Search Results

International Chamber of Commerce, World Business Organisation - ICC WBO Netherlands represents the voice of Dutch businesses on the global stage. For business. For you. International Chamber of Commerce, The World Business Organisation: Enabling peace, prosperity and sustainability through trade Global Advocacy Ensuring business voices are heard internationally Global Advocacy Ensuring business voices are heard internationally Business Solutions Providing practical solutions for global trade challenges Business Solutions Providing practical solutions for global trade challenges Dispute Resolution Resolving disputes in international trade for over 100 years Dispute Resolution Resolving disputes in international trade for over 100 years Trade & Global Economy 3 November Competitiveness in times of Geo-economic Fragmentation As global power shifts toward fragmented multipolarity, trade is increasingly shaped by geopolitics, security, and strategic autonomy. Businesses must navigate competing rules, supply-chain risks, and political pressures to remain competitive in an era of geo-economic fragmentation. Read more ICC is the collective voice of the real economy . Through a unique mix of advocacy, solutions and standard setting, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) champions the needs of businesses, large and small, in global decision- making and leveraging private sector know-how to deliver solutions that turn interconnected challenges into opportunity for all. Upcoming Events Managing Risk in Cross-Border Transactions: Practical Insights on ICC Arbitration Thu 27 Nov Den Haag More info RSVP Webinar ‘The Dark Pattern’, a conversation with Professor Guido Palazzo, co-author Tue 02 Dec Location is TBD More info RSVP Incorporating Diversity and Inclusion in Decision Making Thu 04 Dec ICC Netherlands More info Buy Tickets ICC Joint Arbitration Day Thu 11 Dec Bruxelles More info RSVP Links ICC Incoterms® 2020 ESG Training ICC Model Contracts WISE Training One Click Week of Integrity Incoterms® Training Integrity Game

< Back < Previous | Next > Global Response ICC Pulse Survey 2025: Business reactions to new U.S. tariffs 25 Apr 2025 The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) conducted a pulse survey of its global business network from 3 -11 April 2025. The Survey assesses the impact of newly announced U.S. tariff measures. Conducted after the announcement of new U.S. tariff measures on 2 April 2025, the ICC Pulse Survey gathered insights from 448 companies across 68 countries, spanning a wide range of company sizes and sectors. The findings reveal deep concern among businesses worldwide regarding rising costs, supply chain uncertainty, and the threat of trade retaliation. The survey findings cover: Global business sentiment in the wake of the 2 April tariff announcement Regional, sectoral, company-size breakdowns of the expected impacts and top concerns Business outlook for the next 6-12 months Key findings: 60% of respondents view the new tariffs negatively  Top concerns include increased costs (64%), planning uncertainty (47%) , and supply chain disruptions (45%) Ripple effects are being felt in service sectors like accommodation and food services Large companies are twice as likely as SMEs to cite trade retaliation as a top concern (50% vs. 25–35%) Over 70% of businesses reported either heightened caution or a more pessimistic outlook for the coming 6–12 months —signaling broader apprehension about economic stability 3 in 10 businesses now report a more pessimistic outlook 4 in 10 say they are more cautious about the next 6–12 months Download

< Back < Previous | Next > Dispute Resolution The role of mediation in dispute resolution 1 Feb 2025 The ICC Arbitration and ADR Commission plays a pivotal role in shaping global dispute resolution standards, ensuring businesses have access to efficient, fair, and enforceable solutions. As international trade grows increasingly complex, ICC’s dispute resolution services—including arbitration, mediation, expert determination, and dispute boards—help companies navigate conflicts without resorting to lengthy court proceedings. Jeremy Lack One of the fastest-growing areas in dispute resolution is mediation , offering businesses a cost-effective, time-efficient, and collaborative approach to resolving disputes. To explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in mediation, we spoke with Jeremy Lack , a leading expert in the field. The role of mediation in dispute resolution In the arena of dispute resolution, there are several ways to resolve commercial disputes. The three most commonly discussed are litigation, arbitration and mediation. [1] Of these three methods, litigation in national courts is the most common and most traditional method. Arbitration is next. This method is popular in international disputes due to its flexibility and enforceability since the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards has been signed by 173 countries. Mediation is the least used, even though it is considered by many as being considerably more effective in resolving cross-border disputes due to three crucial factors: it is faster, cheaper, and allows for better control over key drivers. In order to better understand the subject of mediation, we contacted dispute resolution expert Jeremy Lack. Jeremy works closely with disputing parties to create tailor-made dispute resolution processes. Besides operating his law firm Lawtech, he is a door tenant with Quadrant Chambers in London, counsel to the Swiss law form Helvetica Avocats, and the founder of InnovADR, a company that offers bespoke Appropriate Dispute Resolution services. Reflecting the complexity of the subject, we have divided the interview into two parts. So watch out for part two in next month’s newsletter. Can we start with a broad definition of mediation? A mediation is a facilitated negotiation conducted by a trusted person, who is neutral, impartial and independent. If we go into more detail, I think there are a lot of cultural differences regarding questions such as: does the mediation process have to be confidential or not? Do you have to have joint sessions or can you meet separately with the disputants? And what is the precise role of the mediator: can they be evaluative and provide an opinion or make a settlement proposal? The answers to these questions vary surprisingly from country to country, and depending on the school of mediation a mediator was first trained in. What’s the definition of a successful mediation? The success of a mediation depends on the parties’ primary goals, which once again can be a moving target culturally. The Anglo-Saxon definition of a successful mediation is often: did you get a deal done? An Asian approach is often: did you manage to maintain or create harmony? This may or may not require an agreement; it looks more to social impact. The Germanic approach to mediation is often to focus on: did the disputants have a meaningful dialogue? That’s another metric of success, which often directs away from separate meetings in caucus. And then if I look at a French Cartesian approach: this is often about following a four-step process. In that philosophy, whether or not there is harmony, whether or not there is an outcome, whether or not you were able to discuss things in depth, it was a successful mediation as long as you struck to the process. The truth is that disputants often have a mix of different objectives, including all of the ones mentioned above, so how you measure success really needs to be decided in terms of their primary goals, which can vary case-by-case. So what happens when you are mediating between two different cultures? It’s not always a ‘simple’ two-party case; I recently had a case with at least five parties in it, involving different cultures from around the world. Mediation is not viewed or practised the same in every country. For example, a comparative analysis of how 60 different countries defined mediation written in a book by Manon Schonewille and Fred Schonewille in 2014, soon after the EU directive on cross-border commercial mediation took effect, showed that no two of those 60 countries shared a common practice of mediation. Even within the EU, where the directive was intended to harmonize practices, it turned out to be very differently defined, taught and regulated country-by-country. Therefore, when dealing with cultural differences, it is crucial to understand the parties’ assumptions, expectations and procedural needs before starting a mediation, including those of the mediator. This is why I believe appropriate process design is a crucial first step for any international dispute. How do you design a mediation process that ensures that all the parties are on the same wavelength? Often you have to mediate procedural issues first, focusing on what the parties’ primary goals are, realising that it may be a combination of getting a deal done, creating social harmony, improving personal relationships and ensuring a mutually acceptable process was conducted. This often requires a diagnostic step first. I have seven key drivers that I discuss with parties to do so. The first is the timing : what’s the deadline; are there any time pressures? The second is costs : it’s important to stay within the parties’ budgets and what is cost-effective. Relationships is the third driver. To what extent do certain relationships need to be preserved or improved? Will the parties continue working together in the future? Are they interested in working collaboratively or competitively to resolve the matter? Is there a risk of the conflict escalating if certain personal issues are not addressed? Another issue is control on procedural matters : to what extent do the parties want to keep or give control on procedural issues to the mediator. For example, what discovery or evidence needs to be provided? Who will get to speak and when? Will lawyers be required? Will there be a need to provide written submissions, interrogatories, position papers or a summary of concerns, needs and interests that need to be resolved? Some mediators have very specific requirements that others don’t. Some require copies of contracts, pleadings and witness statements, whereas others don’t wish to receive anything at all in advance. The fifth driver is control of outcome : to what extent to the parties want to give or keep control over the outcome? Do they want the mediator to give an opinion, make a proposal or work with another dispute resolution professional (e.g., an arbitrator or an expert) to provide a binding decision? For some professionals, this creates the difference between a competitive negotiation and a collaborative negotiation. Confidentiality is the sixth driver. This determines to what extent that the existence of the dispute, the mediation process itself, or any information exchanged should be confidential. Does confidentiality apply to the external world, or even to other people within each party who may not be attending mediation meetings? Should everything said in caucus be kept confidential and not repeated to another party or does the mediator have discretion to use what they think could be helpful? Does the settlement agreement reached need to be kept confidential? Enforceability is the seventh driver. This is especially important for international disputes: parties sometimes need to have formal reassurances that the solution they have reached is going to be respected and applied, and that there can be ways of ensuring specific performance or certain obligations. Would you say that mediation is more flexible than litigation? Mediation is incredibly flexible, which can be viewed as both a weakness and a strength. It’s a strength because you can design a process to exactly meet the parties’ needs. But it’s a weakness insofar as you cannot assume that mediation has got to mean one thing, and that the mediator’s approach will be the one you want (e.g., facilitative as opposed to evaluative). This is different to litigation, where each court has its own formalities and rules of procedure. Lawyers are usually the only ones to speak, and there is a rigid series of events that have to take place, which the judges will rule on and decide. In litigation the parties have usually given up all control over the process and the outcome. Where does arbitration fit into the dispute resolution mix? It is particularly popular for cross-border commercial disputes. In recent years, there have been concerns regarding its costs and speed. An important point to remember, however, is that mediation and arbitration can be combined for more cost-effective, faster and optimal results. Such ‘mixed mode’ dispute resolution processes are particularly appropriate for complex (e.g., investor-state) or multi-party disputes. Depending on the number of parties, the complexity of the case, the disputants’ future business needs and objectives, the cultural needs of the parties, their budgets and deadlines, you can combine mediation and arbitration to provide highly tailored results that fit all these requirements, also providing greater enforceability through the combined application of the New York Convention and the Singapore Convention. Keeping in mind the potential benefits of mediation – being faster, cheaper, and allowing for better control over key drivers – how is it viewed by the traditional legal system? There is still a long way to go. Despite mediation being increasingly considered by commercial lawyers in the last two decades, it is seldom used and if so, only very late in litigation or arbitration proceedings (e.g., on the eve of a trial), when the parties’ positions have become entrenched and relationships have already deteriorated. It only seems to be taking off in jurisdictions where courts have actively promoted it or even sanctioned parties for not trying it. A few years ago I coordinated the Global Pound Conference series. This involved collecting data from a broad range of dispute resolution experts – judges, lawyers, in-house counsel, business executives, people from ministries of justice and academics – approximately 5,000 people in 28 cities from 24 countries. In addition to discovering that not only are there huge differences in attitudes to mediation country by country (and sometimes within countries), the fascinating thing was that, in all countries and cities, all of these experts (judges and lawyers included) were unhappy with access to justice in their country. They felt it is often too expensive, takes too long, too restrictive, destructive in terms of relationships, or a combination of these problems. That is why there has been increased interest in mediation by judges, calls for mediation as a compulsory first step prior to proceeding to litigation, and significant shifts in forum shopping. While mediation will become more common, it is unlikely to surpass arbitration or litigation, even if technically it ought to. This is due to cultural and psychological differences that are difficult to overcome. A willingness to mediate is often misinterpreted as a sign of weakness if made by a party, whereas it is a different thing if it comes at the request (or even as an order, subject to cost sanctions) from a judge or arbitrator. Lawyers often believe that if they could not settle a dispute through negotiation, a mediator is unlikely to be of additional value and is only likely to delay and create additional costs for the parties. They are unaware that all international commercial mediation centres report settlement rates higher than 70%, within less than 6 months. This is a complex and challenging paradox – but one that offers huge benefits for lawyers and disputants willing to use it much earlier on, and more strategically in combination with litigation or arbitration. Part two of this interview will cover subjects such as: How to deal with confidentiality in mediation? How to create an environment of trust and collaboration in mediation? Psychological barriers in mediation Where does conciliation fit into this? How can findings from neuroscience help mediators and mediation lawyers? How to select mediators and what makes a good mediator? [1] Conciliation is a fourth, distinct form of dispute resolution, but is not discussed in this paper.

< Back < Previous | Next > Sustainability FfD4 Opens in Seville: A Crucial Test for Financing the SDGs 30 Jun 2025 At the FfD4 conference in Seville, the ICC called for practical, private sector-led financing to achieve the SDGs, urging action beyond symbolic commitments. With the “Compromiso de Sevilla” agreed, ICC is pushing for greater business input on SME investment, tax reform, and climate finance. With a hard-won outcome document and key stakeholders on the ground, ICC urges pragmatic financing solutions for sustainable development. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) officially opens today in Seville, Spain—marking a critical milestone for global efforts to mobilize resources to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. With time running short and public finances under pressure, the role of private sector-led solutions has never been more vital. ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO, in a message to the ICC network last week, emphasized the importance of the Seville conference in restoring momentum behind multilateral cooperation and identifying practical financing tools to drive development forward. “FfD4 must be a moment to bring business fully to the table—not just as a source of capital, but as a partner for innovation, implementation, and inclusive growth,” he stated. The “Compromiso de Sevilla” Following intense negotiations, the conference opens with a draft outcome document already agreed—symbolically titled the Compromiso de Sevilla by its co-facilitators. The text was adopted by consensus earlier this month, despite the withdrawal of the United States from both the negotiations and the conference itself. While this consensus is being hailed as a sign of multilateralism’s enduring strength, it comes with important caveats. Several countries have registered reservations on key sections of the text, particularly those relating to debt sustainability. Others expressed disappointment that the final language fell short of stronger commitments on climate finance and in some cases merely preserved previously agreed provisions from the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC. Nonetheless, the document is expected to be formally endorsed at FfD4 in Seville, and later adopted by the UN General Assembly—most likely through the existing FfD resolution via the Second Committee. Business Engagement: From Dialogue to Action ICC is playing a prominent role throughout the conference, particularly through its support to the International Business Forum , which will gather business leaders, development finance institutions, and policymakers to exchange concrete solutions. From blended finance and green bonds to innovative partnerships for SME inclusion, the Forum will explore ways to better align public and private finance with sustainable development priorities. In parallel, ICC members, national committees, and partners are contributing to a wide range of official side-events . These will tackle issues such as unlocking investment in emerging markets, enhancing financial inclusion, reforming international tax rules, and financing for climate adaptation. With the final outcome text largely settled, attention now turns to implementation. ICC’s engagement will focus on ensuring the Compromiso de Sevilla is more than symbolic—by pushing for action-oriented follow-up and greater private sector participation in shaping the financial architecture of the SDG decade. What to Watch Over the coming days, key sessions will focus on: Aligning global finance flows with the SDGs International tax cooperation and debt sustainability Scaling investment in sustainable infrastructure and SMEs Launch of the Seville Platform for Action Stay tuned for updates. ICC will be sharing key takeaways and developments from Seville throughout the week via our news and social media. Follow along as we help shape the global agenda for financing sustainable development.

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture Building Integrity Through Trust and Psychological Safety Camila Fossati, People and Organizations Director, Braskem 16 Jun 2025 A culture of integrity doesn’t come solely through regulations; it thrives on trust, transparency, and psychological safety. Psychological safety—where individuals can speak up and raise concerns without fear—is the foundation of a strong compliance culture. Camila Fossati Camila Fossati is a strategic and inclusive HR leader with over 18 years of international experience across Europe, Asia, and Latin America. With deep expertise in organizational culture, leadership development, and strategic talent management, she has held senior roles at companies such as Braskem, Makro, Suzano, and Gerdau. Throughout her career, Camila has led transformative initiatives that drove cultural change, enhanced organizational effectiveness, and fostered inclusive, high-performing work environments. She is known for aligning HR strategy with institutional values, navigating complex governance, and translating compliance into practical, people-centered solutions. Her leadership is grounded in empathy, data-driven decision-making, and a strong commitment to integrity and diversity. Passionate about creating meaningful change, she continues to inspire teams and organizations to thrive through trust, transparency, and continuous learning. In today’s fast-paced and competitive business landscape, my experience continues to reinforce a critical truth: a culture of integrity doesn’t come solely through regulations; it thrives on trust, transparency, and psychological safety. As organizations face increasing regulatory demands and ethical pressure, the role of leadership in cultivating a compliant, values-driven culture has never been more vital. Psychological safety (which is the belief that individuals can speak up, admit mistakes, and raise concerns without fear of retaliation) is the foundation of a strong compliance culture. When employees feel safe to voice ethical concerns or report misconduct, organizations are better equipped to prevent, detect, and respond to compliance risks. Integrity Starts at the Top: A Strategic Leadership Imperative Leaders set the tone. A culture of integrity starts when leaders model ethical behaviour, communicate expectations clearly, and create an environment where compliance is not just a checkbox, but a shared value. However, when communication is inconsistent or fear of judgment prevails, silence becomes the norm; and silence is the enemy of compliance. Despite this, some HR leaders remain cautious about engaging deeply with compliance, concerned about being perceived as monitors or “corporate police.” There’s an opportunity to rethink this mindset. Human Resources and Compliance are not gatekeepers; they are strategic enablers of a culture where integrity is lived, not legislated. These professionals play a crucial role in guiding leaders to foster environments where ethical behaviour is encouraged and rewarded. Together they help embed integrity into daily operations, not as an obligation, but as a mindset and a conviction. By partnering with leadership, these functions can: Foster open dialogue that encourages ethical decision-making at all levels. Translate values into behaviours through targeted training and coaching. Build systems of accountability that reward transparency and responsible action. When integrity is embraced as a shared mindset rather than imposed as a mandate, it becomes the foundation for trust, resilience, and long-term value. Empowering Employees to Speak Up In a culture of integrity, employees are not passive observers: they are active participants in maintaining ethical behaviour. But this only happens when they feel empowered to raise concerns without fear. Consider a scenario where an employee notices a potential compliance issue but hesitates to report it, fearing retaliation or being labelled a troublemaker. This hesitation can lead to serious consequences. Psychological safety has the potential to transform this dynamic by ensuring that employees feel respected, heard, and protected when they speak up, whether they’re reporting a policy violation or suggesting a more ethical way of doing business. Learning from Mistakes, Not Punishing Them A culture of integrity isn’t about expecting perfection, it’s about fostering a mindset of growth and accountability. Mistakes are part of being human; what truly matters is how organizations respond. This willingness to learn, adapt, and stay true to their values in the face of setbacks is what defines their ethical maturity. When errors are met with blame, employees hide them. When they’re met with curiosity and accountability, employees grow. This mindset shift from punishment to learning is essential for compliance programs to be effective and sustainable. Organizations that embed integrity into their culture don’t just avoid risk: they build trust and strengthen their long-term success. Employees in these environments are more engaged, more loyal, and more likely to act in the company’s best interest. They understand that compliance is not a barrier to performance, but a pathway to trust, reputation, and long-term success. In Summary, fostering a culture of integrity relies on creating an environment grounded in psychological safety, ethical leadership, and continuous learning. When people feel safe to speak up and take responsibility, integrity becomes part of everyday behaviour, not just a matter of compliance. Supporting this kind of culture isn’t only the right thing to do, it’s also a thoughtful and strategic investment in long-term success.

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics Navigating Uncertainty, Driving Solution 21 Mar 2025 Geopolitical tensions, trade barriers, and regulatory uncertainty continue to shape the international business landscape. Tariffs are increasing, supply chains are under pressure, and new EU regulations are redefining sustainability expectations. In this evolving environment, businesses must remain agile and proactive. At ICC, we see these challenges as a call to engage, not retreat. Whether through trade facilitation, arbitration, or sustainable trade finance, our mission is to help businesses navigate complexity and advocate for open markets. This was the key message of Philippe Varin, chair of the International Chamber of Commerce during his visit to the Netherlands last month. www.cityam.com International trade in the era of Trump 2.0 - how will the ICC adapt? Philippe Varin, chair of the International Chamber of Commerce, is stewarding the kind of globalist institution which Trump instinctively distrusts. He speaks to Eliot Wilson about championing free trade in an era of protectionism Key Themes This Month: Geopolitics & Trade Tensions : How will economic nationalism and tariffs impact global business? Read our interview with Bart Jan Koopman for insights into 2025 trade developments. Sustainability & Compliance : The EU Omnibus Proposal is redefining ESG reporting. Should businesses scale back compliance efforts or strengthen their sustainability strategies? The Future of Trade Rules : Despite regulatory uncertainty, progress is being made in trade digitalization. The long-overdue reform to recognize Digital Trade Documents in the Netherlands is finally moving forward Key Developments: • Trade finance is evolving to support sustainable supply chains. This month, Standard Chartered became the first international bank to fully align with ICC Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance, setting a precedent for greater transparency, due diligence, and accountability. More financial institutions are expected to follow. • Growing reliance on ICC dispute resolution – New 2024 figures show that businesses are turning to ICC arbitration and mediation more than ever, especially for B2G disputes. The 20th ICC International Commercial Mediation Competition also kicked off in Paris, highlighting the increasing role of mediation in resolving global business conflicts. Read our interview with Jeremy Lack on the evolving landscape of mediation. • ICC remains committed to free trade – As the G20 Presidency moves to South Africa, ICC sees new opportunities for international cooperation. John Denton, ICC-WBO Secretary General, emphasizes: “As the first African nation to hold the G20 Presidency, South Africa has a unique opportunity to build coalitions and revitalize the multilateral trading system.” Stay Engaged & Informed ICC Strategic Priorities 1. Tackling Trade Barriers 2. Promoting Access to Justice, Integrity, and Rule of Law 3. Advancing Climate Action and Sustainability 4. Accelerating Trade Digitalisation 5. Strengthening Multilateralism

< Back < Previous | Next > Mediation Draft Smart, Resolve Smarter: How to Use Mediation Clauses Effectively 4 May 2025 Amid rising geopolitical tension, mediation is gaining traction in international contracts—but its effectiveness depends on clear wording and local legal interpretation. In an era of heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty, international businesses are under increasing pressure to manage disputes swiftly and strategically. One of the most promising tools? Mediation. Often embedded in multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses, mediation is lauded for its confidentiality, flexibility, and cost-efficiency. But how enforceable is that mediation clause you tucked into your last international contract? A Dutch Turning Point In July 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between two professional parties over whether their contractual mediation clause was enforceable (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1078). The Court confirmed that such clauses can be binding in B2B contexts—but crucially, whether they are enforced will depend on the exact wording and the tribunal or judge’s discretion. As summed up in a recent Houthoff article, this leaves room for uncertainty: “The Dutch Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that mediation clauses can be binding upon professional parties, yet it leaves the enforcement of such clauses largely to the discretion of arbitral tribunals, potentially undermining their effectiveness.” In short: your mediation clause might only be as strong as the words used—and the hands interpreting them. It’s Not Just the Netherlands The recent Dutch Supreme Court ruling adds to a growing body of international jurisprudence confirming that mediation clauses—when properly drafted—can be binding and enforceable. While some jurisdictions have long upheld such clauses, others are only more recently aligning with this approach. Together, these developments underscore that if businesses want their mediation clause to bite, it must be clear, operational, and deliberate. Here are some illustrative cases from different jurisdictions: Some illustrative cases: These cases reflect a broader trend: well-crafted mediation clauses are being taken seriously, even by the highest courts and tribunals. Ignore them at your peril. What Should Businesses Do? As the ICC’s recent guidance makes clear, dispute resolution clauses are no longer boilerplate. They’re strategic. Here’s how to make them work: Why It Matters for ICC Arbitration Users ICC Arbitration embraces efficiency and procedural integrity—but real efficiency starts with the contract. Mediation clauses, when done right, can de-escalate conflict before it becomes legal war. When ignored or drafted poorly, they can become yet another source of friction. And as the Dutch case illustrates, even when mediation clauses are valid, enforcement may hinge on interpretation—raising the stakes for precision and consistency.

< Back < Previous | Next > Dispute Resolution New 2024 Preliminary Figures on Dispute Resolution Released 21 Feb 2025 The role of mediation in dispute resolution Wanting to learn more about the role of mediation in dispute resolution, we spoke to dispute resolution expert Jeremy Lack. We quickly discovered that this was a subject that was as complex as it was interesting. That’s why we decided to divide our interview over two editions of the newsletter. You can read part one here . And below is part two, which looks closer at how the three main aspects of mediation – “there’s a social component, an emotional, and a rational component,” says Jeremy – relate to issues such as confidentiality, trust building, and the psychological tools and barriers to mediation. Let’s continue by talking about confidentiality in mediation; how should that be handled? It is important to understand the level of confidentiality required by the parties in each case, as this can vary depending on the nature of the dispute and the individuals involved. In general, there are two levels of confidentiality in mediation to consider. There’s confidentiality vis-à-vis the outside world, which relates to the existence of the dispute, the existence of the process itself and what was said during the process. The principle is that whatever happens in mediation should not be admissible in any other proceedings. And then there’s the confidentiality of what happens within the mediation itself to ensure what is disclosed by one participant in a private session is not repeated to another participant without prior consent. This can include questions relating to the need for confidentiality as between those who attend the mediation and those who do not, even if they are involved. As for mediators themselves, depending on which organisation they are affiliated to or the country they may be regulated by, confidentiality may vary, it being a professional obligation in most countries, but not everywhere. There can also be confusion in some high-profile cases between the desire for transparency regarding the final outcome, and the need for the confidentiality of the negotiations that led to that outcome. By belonging to the International Mediation Institute, for example, a mediator is automatically bound by a code of conduct that automatically entails strict confidentiality worldwide. Besides professional affiliations, in your opinion, what character traits does a good mediator possess? Inquisitiveness, curiosity and the ability to ask open-ended questions are important attributes for a good mediator, along with the ability to leave your ego at the door and truly listen with an open mind. There is also a social component: one of the most difficult things can be getting meaningful conversations going between people who haven’t spoken much or who greatly distrust or are angry with one-another, to help them get through the process together. This is particularly important if the disputants may need to continue working together in the future, or if they work in a close-knit ecosystem where they are likely to meet again. A mediator must also know when to follow and when to lead. A good mediator is analogous to a good bus driver: they need to make sure they know where the travellers are headed, that all the passengers are on board, and that everyone reaches their intended destination. And what methods do you use to create an environment of trust and collaboration? In a mediation, you want to come with open questions and have all of the participants feel equally seen and heard. You want to find out as much as you can about the needs, interests, concerns, and motivations of everybody involved. This is because, the more you understand their underlying goals, beyond the positions they may have taken, the more room there is for a solution. Exchanging information on such subjective factors often helps promote a sense of trust and collaboration. There’s an arsenal of tools you can use; the more you know when and how to use all the tools, the better off you are, adjusting to whatever is needed, which calls for flexibility. Is mediation almost a psychological exercise? Yes. I am not a psychologist, but for me, there are three different aspects to mediation that could be described as psychological. There’s a social component, an emotional component, and a rational component. The mediator has to build on all three of these aspects, which can require different psychological approaches. Mediation is not a form of therapy, however. We don’t try to change people or their behaviour. We try and help focus their attentions in situations of conflict on what truly matters now, what their alternatives are, and what options are available and most likely to better resolve the conflict more holistically, keeping an eye on the future. Is mediation suited to everyone? Are there any psychological barriers to overcome? It is rare that mediation is ill-suited to a dispute. It is an excellent complement to litigation and arbitration in almost all cases. There are all sorts of psychological barriers to mediation, however. First, people tend to think they are good negotiators, and if they could not reach a settlement, a mediator is unlikely to add any value. The statistics, however, are that over 70% of mediations (which almost always involve failed past negotiations) settle. Another of these is the fear of looking weak, the concern that: “If I say I want to mediate, it looks like I want to settle”. There can also be the belief that the other party will act in bad faith; or that mediation simply entails replacing one already-breached agreement with another. Mediated settlement agreements are rarely not complied with, however, and there is growing interest in being able to have them recognised and enforced internationally under the Singapore Convention or under the New York Convention. There may also be a general feeling of distrust of the mediation process from lawyers and judges who are not used to it, and a preference for more traditional procedures, but the reality is that most lawyers and judges agree that traditional access to justice on its own tends to take too long, be too expensive or destructive. Where does conciliation fit into the dispute resolution mix? How does it differ from mediation? Conciliation and mediation both involve negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party, yet they differ significantly in role, structure, impact, and focus. They are ‘first cousins’ rather than ‘siblings’,each suited to distinct contexts and objectives. Conciliation is typically a structured, evaluative process, often mandated by courts, particularly in civil-law jurisdictions, aimed primarily at financial settlements without ongoing relationships. The conciliator assesses legal merits, reality-tests positions, and frequently proposes settlements. This formal structure tends to activate competitive dynamics (‘out-of-group’ heuristics), prompting parties to position themselves strategically, anticipating and trying to influence the conciliator's recommendations. Conciliation usually yields lower settlement rates (50–60% in court-mandated settings). In contrast, mediation is facilitative, flexible, and less formal, emphasising dialogue and self-determination. Mediators typically refrain from proposing settlements, instead activating ‘in-group’ heuristics that encourage empathy, collaborative behaviour, and greater mutual understanding. Mediation effectively addresses emotional and relational elements, making it ideal for commercial, family, or complex cross-border disputes where ongoing relationships matter, often achieving higher settlement rates (70–90%). In summary, conciliation assesses positions and is mainly appropriate for resolving purely financial disputes without future relationship considerations, while mediation fosters collaboration, empathy, and durable agreements, particularly when relationships and subjective interests are important. When combined using two separate ADR neutrals, they provide almost 100% settlement rates. We understand that you have participated in research into the neuroscience of mediation. Can you tell us more about that? I am fortunate to have collaborated with a group of neuroscientists at the University of Geneva's Centre for Interdisciplinary Affective Sciences (CISA) to help them design and implement experiments related to neuroscience and mediation. Although the neuroscience of mediation is very much in its early days, the more we look at the human brain, we are discovering a whole new understanding of human behaviour, in particular social, emotional and rational heuristics, particularly in the context of conflict, negotiation and mediation. As an example: the results of experiments where couples with recurring conflicts were asked to negotiate with each other or with a mediator present showed measurable differences in social and brain behaviour. This demonstrated that mediation, compared to negotiation, leads to higher satisfaction rates, settlement rates, and a greater sense of inclusion. How can findings from neuroscience help mediators and the mediation process? This increased understanding definitely has the potential to change the dynamics of mediation. I believe that as we learn more from neuroscience, mediators should be made aware of the concepts of social, emotional and cognitive plasticity, to better understand and help parties to understand and manage their emotions, social behaviour and cognitive biases in situations of conflict. For mediators working today, understanding these systems and techniques may facilitate more skilful interventions, allowing what seemed impossible before to become possible now.

< Back < Previous | Next > Digital Trade Data flows in supply chains: Practical realities and policy implications 11 Jun 2025 Cross-border data flows are essential for efficient global supply chains, enabling real-time coordination and logistics across borders. ICC provides concrete recommendations to align policies with operational realities and keep trade flowing. Why are cross-border data flows essential to modern supply chains? Cross-border data flows are essential for efficient, resilient, and interconnected global supply chains. They enable real-time coordination, including traceability, custom clearance and the deployment of digital tools such as IoT and AI-driven analytics. Restrictive data policies, however, can create significant barriers that disrupt these interconnected systems. Such restrictions slow down trade, increase operational costs, and disproportionately impact MSMEs – the backbone of global economies – who may be excluded from global markets due to complex, costly compliance requirements. What’s stopping data from moving freely? Despite their critical role, cross-border data flows face growing regulatory hurdles. The lack of multilateral coordination and a fragmented regulatory landscape create barriers to trade and disrupt supply chains. Key issues range from data localisation mandates – which require companies to store and process data within national borders – to conflicting privacy and cybersecurity rules which increase compliance burdens. These fragmented regulatory approaches create uncertainty and act as non-tariff barriers to trade. They create inefficiencies, limit business opportunities and undermine the ability of companies to optimize supply chain operations, international scalability and competitiveness. ICC recommendations: what can policymakers do to fix it? Pursue new rules at the WTO to enable trusted, secure, and predictable cross-border data flows. Promote risk-based approaches that differentiate between personal and non-personal data. Ensure interoperable data standards and avoid blanket localisation requirements that require all data, regardless of type, to be stored locally. Protect Confidential Business Information (CBI) in trade and data policies. Invest in MSME-friendly digital trade ecosystems, including trusted trader programmes. Download

< Back < Previous | Next > DRS ICC arbitration tops global survey 12 Jun 2025 The Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) have been named the world’s preferred arbitration rules in a global survey investigating current trends in user preferences and perceptions. Conducted by Queen Mary University in partnership with White & Case, the 2025 International Arbitration Survey results state: “The ICC Arbitration Rules are highly regarded, with many interviewees highlighting their established reputation and ease of use for arbitrators and counsel, as well as the support of the Secretariat.” The survey revealed a strong preference among arbitration communities on every continent for the ICC Arbitration Rules , from a choice of more than 60 sets of rules. The ICC Rules took top position in Africa (53%), the Caribbean and Latin America (74%), Europe (60%), the Middle East (59%) and North America (55%), underlining the global character and adaptability of the regulations. In 2024, 831 new cases were filed under the ICC Arbitration Rules, with a total of 2,392 parties from 136 jurisdictions. Claudia Salomon, President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, said: “We’re delighted that the ICC Court again tops the list of the Queen Mary Study as the most-preferred arbitral institution globally. Our services are built on over 100 years of experience, combined with our continued focus on meeting the evolving needs of the parties. We take this opportunity to thank those who entrust the resolution of their disputes to ICC. Our ranking would not be possible without the exemplary leadership and dedication of the ICC Court members and the Secretariat”. The 2025 International Arbitration Survey investigates current trends in user preferences and perceptions, as well as opportunities to shape the future of international arbitration practice. The 2025 edition is the result of 2,402 questionnaire responses and 117 interviews with a diverse pool of participants. Full survey findings are available on the Queen Mary University London website .

< Back < Previous | Next > Dispute Resolution Mediation in Practice: Empowering Legal Professionals with Strategic Tools for Commercial Disputes 28 May 2025 On 28 May, ICC Netherlands joined forces with CMS and the Academy of Legal Mediation for a highly interactive and well-attended afternoon dedicated to exploring the strategic use of mediation in commercial disputes. On 28 May, ICC Netherlands joined forces with CMS and the Academy of Legal Mediation for a highly interactive and well-attended afternoon dedicated to exploring the strategic use of mediation in commercial disputes. Held at the CMS offices in Amsterdam, the session brought together legal practitioners, both in-house and external counsel, for a hands-on program of expert insights, practical tools, and a live demonstration of mediation in action. This session was part of ICC NL’s ongoing efforts to support effective dispute resolution across borders, empower professionals with practical tools, and promote the strategic inclusion of mediation in contract design and corporate policy. Setting the Scene: The Mediation Clause as a Strategic Tool The afternoon opened with an engaging presentation by Bart-Adriaan de Ruijter , Partner Corporate Litigation at CMS, Jeremy Mash , Partner at CMS UK, who provided in-depth guidance on how to draft effective dispute resolution clauses that include mediation. Drawing from Dutch case law, particularly the 2024 Supreme Court ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1078), he explained how mediation clauses can be interpreted as binding obligations and under what circumstances courts may suspend proceedings to enforce them. Bart-Adriaan highlighted common pitfalls in multi-tier clauses: the importance of clarity on whether mediation is a condition precedent, the mechanism for appointing a mediator, the timeframe for mediation, and the consequences of non-compliance. Model clauses from ICC and other organisations were presented as best-practice examples, with a call to legal professionals to embed these tools more systematically into commercial agreements. Meanwhile, Jeremy offered a UK perspective. He explained the shift in English jurisprudence toward enforcing mediation clauses and the impact of recent cases like Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil (2023). Mash made a strong case for the pre-emptive value of mediation, preventing disputes from escalating and preserving relationships. He warned, however, of the risk of token participation unless the process is well-structured and meaningful incentives are in place. Mediation Essentials: A Crash Course for Legal Counsel Next, internationally recognised business mediator Manon Schonewille delivered a dynamic crash course on core mediation techniques. She guided the audience through the mediation process step-by-step, focusing on the mediator’s role, party autonomy, and key techniques such as summarising, reframing, and facilitating communication. A central concept of the session was the shift from positions (what parties say they want) to underlying interests (what they really need), captured in the ICNM framework (Interests, Concerns, Needs, Motivations). As Manon explained, mediation is not about compromise, but about discovering mutual gains and building sustainable outcomes, especially valuable when emotions or long-term business relations are at stake. Key takeaways included: The importance of structured opening statements. The strategic value of separating people, problem, and process. The use of tools like the INNOVADR quadrant to choose the right mediation style (facilitative vs evaluative, directive vs non-directive). Seeing Mediation in Action Perhaps the most appreciated part of the afternoon was the live mediation demonstration featuring Jeremy Lack , an international mediator and thought leader in dispute resolution innovation. Through a role-play simulation, the audience was invited to observe, and actively comment on, a mediation scenario between two fictional business parties. The demonstration showcased different mediation styles, how parties navigate trust and power imbalances, and how mediators manage the process to bring clarity and de-escalation. This segment not only offered a behind-the-scenes look at real-time mediation tactics, but also sparked lively discussion among participants on the challenges and opportunities of applying mediation techniques in high-stakes commercial disputes. Reflections in Light of Recent Research The event also aligned closely with findings from the 2024 PBM (Platform Business Mediation) research report , which was presented during the session. Some key data points that resonated with the audience: 56.76% of companies and 41.76% of lawyers believe mediation is the most effective way to resolve business disputes, more than arbitration or litigation alone. The top reasons companies prefer mediation include preserving business relationships, faster resolution, and addressing root causes. However, many professionals still cite uncertainty around enforceability, unfamiliarity with mediation clauses, or lack of internal policy as reasons mediation is underused. These findings underscore the importance of continued capacity-building and cultural change within legal teams and organisations. A Call for Smarter Dispute Resolution ICC Netherlands is committed to promoting dispute resolution methods that are practical, flexible, and efficient, supporting businesses not only in managing risk but also in safeguarding relationships and reputations. With mediation now gaining stronger recognition, especially under the ICC Mediation, this session offered a timely reminder: well-drafted clauses and well-trained professionals are key to making mediation work. We thank all our speakers for their contributions, and CMS for hosting this session in Amsterdam. Top Tips for an Effective Mediation Clause 1. Be clear about intent → Is mediation voluntary , mandatory , or a precondition to arbitration/litigation? 2. Define the procedure → Specify the applicable rules (e.g. ICC)→ Clarify how and when the mediator is appointed 3. Timeframe matters → State when mediation should occur (e.g. within 30–45 days of dispute notice) 4. Avoid vague language → Phrases like “parties may consider mediation” lack enforceability→ Use firm language: “shall refer the dispute…” 5. Allow flexibility → Keep process design open where possible—many mediators use their own proven approach 6. Plan for what’s next → Mediation clause ≠ settlement clause. Spell out what happens if mediation fails 7. Reference known standards → ICC Mediation Rules or other reputable institutions give clarity and international consistency Bonus tip: Use ICC Clause D if you want a robust, staged process: mediation first, arbitration if needed. Interested in Learning More? If you missed the session or would like to go deeper: Download the ICC model clauses for mediation and arbitration: iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution Explore mediation advocacy training: Academy of Legal Mediation Try the InnovADR Diagnostic Tool : innovadr.com/diagnostic Read the PBM Research Report : platformbusinessmediation.nl Certificates of attendance and PO points are available for those who joined. For follow-up questions or guidance on implementing mediation in your practice, don’t hesitate to reach out to ICC Netherlands.

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics Dissecting the trade war: The response, new data and cautious optimism Chris Southworth 1 May 2025 President Trump’s trade war has disrupted global trade, but according to Chris Southworth (ICC UK), it also presents an opportunity for other countries—who make up the bulk of global trade—to strengthen cooperation, accelerate digitalisation, and build a more resilient system. Chris Southworth The current uncertainties facing global trade are well known. We wanted to look further, to find out how global business should respond to President Trump’s trade war. So we contacted Chris Southworth, Secretary General of ICC United Kingdom . Here below are our main takeaways from this conversation. The current situation “At the macro level, this is an acceleration of a change in the world order on an epic scale. Looking at the US from a business point of view, it’s completely chaotic. You don’t know what’s happening from one day to the next. It’s almost an impossible business environment.” It’s bad, but not that bad.... “Don’t forget that the US only represents 13% of global trade. We need to focus on the remaining 87% of the global trade system, which does not want a trade war. We want to continue and support the multilateral system and support the flow of trade. And then if you look at shipping, it’s even more stark. The US only has 0.6% of flagged global ships: they’re a tiny fraction of the global system. While the US does have the ability to disrupt everybody, they do not have the ability to dismantle trade. The most important thing right now is how the rest of the world reacts.” The required response “We need to pull together as a global community. All the regional blocks – the B-20, the EU, Africa, the CPTPP, the Commonwealth. Shifting from a reactive to a proactive response, I think we are going to see quite a dramatic change in the way we trade. While Europe and China can stand on their own two feet, this will be about the role of the ‘mid-powers’ – countries like Japan, Singapore, UK, Australia and Canada – to work with emerging markets to minimise the damage as much as possible. This is when multilateral dialogue is so important in trade reform.” And the response is already happening “The latest data from CIPS [the global procurement managers organisation] shows what we’re already seeing on a company level. 35% of procurement managers are already sourcing products outside of the US. This is a huge number of companies that are rerouting their trade. The big loser is the US, not everybody else.” Brexit déjà vu “Here in the UK, we have déjà vu. For us, it was Brexit; what you’re seeing in the market is exactly the same. Procurement managers excluded mainland UK and went straight to Europe directly – it’s just how business adapts. The difference is that the current situation is on steroids: it’s on a whole different scale.” The importance of agility (something that digitalisation provides) “In this hugely unpredictable trade environment in which tariffs are coming and going, companies need to be agile. And those companies that are transacting digitally are more agile. They can respond to changes, move goods and cash faster, with the transparency they need in the supply chain. From our perspective, the current situation is the catalyst for the digitalisation of trade. Companies need to reduce costs and risks while boosting agility and resilience. Digitalisation is the toolbox that companies need in order to do those things.” Ending on a (cautiously) optimistic note “This is obviously a very challenging situation. However, it’s just another aspect of shifting global politics and world order. It’s sad to see the US doing what they’re doing, but the world moves on, business will adapt. But it is also a massive opportunity for the rest of us to really get our act together and rethink the way we are trading. We need to step up and strengthen our international relations, broadening our export markets, and start digitalising trade at real speed. Let’s take the opportunities that are in front of us and capitalise on them. In the long run, we’ll be stronger.”