Such programmes should recognise that new organisations cannot reasonably be expected to demonstrate the institutional history required of long-established institutions.

Applications should instead be assessed primarily upon:

Providing emerging artists with a direct route to public funding would reduce structural dependence upon institutional gatekeepers, stimulate innovation and strengthen the diversity of the Dutch cultural landscape.

Respect Artists

Public funding exists to support culture.

Culture exists because artists create it.

When artists become sufficiently important to strengthen a public funding application, they should also become sufficiently important to know that they have been included.

Transparency does not weaken collaboration.

Transparency creates trust.

Trust strengthens institutions.

And stronger institutions create a healthier cultural sector for everyone.