As Pieter Couwenbergh and Hilda Bouma noted in their article “Vogelvrij” in the *Financieel Dagblad* of 14 May 2026, an increasing number of directors at museums and cultural centres feel unsafe.
Now that the initial dust has settled following the court ruling in the case of Birgit Donker v the National Photography Museum, it is important to turn our attention to the institutional shortcomings in the Governance Code for Culture (GCC). Unfortunately, supervisory boards still too often invoke their role as employers to dismiss the director or chief executive, silence them and thereby absolve themselves of any responsibility for “trouble” without showing that they have complied with the rules of the GCC.
To gain some insight into the differing views on the validity of the Code, two recently published documents may be of use; these take very different approaches to the improvements in governance and oversight within the cultural sector, which the Minister and the Council for Culture also consider necessary.
One view is expressed by Cultuur+Ondernemen (C-O), which has long been the administrator of the Code and, as the primary stakeholder, focuses on the ongoing adaptation of the rules governing good governance and supervision. This organisation has just launched the new GCC, which is an update of previous versions and does not contain any fundamentally new insights.
Concerned colleagues
This is certainly the case with the white paper by Sjarel Ex, former director of Boijmans van Beuningen, and Jaap van Maanen, a former professor of corporate governance and boardroom consultant, who, as interested stakeholders with practical experience of cultural governance, have listened carefully to colleagues who have experienced – whether first-hand or otherwise – the failings of current practice. These experiences rarely come to light, and then only in cases where differences of opinion between the director and the supervisory board lead to the dismissal of the director of the art institution with little or no justification. Ex, in particular, as an experienced artistic and cultural administrator, received an increasing number of messages from concerned colleagues who feel let down by their supervisory boards. As is also evident from the aforementioned article in the FD. These are situations I can confirm from my own experience, and which point to an alarming lack of a sense of responsibility among many individual supervisory board members, funding bodies and local administrators.
We can safely assume that, even if the latest version of the GCC is being read, this is limited to well-meaning management teams and those members of the supervisory board who realise that they lack the knowledge required to supervise an organisation operating in a sector unfamiliar to them. Apart from the omnipotent status of the supervisors – who believe they need no further information because they already know everything (after all, they would not have been appointed otherwise) – the ideal-typical supervisor as described in the Code is virtually non-existent.
A random boardroom
Members of supervisory boards are usually recruited from among distinguished figures in the business world, the legal profession, accountancy and consultancy. Members with a background in the arts and culture or academia are in the minority. This has led to a situation where it is apparently entirely accepted that, as is the case with the recently criticised Nederlands Fotomuseum, the supervisory board consists of individuals from the upper echelons of the commercial sector. Of the four members (as at 29 June), one is a practising photographer; the rest could easily be sitting at the same table in any boardroom.
There’s something amiss here. Unfortunately, it seems to be becoming the norm for the regulator to act as if it were the owner of the arts organisation it is supposed to supervise. Anyone who regards themselves as the owner behaves like an owner; that’s hardly surprising. In the absence of shareholders, as is the case in the business world, you simply take on that role as the statutory employer of the director/manager, even without being asked. The statutory director/manager is therefore, whether they like it or not, closely scrutinised by people who know everything about growth, entrepreneurship and accountability. It is through this that they have built a glittering career in the business world. It is curious that when the director themselves seeks expert advice on running the arts organisation – for example, by consulting experienced fellow directors or the in-house accountant – this advice is, as it were, duplicated a priori within the Supervisory Board.
Fit
Is this phenomenon new? Not at all. In 2020, a well-researched article appeared in the *Theaterkrant* written by Felix Welsink, a Master’s student in Behavioural Economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam. In his article, Welsink highlights what he sees as the dominant role of the economic approach to cultural expressions. He questions whether the GCC will lead to cultural institutions creating more cultural value and thereby strengthening the sector. The application of the GCC is about making cultural institutions financially and organisationally independent. Welsink concludes: in doing so, the GCC creates a framework, a mould within which the arts institution and its management must operate.
It stands to reason that, in practice, this trend towards uniformity, standardisation, planned growth and predictable risk is not at the top of a talented director’s wish list. Unlike successful entrepreneurs, they strive for unique creations where it is only after presentation that it can be determined whether, in the eyes of the board, the project has been a success and why. The average entrepreneur tries to move on to series production as quickly as possible – and, if possible, to mass production – in order to keep costs low and returns as high as possible. Moreover, they have a keen eye for marketing, as success is driven by demand.
New Catechism
A good work of art, concept or idea is, by its very nature, supply-driven; whether and how it is received by society is impossible to predict. After all, an arts organisation is first and foremost a business of mindset, which naturally requires astute management. The drive towards standardisation is understandable, but it is doomed to fail. Should it appear that this is already succeeding in one aspect or another of artistic practice, it soon becomes apparent that there is no consensus amongst the respective participants in the consortium; after all, the creation of unique works cannot be standardised.
I regard C-O’s attempt to foster the belief that, with a new catechism, administration and governance will now finally run smoothly as an illusion. I have attended too many harmonised and standardised exhibitions, festivals, literary events and performing arts productions in the countries of the former Soviet Union to expect any benefit from ever-increasing, finely meshed sets of instructions. Incidentally, closer to home too, the once-effective Dienst Kunstgebouwen (DGK) has ceased to exist due to the increasing emancipation of Rotterdam’s art institutions.
The Minister would do well to study the white paper by Ex et al. carefully, to do away with the fiction of ownership and employer status within the Supervisory Board, and thereby to safeguard the fundamental artistic (human) rights of the management. Ex and Van Maanen also make sensible points regarding the current lack of oversight over the supervisory body.
It is not without reason that Sjarel Ex stated that, whilst he is pleased with the ruling on Birgit Donker’s unfair dismissal, he also has concerns: “I am pleased with the court’s ruling but concerned about the following: this could happen to any director or board member in the arts sector at the moment; the regulator who helped instigate her dismissal is still in her post … as a board member; those involved in the smear campaign should be collectively ashamed, and all the funders and so-called supporters – and yes, the politicians who looked the other way – should take a long, hard look at themselves.”
A deafening bomb blast
The Dutch Photographic Museum case can be added – as either a high point or a low point – to Ex and Van Maanen’s anonymised list. The deafening impact of the judgement of 29 June on faith in written guidelines for good governance could scarcely be greater. It is high time to finally bid farewell to the idea that policy can be formulated, followed and enforced on the basis of a theoretical reality derived from a set of instructions known as the Governance Code for Culture. As is customary with instruction manuals, these are only brought out – if they can be found at all – when the machine has broken down; in this case, when there are “signs” that something is amiss.
Looking back at my own experience in the arts, I have encountered countless instances of mismanagement and/or inadequate supervision, in which utterly absurd actions were taken, particularly on the part of the supervisory bodies, or decrees were handed down to the board and/or staff as if it were the most natural thing in the world. (In such cases, the director or manager can count themselves lucky that no anonymous letter has been sent highlighting all manner of alleged malpractices, which naturally concern the functioning of the management.) All in all, it can do no harm to turn our attention to the “monstrosity” that is the Governance Code for Culture, which the art world has been dragging along behind it for almost 30 years now (a dead horse is nothing by comparison).
The euphoria surrounding the Tabaksblat Code in the corporate world led some people – including members of the established art establishment – to come up with the idea at the time of creating something similar for the art world, in order to “finally” help that chaotic mishmash of small and large groups, small groups, large and small venues and museums to “finally” be brought under proper governance, modelled on ‘Tabaksblat’, which, after all, seemed to promise clarity and uniform oversight of the business world. The fact that the business world and the art world differ considerably from one another in more ways than one did not seem to be an objection.
Glück Auf!
Nederlands 
English (UK) 
Français 