The moment of exchange : risk, vulnerability, responsibility

Any cycle of production and exchange – be it economic, cultural or aesthetic – involves an element of risk. It involves uncertainty, unpredictability, and a potential for new insight and innovation (the boom) as well as blockages, crises and breakdown (the bust). In performance, the risks are plentiful – economic, political, social, physical and psychological. The risks people are willing to take depend on their position in the exchange (performer, producer, venue manager or spectator), and their aesthetic preferences. This paper considers the often uncertain, confronting or ‘risky’ moment of exchange between performer, spectator and culture in Live Art practices. Encompassing body art, autobiographical art, site-specific art and other sorts of performative intervention in the public sphere, Live Art eschews the artifice of theatre, breaking down barriers between art and life, artist and spectator, to speak back to the public sphere, and challenge assumptions about bodies, identities, memories, relationships and histories. In the process, Live Art frequently privileges an uncertain, confrontational or ‘risky’ mode of exchange between performer, spectator and culture, as a way of challenging power structures. This paper examines the moment of exchange in terms of risk, vulnerability, responsibility and ethics. Why the romance with ‘risky’ behaviours and exchanges? Who is really taking a risk? What risk? With whose permission (or lack thereof)? What potential does a ‘risky’ exchange hold to destabilise aesthetic, social or political norms? Where lies the fine line between subversive intervention in the public sphere and sheer self-indulgence? What are the social and ethical implications of a moment of exchange that puts bodies, beliefs or social boundaries at ‘risk’? In this paper, these questions are addressed with reference to historical and contemporary practices under the broadly defined banner of Live Art, from the early work of Abrovamic and Burden, through to contemporary Australian practitioners like Fiona McGregor.

Corporate social and environmental responsibility in relation to the agricultural sector and the food supply chain : a Case Study of Waitrose

Waitrose has a strong commitment to organic farming but also uses products from 'conventional' farms. At the production stage, Waitrose own-label products are fully traceable, GM-free and all suppliers undergo a detailed assessment programme based on current best practice. Crop suppliers to Waitrose operate an authenticity programme to certify that each assignment is GM-free and produce is screened for pesticide residues. Waitrose sources conventional crops grown from 'Integrated Crop Management Systems' (ICMS) using best horticultural practices. The 'Assured Product' scheme regulates all UK produce to ICMS standards and these audits are being extended worldwide. Business is withdrawn from suppliers who fail the audit. In relation to this, Waitrose has increased its Fairtrade range as in its view 'Buying these products provides direct additional benefit to workers in the developing countries where they are produced and assists marginal producers by giving them access to markets they would not otherwise have'. Currently, Waitrose is developing its own sustainable timber assessment criteria. For livestock, protocols are in place to ensure that animals are reared under the 'most natural conditions possible' and free range produce is offered where animals have access to open space although some produce is not from free-range animals. Waitrose also use a 'Hazards Analysis Critical Points' system to identify food safety hazards that occur at any stage from production to point of sale and to ensure that full measures are in place to control them. In addition, mechanisms have been implemented to reduce fuel use and hence reduce CO2 emissions in the transport of products and staff, and to increase the energy use efficiency of refrigeration systems which account for approximately 60% of Waitrose energy use.

Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social responsibility information : evidence from Bangladesh

Purpose – The aim of the paper is to describe and explain, using a combination of interviews and content analysis, the social and environmental reporting practices of a major garment export organisation within a developing country. Design/methodology/approach – Senior executives from a major organisation in Bangladesh are interviewed to determine the pressures being exerted on them in terms of their social and environmental performance. The perceptions of pressures are then used to explain – via content analysis – changing social and environmental disclosure practices. Findings – The results show that particular stakeholder groups have, since the early 1990s, placed pressure on the Bangladeshi clothing industry in terms of its social performance. This pressure, which is also directly related to the expectations of the global community, in turn drives the industry's social policies and related disclosure practices. Research limitations/implications – The findings show that, within the context of a developing country, unless we consider the managers' perceptions about the social and environmental expectations being imposed upon them by powerful stakeholder groups then we will be unable to understand organisational disclosure practices. Originality/value – This paper is the first known paper to interview managers from a large organisation in a developing country about changing stakeholder expectations and then link these changing expectations to annual report disclosures across an extended period of analysis.

The ILC's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Completion of the Second Reading

In 2001 the International Law Commission finally adopted on second reading the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, bringing to an end nearly 50 years of ILC work on the subject. This article reviews the final group of changes to the text, focusing on the definitions of ‘injury’ and ‘damage’, assurances of non‐repetition in the light of the LaGrand case, procedural aspects of countermeasures and the controversy over measures taken in response to a breach by states which are not individually injured. The focus of debate now turns to the UNGA Sixth Committee, which will have to decide what to make of the Draft Articles. The ILC itself recommended an initial resolution taking note of the Articles, with subsequent consideration (after a period of years) of a possible diplomatic conference with a view to concluding a convention. This modest proposal allows for further reflection on the text and may help to avoid possibly divisive and inconclusive debate in the Sixth Committee. At the same time it allows time for better understanding of the many changes made as compared with the first reading text (1996).