‘The network is everlasting’ wrote Robert Filliou and George Brecht in 1967, a statement that, at first glance, still seems to be true of today’s world. Yet there are also signs that the omnipresence of networks is evolving into another reality. In recent times, the limits of networks rather than their endless possibilities have been brought into focus. Ongoing media debates about hate speech, fake news, and algorithmic bias swirl into a growing backlash against networks. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the contemporary reach and relevance of the network imaginary.Accompanying transmediale 2020 End to End’s exhibition ‘The Eternal Network’, this collection gathers contributions from artists, activists, and theorists who engage with the question of the network anew. In referencing Filliou’s eternal notion, the exhibition and publication project closes the loop between pre- and post-internet imaginaries, opening up possible futures with and beyond networks. This calls many of the collection’s authors to turn to instances of independent and critical net cultures as historical points of inspiration for rethinking, reforming, or refuting networks in the present.---The Eternal Network: Vom Enden und Werden der NetzkulturDEUTSCHE FASSUNG:„Das Netzwerk wird es ewig geben“, schrieben Robert Filliou und George Brecht 1967 – eine Aussage, die auf den ersten Blick auch heute noch zuzutreffen scheint. Doch gibt es auch Anzeichen, dass die Allgegenwärtigkeit von Netzwerken eine andere W irklichkeit hervorbringt. Mittlerweile rückt die Endlichkeit von Netzwerken – anstatt deren endlose Möglichkeiten – in den Fokus; davon zeugen die anhaltenden Mediendebatten über Hassrede, Fake News und algorithmischer Diskriminierung. Vielleicht ist es an der Zeit, die aktuelle Reichweite und Relevanz des Netzwerks neu zu betrachten.Begleitend zur Ausstellung „Das ewige Netzwerk“ der transmediale 2020 End to End versammelt dieser Band Beiträge von Künstler*innen, Aktivist*innen und Theoretiker* innen, die sich neu mit der Frage des Netzwerks beschäftigen. Ausstellung und Publikation beziehen sich auf Fillious Konzept von der Ewigkeit des Netzwerks. Sie verbinden dabei die Vorstellungswelten, die zeitlich vor der Entwicklung des Internets entstanden sind, mit jenen, die darauf folgten. So eröffnen sie mögliche Zukünfte mit und jenseits von Netzwerken. Viele Autor*innen in diesem Band lassen sich dabei von historischen Momenten der unabhängigen und kritischen Netzkulturen inspirieren, um Netzwerke der Gegenwart neu zu denken, sie zu reformieren oder anzufechten.
MULTIFILE
Many global challenges cannot be addressed by one single actor alone. Achieving sustainability requires governance by state and non-state market actors to jointly realise public values and corporate goals. As a form of public-private governance, voluntary standards involving governments, non-governmental organisations and companies have gained much traction in recent years and have been in the limelight of public authorities and policymakers. From a firm perspective, sustainability standards can be a way to demonstrate that they engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a credible way. To capitalise on their CSR activities, firms need to ensure their stakeholders are able to recognise and assess their CSR quality. However, because the relative observability of CSR is low and since CSR is a contested concept, information asymmetries in firm-stakeholder relationships arise. Adopting CSR standards and using these as signalling devices is a strategy for firms to reduce these information asymmetries, by revealing their true CSR quality. Against this background, this article investigates the voluntary ISO 26000 standard for social responsibility as a form of public-private governance and contends that, despite its objectives, this standard suffers from severe signalling problems. Applying signalling theory to the ISO 26000 standard, this article takes a critical stance towards this standard and argues that firms adhering to this standard may actually emit signals that compromise rather than enhance stakeholders' ability to identify and interpret firms' underlying CSR quality. Consequently, the article discusses the findings in the context of public-private governance, suggests a specification of signalling theory and identifies avenues for future research.
This book fills an important gap in the sport governance literature by engaging in critical reflection on the concept of ‘good governance’. It examines the theoretical perspectives that lead to different conceptualisations of governance and, therefore, to different standards for institutional quality. It explores the different practical strategies that have been employed to achieve the implementation of good governance principles. The first part of the book aims to shed light on the complexity and nuances of good governance by examining theoretical perspectives including leadership, value, feminism, culture and systems. The second part of the book has a practical focus, concentrating on reform strategies, from compliance policies and codes of ethics to external reporting and integrity systems. Together, these studies shed important new light on how we define and understand governance, and on the limits and capabilities of different methods for inducing good governance. With higher ethical standards demanded in sport business and management than ever before, this book is important reading for all advanced students and researchers with an interest in sport governance and sport policy, and for all sport industry professionals looking to improve their professional practice.
