Search Results

< Back Prof. Jacomijn J. van Haersolte-van Hof Fountain Court Chambers Arbitrator Biography Jacomijn (Jackie) van Haersolte-van Hof is an independent arbitrator and a professor of law at Leiden University. From 2014-2024 she was the Director General of the London Court of International Arbitration. Jacomijn has served as arbitrator and counsel in dozens of disputes in arbitrations administered by the following institutions and/or governed by the following rules: • International Chamber of Commerce • London Court of International Arbitration • ICSID • UNCITRAL • Netherlands Arbitration Institute • Royal Dutch Grain and Feed Trade Association • Various ad hoc proceedings • Member of UNUM (the Dutch Transport Arbitration Institution) • She was recently added to the Panel of Arbitrators of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). She has advised and represented multinational companies in commercial, investment, and dispute matters; acting for and against foreign states. Matters include sales and general contract law, post-Merger & Acquisition disputes; energy law (including gas price review disputes); international law (investment law; immunity law); transport and commodities, shipbuilding, including off-shore; insurance. Assisting parties in meditation. Previously, from 2008 until she joined the LCIA, she practiced as counsel and arbitrator at her GAR100 boutique in The Hague, HaersolteHof. Before then, she worked with the Rotterdam law firm Loeff Claeys Verbeke (1992-2000), including in its corporate and maritime law departments. During that time, she was seconded to the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Zürich. Subsequently, she joined De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek in The Hague (2000-2005), and thereafter Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Amsterdam as counsel in the International Arbitration Group (2005-2008). She was a summer associate with Baker McKenzie, New York (September-October 1988); intern with Chalos, English & Brown, New York (January-June 1987); Fisher Porter & Kent in Long Beach, California (October-December 1986); and Van Doorne & Sjollema Rotterdam (March 1986). From 1987-1991 she was Assistent in Opleiding Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. In 2020, she gave the 35th Annual Freshfields Arbitration Lecture. She is a member of the Editorial Board of Global Arbitration Review, member of the Advisory Council Pledge on Equal Representation in Arbitration, and member Arbitration Committee International Law Association. From 2008 until 2018 she was a Lecturer in International Arbitration at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. She acted as a member of the committee advising the European Commission on the amendment of the Brussels Regulation. She was a member of the Board of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute. She taught arbitration to in-house lawyers and law firm trainees. She recently gave evidence to the House of Lords in relation to the reform of the 1996 English Arbitration Act. As of 1 July 2026, she is a member of the Challenge Committee of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute. Contact Details United Kingdom +447824117167 jvh@fountaincourt.co.uk Additional Links Link About ICC Netherlands We ensure that Dutch business interests are heard and represented in international policymaking. We deliver tools and standards that simplify cross-border business like model contracts or Incoterms®. We support fair and efficient dispute resolution . Become a member Upcoming events Learn more Check our latest news! News Languages Spoken English, Dutch Specialisation Corporate Law / M&A, Distribution, Franchising, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance and Banking, Insurance, Investment / Public International Law, Joint Ventures, Consortia, Cooperation, Maritime, Pharmaceutical, Sales, Purchases, Transport price formula disputes Bar Admission(s) NL (Dutch Bar) Credentials CV

< Back < Previous | Next > Marketing & Advertising ICC’s Work on Marketing and Advertising 30 Jan 2025 Since its first publication in 1937, the ICC Advertising and Marketing Communications Code has served as the gold standard for responsible advertising. Recognized and implemented by self-regulatory bodies in over 40 countries, it provides a global framework for ethical marketing practices. The Code helps businesses maintain trust with consumers, ensure compliance with regulations, and adapt to evolving challenges in the advertising landscape. Setting Global Standards for Responsible Marketing As marketing evolves with new technologies and consumer expectations, ICC continues to update and expand its guidance to promote transparency, fairness, and integrity in advertising worldwide. The latest 11th edition of the ICC Code reflects these ongoing efforts, addressing issues like green claims, influencer marketing, and diversity & inclusion . Key Focus Areas & 2025 Agenda This year, the ICC Marketing and Advertising Commission is tackling some of the most pressing issues in advertising and marketing. Key initiatives include: 📌 Responsible AI in Advertising – Developing new guidance on the ethical use of AI in marketing (new workstream led by Microsoft & Google). 📌 Marketing & Advertising to Children – Updating ICC’s standards to ensure responsible digital advertising to young audiences (new workstream led by Lego & Keller & Heckman). 📌 Environmental Marketing Communications – Strengthening the ICC framework for clear, evidence-based green claims (new workstream led by Keller & Heckman). 📌 Responsible Food & Beverage Marketing – Updating ICC’s guidelines on advertising food and beverages in a responsible way (new workstream led by WFA). 📌 Responsible Alcohol Marketing – Revising ICC’s self-regulation rules for alcohol marketing , ensuring high ethical standards (new workstream led by WFA & IARD). 📌 Market & Social Research Ethics – Finalizing the updated ICC/ESOMAR Code on ethical research and data analytics. These initiatives aim to help businesses navigate complex regulations, align global best practices, and protect consumer trust in an increasingly digitalized world. New Dutch Advertising Code Released! We are pleased to announce the launch of the Dutch version of the ICC Advertising and Marketing Communications Code. To mark the occasion, we hosted a webinar discussing the latest updates to the ICC Code, green claims, and key legal and compliance challenges in advertising. Webinar Overview: Responsible Advertising – Challenges and Solutions 📅 30 January 2025 The webinar provided key insights into the evolving landscape of advertising regulations, with a strong focus on environmental claims, cross-border compliance, and the increasing complexity of marketing regulations . Key Takeaways: 🔹 Navigating Cross-Border Advertising Rules Advertising laws are only partially harmonized across Europe , leading to different interpretations in each country. Businesses face challenges due to varied enforcement bodies , including consumer authorities, NGOs, and self-regulatory organizations. Inconsistent rulings and legal interpretations across jurisdictions create uncertainty for international advertising campaigns . 🔹 The Growing Complexity of Environmental Claims Greenwashing is under increased scrutiny —companies must ensure environmental claims are clear, substantiated, and not misleading . Regulators and NGOs actively monitor and challenge vague or exaggerated sustainability claims (e.g., "climate neutral" or "eco-friendly"). From product packaging to digital ads, investor reports, and recruitment materials , all communications can be subject to green claim regulations. Businesses must consider how consumers perceive their claims , as even well-intended messages can be misleading . The risk of "green-hushing" —where companies under-communicate sustainability efforts to avoid regulatory risk —is increasing. 🔹 Legal and Compliance Risks in Advertising Companies must balance the marketing of innovation with compliance, ensuring that new and emerging technologies are communicated accurately without overstating their impact. Claims about technological advancements, sustainability improvements, or new product features must be fact-based and verifiable to avoid misleading consumers. The role of AI in advertising introduces new challenges in accountability and transparency. Influencer marketing is under growing scrutiny, with specific rules for large-scale influencers (500K+ followers) . 🔹 How Businesses Can Stay Ahead ✅ Implement good practice guidelines for legal and marketing teams. ✅ Establish internal training programs to build awareness of advertising risks across departments. ✅ Develop a risk-based approach to green claims and advertising content. ✅ Seek external compliance reviews for high-risk campaigns. ✅ Maintain transparency and accuracy —especially in sustainability messaging. 💡 Final Thought: The advertising landscape is evolving rapidly. With heightened regulatory scrutiny, increased NGO activism, and stricter enforcement, businesses must stay vigilant and proactive to ensure responsible marketing practices. Missed the webinar? 📺 The full session will be published soon. Get Involved Are you interested in shaping the future of responsible marketing and advertising ? ICC welcomes businesses, legal experts, and policymakers to join our initiatives. Contact us to learn more about how you can participate! The ICC Advertising and Marketing Communications Code - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce

< Back < Previous | Next > Event Advance Integrity in Business – Join the Business Integrity Accelerator 5 May 2025 The UN Global Compact Network Netherlands and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) are launching the Business Integrity Accelerator (BIA)—a global program designed to help companies move beyond compliance and embed integrity into their core strategy and operations. UN Global Compact Network Netherlands and the ICC are excited to launch the Business Integrity Accelerator (BIA) — a global programme empowering companies to go beyond compliance and embed integrity at the core of their strategy, operations, and decision-making. Running from October 2025 to May 2026, this accelerator will guide companies in developing a concrete Action Plan to strengthen anti-corruption efforts across internal, external, and collective dimensions. Registration opens June 26 and runs through September 2025. The programme is open to companies of all sizes that participate in the UN Global Compact Network Netherlands. 👉 Not a participant yet? Explore how to join UN Global Compact NL 👉Already a member? Contact Jamie Holton to stay informed about registration: holton@unglobalcompact.nl

< Back < Previous | Next > Sustainability Sustainability is no longer a buzzword—it’s a business imperative 1 Jun 2025 Sustainability is everywhere – but what does it really mean for a business to be sustainable? And who gets to define it? To get some answers, we spoke to Ed Gillespie, whose credentials involve nearly three decades at the forefront of sustainability. Ed Gillespie How would you define sustainability in business? It’s about what can you continue to do in perpetuity. A sustainable way of doing business doesn’t fundamentally undermine the ecological life support systems on which we depend, and enhances and promotes social cohesion, but also flourishes commercially and economically. In colloquial terms, it’s about treating the world as if we intend to stay. Can it be commercially beneficial for businesses to operate sustainably? There is not always a business case for sustainability because of the way our system currently runs. For example, because we often fail to internalise external costs in our decision making, sustainability can seem more expensive because you’ve got to change the way you do business. This is not always commercially beneficial. That said, the early stages of most organisations’ sustainability journeys usually do save money. That’s because they are operating more efficiently, reducing energy costs, reducing waste costs, becoming leaner and more agile. This improves the performance of an organisation, which usually has commercial benefits. That sounds positive. So why don’t more companies operate sustainably? After picking all the low hanging fruit and gaining all the easy wins, organisations then tend to bump up against ‘the big trap of sustainability’. They can’t squeeze any more efficiency out of their operations. That’s when they have to think about doing different things, not just doing the same things better. This is when it becomes challenging. With this in mind, sustainability is the stepping stone between, for example, the efficiency savings of cutting waste and carbon emissions and the end goal of regenerative business. This is when we start to develop business models which actually restore and replenish ecological systems, build societal resilience, and also perform commercially. What happens to investor confidence after a company has gained all the ‘easy wins’ and things start to get more difficult? Investor confidence has been a massive challenge for the sustainable business world. This is because organisations are trying to make decisions on longer term timescales, but some investors base their decisions on quarterly results. This creates tension between short term and longer term thinking. Who has the power in the ‘company-investor’ relationship? Investors have more power than the company; they can have a massive influence on how far and how fast a company is prepared to go. And I think that’s a problem. Even the most enlightened company can be hogtied by the conservatism of their investor base. How do sustainable operations affect brand image and customer loyalty? In terms of the brand image, the vast majority of people want to do the right thing. Therefore, if an organisation can position itself as an effective, honest and authentic sustainable brand, there is loads of evidence that shows it helps attract the right type of employee. It does the same thing with customers: when people start to buy an ethical product or service, they feel a symbolic self-completion. It becomes part of their identity. When organisations get it right, it can be brilliant in terms of consolidating customer loyalty and helping to build your organisation. Once again, that sounds positive. But is there anything we need to watch out for? There can be risks here. This is why some companies engage in greenwashing: to make themselves look better than they actually are by making overambitious claims about their sustainability efforts. They do it because they know customers want it. How can companies make the strategic shift to operate more sustainably? Sometimes it’s easier to start a new company with ethical and sustainable principles baked into the organisation than it is to try and turn around a ship that’s already at sea. Looking at Dutch companies, Tony's Chocolonely is a good example, started by a person who wanted to tackle modern slavery in the cocoa supply chain. Fairphone is the same, addressing the issues of consumer and electronics waste, and the lack of a circular economy. These are very smart businesses. And, from the healthcare sector, I need to mention Buurtzorg, which represents a complete re-think of community-based nursing care. This model is now used in more than 20 countries around the world. But starting a new company isn’t an option for everyone. What happens then? There are some high profile examples of businesses that have achieved the full transition and transformation. Danish Oil and Natural Gas – DONG Energy – for instance, rebranded itself ORSTOM and pivoted from being about 90 per cent fossil fuel based to around 90 per cent renewables. This was due to the vision and long term plan of the CEO and the board, and taking their investors with them. If you can do a 180 degree turn in a sector as difficult as that, I think you can do it anywhere. We’ve talked about short-term gains and long-term strategies. Are there any medium-term issues that companies need to consider? Organisations need to understand how emerging legislation and regulations are going to change the way they work. In the energy space, that might impact the carbon emissions and responsibilities of your business. So the legislation might not be there yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s not just over the horizon. So I think every organisation has to be cognisant of those potentially emergent risks which could be existential if they’re not addressed. How is responsible leadership connected to sustainable business operations? In other words, how much can one CEO accomplish? Activist CEOs get taken out all the time. So they have got to take the board, the investors, the team and the customers with them. They have to have the ingenuity and creativity to take people into that new space; responsible leadership is a team sport. We talk about this at the Forward Institute in terms of three elements: context, character and company. The context is the rapidly changing landscape. The character is what you stand for, the values you hold as a leader, the purpose that drives you. The company is actually the critical part, because most people at senior levels of organisations are quite isolationist. They tend to only spend time with people within their own organisation at a similar peer level, or perhaps within their sector. So I think a diversity of perspectives, both intergenerational and people beyond your own organisation, are absolutely essential for delivering any meaningful change. Join the upcoming Sustainability committee meeting on 30 June | Amsterdam Join ESG Making it happen, Financing the change 1st July | Den Haag

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC Executive Board approves revised Rules of Arbitration 23 Mar 2026 The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has approved a revised version of its Rules of Arbitration. The new Rules will enter into force on 1 June 2026. The revisions aim to enhance efficiency, clarity and usability, while ensuring that ICC Arbitration continues to meet the needs of users worldwide. They follow the previous update, which entered into force in January 2021, and reflect the ongoing evolution of arbitration practice. The updated Rules introduce new procedures and improvements to existing provisions, with a focus on streamlining proceedings and supporting effective case management. At the same time, they preserve the flexibility that characterises ICC Arbitration, including the ability of parties to select arbitrators and tailor procedures within the framework of the Rules. Claudia Salomon, President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, said: “The revised Rules reflect our commitment to ensuring ICC Arbitration meets the needs of businesses, states and state entities worldwide. ICC Arbitration gives parties the confidence to enter into agreements knowing that their disputes can be resolved fairly and effectively if they arise. These revisions make the Rules clearer and arbitration more efficient, while preserving the flexibility and procedural integrity that parties expect. Ultimately, the revised Rules ensure a trusted dispute resolution process that underpins international trade and investment.” To date, over 30,000 cases have been registered with the ICC International Court of Arbitration under the ICC Arbitration Rules. The latest revisions – undertaken by the Bureau of the ICC Court and the ICC Secretariat, with input from the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR, ICC Court Members, and the ICC Governing Body for Dispute Resolution Services – are in line with commitments set out in the ICC Centenary Declaration on Dispute Prevention and Resolution, and reaffirm ICC’s leading, role in promoting efficient, neutral and trusted dispute resolution. The approval of the new Rules comes amid continued strong use of ICC Arbitration. In 2025, 881 cases were filed under the Rules, with the total value of pending disputes reaching US$299 billion. Disputes ranged from just under US$2,500 to US$31 billion, reflecting the wide scope of cases administered by ICC. In a 2025 global arbitration survey, the ICC Arbitration Rules were ranked as the most preferred arbitration rules worldwide among more than 60 sets, and across all major regions. The revised Rules will apply to all requests for arbitration filed on or after 1 June 2026. Users are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the updated provisions ahead of their entry into force, in particular where new procedural requirements may affect the filing of cases. ICC will release the 2026 Arbitration Rules and provide further information and practical guidance to support users and practitioners in the lead-up to 1 June 2026. ICC Executive Board approves revised Rules of Arbitration - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment The implications of a democracies-only trade pact 13 Feb 2025 New ICC analysis examines the economic implications of proposals to establish a trade system limited to democratic nations, finding such plans would trigger a tariff shock three times larger than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that significantly impacted global trade by raising US import duties on a wide range of goods. What’s being proposed? Recent proposals call for democratic nations to form an exclusive trading bloc. Our analysis, which assumes 25% tariffs on all non-qualifying countries, examines the scope and scale of this change. What does the analysis show? Scale of change : Would affect 4.3% of US GDP – compared to 1.4% under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act Tariff implications : Would increase average tariff on US dutiable imports from 7.4% to 21.8%, representing a rise of 14.4 percentage points, compared to 5.4 points during Smoot-Hawley Trade coverage : Would directly impact 93 countries accounting for US$1.2 trillion in US imports Why should businesses be concerned? Supply chain implications : Critical materials and manufacturing inputs would face steep new barriers Inflation risk : Higher tariffs on 38% of US imports would drive up prices, particularly for essential goods Retaliation threat : US exports to affected countries, currently over US$650 billion in goods or one third of all US exports, would be vulnerable to countermeasures

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment The world order is changing from a ‘rules-based’ to a more ‘power-based’ setup 1 Mar 2025 The previous two issues of our newsletter have looked closer at the current geopolitical situation: the challenges and solutions thereof. These have covered the subject from the perspective of the trans-Atlantic thinktank German Marshall Fund (Dr. Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer) and ICC Global (Deputy Secretary General for Policy Andrew Wilson). Now it’s time to hear from one of the largest business associations in the Netherlands – evofenedex – which represents its 10,000+ members active in supply chain logistics and/or international trade. Evofenedex Managing Director Bart Jan Koopman answers some of our most pressing questions covering risks, opportunities and how to build resilience. What is your take on the increasing international trade tensions that we have seen in the media so much over the previous couple of months? For a long time, international trade has been managed and regulated by international institutions implementing a variety of rules and agreements. However, a large number of countries and groups of countries are stepping out of this way of working. So instead of the world becoming more globalised, we are seeing more and more fragmentation. However, this goes back longer than the recent developments we are seeing in the media at the moment; this has been happening for a number of years. As for the timing of the coverage, it’s important to note that this is not a story that is driven by Trump. For example, the WTO started becoming a lame duck organisation in the Obama years. However, the situation has been worsened by Trump. To understand the underlying mechanisms as to why this is happening, we need to look at the fact that the world order is changing from a ‘rules-based’ to a more ‘power-based’ setup. And how does this affect international businesses? This has a significant impact on the business community with substantial economic and trade consequences. It is very challenging for companies to make decisions in this fragmented world with different rules and standards. Experience has taught us that protectionism comes with more rules and regulations and makes it harder to be compliant. And at the same time another reality is true. If things were complex with regulations, then without them, it is even more complex. You also now have to take all these geopolitical developments into account! Let’s talk about risks and opportunities. How should companies tackle the seemingly constant stream of risks? If you are in business, there have always been risks and there will always be risks: the Suez Canal blockage, the Middle East situation, and the coronavirus pandemic are all relevant examples. When looking at how to deal with such uncertainty – this unpredictability – if you only look at situations from a risk perspective, then you often don’t get a chance to see the opportunities. So rather than only looking at – and reacting to – the risks, companies need to act more strategically. This is the challenge of moving from a risk-based to a more resilient way of working. How can companies build resilience? Reconfiguration of supply chains is a good example. A large company working in the semiconductor sector, for instance, knows that the USA will have big problems with companies delivering certain chips to China but also chips made in China and shipped to the US will be a problem. In this case, reconfiguring the supply chain to relocate this part production outside China – to Malaysia or Vietnam – could be a solution. Another option rethinks the ‘just in time’ supply chain method. Companies can build resilience by increasing the number of their suppliers; having three or four instead of one or two. This would involve different supply chains operating in parallel, possibly at different production sites. Of course, this is more expensive, but it is more resilient. Other examples could be to set up production in the USA, or to focus more on internal European markets. Reconfiguration of supply chains can offer new possibilities for every company in every sector. Last but not least, cooperation in the value chain and supply chain helps to build resilience as well. What is the role of organisations like ICC and evofenedex? Companies need to concentrate on their business rather than sitting around analysing trends. On the other hand, they need to stay up-to-date with both the short and long-term trends so that they don’t make decisions that they could regret later. This is where organisations like ICC and evofenedex can help companies find their way through the complexity. At evofenedex, the trio of actions that we like to offer our members is ‘interpret, learn and influence’. This is not only useful for small and medium-sized companies, but large ones too. Look at the complexity that everyone is operating in: regulations are only increasing, but at the same time we are living in a world where regulations are getting less and less important. This is a challenge but also an opportunity. And how does this translate to practical help to members? Externally, we work with organisations such as the ICC on the ‘big picture’ issues; promoting the push towards increased digitalisation of trade procedures, and during the Week of Integrity, for instance. And then internally, we look at long-term trends and themes affecting our members, and try to give advice and increase members’ knowledge level on those subjects. Significant trends at the moment include compliance, working with trade restrictions, and sustainability. Rather than one-on-one transactions, we bring our members together in what we call communities to share experiences and knowledge with each other. Despite all of this do not forget international business is still very much alive and needed and I am convinced that together we can do business also in these turbulent times!

< Back < Previous | Next > The 2026 ICC Open Market Index: what the G7 tells us about the trading environment Dutch business operates in 1 Jul 2026 The US adopted 75,000 more restrictive trade measures in 2025 than a decade earlier. What the 2026 ICC Open Market Index tells Dutch business about the environment we now trade in. The 2026 ICC Open Market Index: what the G7 tells us about the trading environment Dutch business operates in ICC has published the first update to its Open Market Index since 2017. Released ahead of the G7 Leaders' Summit, it measures how open the world's largest economies are to trade and investment across five components. The findings have real implications for internationally active Dutch companies. On 12 June 2026, ahead of the G7 Leaders' Summit, ICC published the 2026 edition of its Open Market Index (OMI), the first since 2017. Commissioned by ICC under the Global Trade and Investment Commission, the OMI is a composite measure of how open economies are to international trade and investment, built on five components: observed trade openness (25%), trade policy regime (30%), openness to foreign direct investment (15%), digitally delivered services trade (15%), and trade policy volatility and drift (15%). Two of these components (digitally delivered services trade, and trade policy volatility) have no counterpart in the 2017 edition and reflect the most consequential shifts in the trade landscape over the past decade. This first release applies the framework to the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), which together account for roughly one third of global trade. Coverage will progressively expand in future editions to become an ICC flagship publication covering more countries. The Netherlands is not among the seven economies covered. But for a country whose foreign trade equals roughly 165% of GDP, and whose companies rely on the openness of these seven markets more than most, the findings speak directly to daily business decisions. The headline: open in aggregate, but uneven in practice The 2026 OMI shows a clear gap between the G7's top and bottom performers on openness. Canada ranks first overall, while the United States ranks last. Part of the US position is explained by the size of the US domestic market, which dampens trade-to-GDP ratios, but recent discriminatory trade measures have also weighed on US trade values. Across the group, the G7 performs relatively well on digital services trade and formal trade policy openness. It performs weakest on trade policy volatility and drift, highlighting increasing unpredictability in trade-related interventions. As the report puts it, the differences across countries are often less about formal rules and more about how policy is applied and how frequently it changes. The result is a system that is "open in aggregate, but uneven in practice," with policy stability emerging as a decisive factor for investment and trade integration. What the results say for Dutch business Three findings stand out. Germany leads observed trade openness (5.69), with the United Kingdom close behind (5.52). For Dutch exporters, this confirms what supply-chain data already shows: the two trading relationships most central to Dutch commerce remain structurally very open. The United States is a striking outlier on trade policy volatility. It scores 1.00 out of 6, the lowest in the G7. Monthly volatility of US trade policy interventions in 2024 and 2025 was 18 to 49 times higher than any other G7 economy. The US adopted close to 75,000 more restrictive measures in 2025 than in 2015. Its effectively applied tariff rate is 13.5%, compared with 0.6 to 2.6% across the rest of the G7. For Dutch companies with US-facing supply chains, the OMI puts numbers on what has already been felt in boardrooms. Digitally delivered services trade is the strongest area of G7 openness , led by Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom. This confirms the direction of travel for Dutch service exporters and digital businesses. It also carries a warning. The WTO e-commerce Moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions expired at MC14 in March 2026 for the first time in its history. Twenty-three countries, all G7 members among them, have committed to maintain the practice among themselves, but only a permanent multilateral solution gives digital businesses the legal certainty they need. Seven policy priorities that align with ICC Netherlands' work The OMI closes with seven priorities for governments seeking to sustain open trade and investment. They map directly onto the advocacy ICC Netherlands is doing on behalf of Dutch business. Reduce trade policy volatility through stronger multilateral disciplines and improved transparency. Liberalise services trade beyond existing GATS commitments. Ambitious liberalisation could cut services trade costs by an average of 13% in OECD economies, and by up to 22 to 31% in major emerging markets. Facilitate foreign direct investment flows through clearer rules and faster procedures. Keep markets open for cross-border data flows and resist data localisation used as industrial policy. Convert the WTO e-commerce Moratorium into a permanent one. Fully implement the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. Remaining gains could reduce global trade costs by more than 11%. Move forward urgently on WTO reform. The share of global merchandise trade covered by most-favoured-nation rules has fallen to 72%. 2026_ICC_OpenMarketIndex_EN .pdf Download PDF • 770KB Read alongside the Cost of Uncertainty The OMI is best read alongside the ICC Cost of Uncertainty on Investment report, published in April 2026 with Oxford Economics. That report put a US$202 billion price tag on lost or delayed business investment across ten major economies in 2025, with a US$630 billion swing at stake in 2026. The OMI now shows where the volatility is coming from. For Dutch business, the takeaway is practical: the markets that matter most to Dutch commerce remain open in structure, but the policy environment around them is more turbulent than it has been for years. The 2026 OMI gives that turbulence a measurable form. Read our interview on the ICC Open Market Index 2026 → The price of not knowing | ICC WBO Netherlands

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade and Global Economy Project Phoenix: A Bold Business-Led Response to Trade System Fragmentation 30 Jun 2025 At the National Committee (NC) Strategic Session held during We are ICC Week 2025, ICC unveiled its most ambitious initiative in recent years: Project Phoenix. Introduced by ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton following a high-level panel with Shinta Kamdani, Arancha González, and Andrew Wilson, the launch framed ICC’s response to deepening geopolitical and economic uncertainty. Project Phoenix is more than a campaign—it's a whole-of-organization effort to address rising trade tensions, stabilize global commerce, and co-create the future of a rules-based international trading system with business at the centre. Why Project Phoenix? Global trade is under visible strain. Escalating protectionism, fragmented regulatory environments, and weakened multilateral institutions have left businesses navigating an unpredictable and costly trade landscape. Project Phoenix was designed to respond to this challenge—with business, not just as a stakeholder, but as a driving force behind practical solutions and renewed international cooperation. Three Strategic Pillars De-escalation ICC is actively leveraging its convening power and media voice to discourage unilateral trade measures and defend core WTO principles such as Most-Favoured Nation treatment. Outreach campaigns are already underway targeting the G7, BRICS, RCEP and major regional blocs. Stabilisation ICC will mobilize its suite of practical trade tools—including Incoterms®, ATA Carnets, the Digital Standards Initiative, and the Centre of Entrepreneurship—to help businesses reduce compliance burdens, access new markets, and weather trade volatility. Revitalisation Through structured global consultations, ICC will develop a flagship Position Paper for WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14, Yaoundé, 2026). Topics will include subsidies, currency misalignments, green industrial policy, and reform of the dispute settlement system. A Network-Led Approach Phoenix will be guided by a global Advisory Committee , comprising ten ICC Executive Board members and ten external business leaders from every region. But its success depends on the active engagement of national committees, chambers, and companies across the ICC network—helping to anchor the initiative in local realities and broaden its impact. As John Denton noted: “This is not about saving institutions—it’s about saving opportunity.” 🔍 Next Steps & How Members Can Engage ICC will roll out a suite of Phoenix-branded toolkits, talking points, and engagement guides in July 2025. In the meantime, members are invited to: Nominate experts and business leaders to contribute to Phoenix consultations on issues such as industrial subsidies, digital trade, green industrial policy, and dispute resolution reform. These insights will feed directly into ICC’s MC14 paper. Identify trade tensions or bottlenecks in their jurisdiction. ICC is collecting concrete case studies to support targeted advocacy and capacity-building. Participate to local awareness events or dialogues . Amplify ICC’s global messaging , especially in the lead-up to the G7, WTO, UNGA, and BRICS summits. Support Phoenix Advisory Group formation by proposing business figures who can champion reform and represent Dutch business in global discussions. Conclusion Project Phoenix is already in motion—now it’s time to bring it to life across the ICC network. Dutch businesses, policymakers, and institutions have a critical role to play in co-shaping a more stable, inclusive, and opportunity-rich trade future.

< Back < Previous | Next > EU AI Omnibus - ICC’s position Sara Galvagni 24 Feb 2026 How will the EU’s AI and Digital Omnibus adjustments affect compliance costs, cross-border data flows and AI deployment strategies? We examine the practical implications for Dutch and internationally active companies as negotiations move forward. EU AI Omnibus - ICC’s position On 19 November, the European Commission presented its proposal for a Digital Omnibus, a package intended to simplify and streamline the EU’s complex digital rulebook. The initiative is structured around two parallel components: an AI Omnibus focused on targeted adjustments to the AI Act, and a broader Digital Rulebook Omnibus, elements of the EU’s wider digital rulebook. Over the past few years, the European Union has developed an ambitious and far- reaching digital regulatory framework. Various instruments, including the Artificial Intelligence Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act, and the Data Governance Act, have reshaped the legal landscape, aiming to increase transparency and accountability while fostering trust in digital technologies. At the same time, the cumulative effect of this legislation has been a dense, and at times fragmented, compliance environment. Complexity, overlap, and growing implementation challenges are faced by businesses operating across the Single Market. Navigating overlapping compliance timelines, delegated acts, guidance, and technical standards has proven particularly demanding for companies of all sizes. The Digital Omnibus is presented as a response to these concerns. The goal is not to reopen political compromises, but to deliver targeted, practical corrections that make existing rules workable and predictable. From ICC’s perspective, this is both necessary and timely. The stakes for businesses are high. The Omnibus affects compliance costs, legal certainty, cross-border data flows, and innovation. Even technical amendments can influence operational planning, product design, investment choices, and global deployment strategies. The key question for globally operating companies is whether the proposed adjustments will genuinely reduce fragmentation and administrative burden, or whether they risk creating new forms of regulatory divergence that complicate cross-border operations. The problem today is no longer the absence of regulation, but rather gaps, distortions, and inconsistencies in implementation. One of the main concerns is the rollout of the AI Act. Many essential guidelines and harmonised standards are still pending, with some expected only shortly before obligations take effect. This leaves companies in the difficult position of preparing for compliance without the technical clarity or operational tools they need. At the same time, rapid policy reactions to the rise of large language models have introduced adjustments that risk moving the Act away from its original technology- neutral and risk-based design. Maintaining this foundational structure is critical to preserving legal certainty across sectors and along the AI value chain. More broadly, implementation challenges across the EU digital framework highlight the need for corrections. Under the GDPR, enforcement has become increasingly expansive and uneven, with over 40 data protection authorities interpreting obligations differently. Key concepts are sometimes applied so broadly that compliance extends beyond the regulation’s intended scope. Without clearer limits, there is a risk that almost all data is treated as sensitive by default, which undermines proportionality and complicates legitimate uses like bias detection or AI system improvement.Structural inconsistencies also complicate compliance. The split between GDPR and ePrivacy has created parallel rules for cookies and device access, while traffic data is treated differently under the ePrivacy Directive and the Data Act, particularly in IoT contexts. This again creates a fragmented approach with operational gaps, conflicting obligations, and duplicative requirements, driving legal uncertainty and higher costs, in particular for SMEs and mid-sized companies operating across borders. In today’s fast-evolving digital landscape, ICC sees the Digital Omnibus as a golden opportunity to bring coherence and proportionality back to European digital regulation, to make life simpler for businesses. When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, timing matters. High-risk AI rules should only be rolled out once harmonized standards, clear guidance, and practical compliance tools are ready. A temporary pause on some obligations would give companies legal certainty and prevent fragmented application across Member States. Realistic transition period, especially for one-stop-shop provisions, will help businesses implement new rules smoothly without unnecessary hurdles. ICC also calls for stronger, coordinated oversight under the AI Act. A central role for the EU AI Office, paired with simplified interfaces with national authorities, would reduce regulatory fragmentation and ensure consistent, predictable enforcement, which would benefit both businesses and consumers. Proportionality in GDPR enforcement is equally crucial. Clear definitions of “personal data” and a focus on intentional rather than hypothetical risks for sensitive data will reduce administrative burdens without compromising protection, making compliance more practical for companies of all sizes. Finally, ICC supports a unified approach to cookies and device access, aligned with the GDPR, eliminating the current patchwork with ePrivacy rules, to ensure one singular, consistent framework for handling traffic and IoT data, thereby reducing complexity and enhancing predictability for businesses operating across Europe. The guiding principle behind ICC’s position is clear: EU digital regulation must align with global standards and support seamless cross-border data flows. AI innovation and deployment rely on trusted international data transfers, so any adjustments under the Digital Omnibus should preserve the free flow of data, build trust, and avoid EU-specific technical divergences or localization requirements that fragment markets and drive up costs. ICC emphasizes that the Omnibus should focus on practical solutions to real-world implementation challenges, ensuring that existing rules are workable, coherent, and enforceable. Done right, this approach will support innovation, enhance competitiveness, and accelerate the adoption of digital technologies across Europe, while delivering tangible benefits for businesses.

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture Speaking up is Golden: The Importance of Integrity for a Safe Reporting Culture in Organizations Kristien Verbraeken, Senior Integrity Advisor, Dutch Whistleblowers Authority 8 May 2025 Organisations are often well-insured against rare events like fires but underestimate the frequent and damaging risks of integrity violations such as fraud or misconduct; investing in a strong integrity culture and internal reporting procedures is essential for early detection and reduced harm. 1. How Well Is Your Organisation Protected Against Risks? Does your organisation have fire insurance? It probably does; sometimes it is even mandatory to insure yourself against certain risks. Fortunately, fires do not occur too often in organisations, and there is a willingness to take safety measures to prevent fires or respond quickly to them. But what does your organisation do to prevent integrity risks such as fraud, theft, data leaks or inappropriate behaviour? Integrity issues occur much more frequently than fires, yet not all organisations actively work on promoting integrity or creating a safe reporting environment to prevent and properly address such risks when they occur. That is why it is very valuable for organisations to invest in integrity and an efficient reporting procedure. 2. The Cost of Integrity Violations Integrity violations can cause a lot of damage to organisations. The ACFE (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners) publishes an annual Report to the Nations on the average damage organisations suffer due to fraud. If the organisation has an internal reporting system, the financial damage can amount to $100,000. Without a proper reporting system, the average damage can easily double. 43% of fraud cases are discovered through a report or tip-off. Most tips or reports come from employees (52%), 21% from customers, and 11% from suppliers. Figure 1, from Report to the Nations 2024, ACFE, p. 24 It is primarily the employees themselves who are the first to notice when something is wrong within the organisation. They report this via a formal reporting channel, such as a hotline (53%), or to someone within the organisation, most often to their direct supervisor (29%), followed by the director or board members (16%), and thirdly to internal audit (14%). Some whistleblowers report through multiple channels. These findings from the ACFE show us that it is very important for organisations that employees can report internally. The sooner incidents are noticed and reported, the sooner they can be addressed and the less damage the organisation will suffer. However, simply having an internal reporting channel and procedure is not enough. More is needed to protect your organisation against integrity violations. 3. Investing in Integrity Pays Off To support employees to report incidents or raise concerns, your organisation must ensure that there are as few barriers as possible and that employees are encouraged to speak up. This starts with building a positive integrity culture. Tony Simons, in his Research on Ethical Management: The High Cost of Low Trust ( 2002), described the positive effects of employees’ trust in the integrity of their managers and, conversely, how damaging it is when that trust is lacking. Ethical leadership leads to more engaged employees, who take fewer sick days, perform better, and speak more positively about their employer. This, in turn, results in higher customer satisfaction and greater profitability. Research by Karin Lasthuizen ( Leading to Integrity: Empirical Research into the Effects of Leadership on Ethics and Integrity , 2008) and Leonie Heres ( Tonen van de Top , 2016) confirms the significant impact of ethical leadership. In the private sector, for example, integrity contributes to the continuity of processes, strengthens trust between business sectors, reduces administrative burdens and enhances corporate reputation. In the public sector , the importance of integrity is often framed in terms of public trust; it contributes to economic growth, legitimacy, social stability, and the quality of public services. In both sectors, an integrity-driven organisational culture boosts employee motivation and engagement. Employees in organisations with a strong integrity culture experience less stress, anxiety, uncertainty, and emotional exhaustion. Moreover, integrity-driven organisations are more attractive to job seekers. Research by the Erasmus Happiness Economics Research Organisation even showed that a government that prioritises integrity and anti-corruption contributes to the well-being of its citizens and, of course, of its own employees. It is therefore fitting that building a culture of integrity and integrity management is receiving increasing attention. However, integrity within organisations does not arise automatically. It requires an integrated and coordinated approach. 4. Integrity Management: A Matter of Culture and Structure Effective integrity management consists of various measures. These contribute to both a culture of integrity and the implementation of appropriate structural safeguards. It is important that these measures reinforce one another and align with the organisation’s culture. An integrity-driven culture reflects the moral values and norms desired by the organisation (and society). These values and norms are expressed through group patterns, collective behaviour, employee attitudes, and shared beliefs. Examples of cultural measures include: values workshops, onboarding and mentoring programs, dilemma training, internal communication, employee satisfaction surveys, and fostering a culture of giving and receiving feedback. To support these, the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority offers various practical tools such as the guidelines: Tips and insights for integrity communication , and Integrity in practice - Towards an ethical culture . Not only does an organisation’s culture influence employee behaviour, organisational structure also plays a key role. Structural measures include, for example, the introduction of procedures and protocols that define how employees should act in certain situations. Just like cultural measures, structural measures guide people’s behaviour. Structural measures may include: laws, codes, and (house) rules; performance standards and reward systems; procedures and protocols; reporting and investigation procedures; physical and digital access rights; allocation of authority; monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. To strengthen structural measures, the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority also provides practical advice in brochures such as The Reporting Procedure and Internal Investigation . In practice, there is a constant interaction between structure (measures) and culture (measures). The structure defines what employees may and may not do in certain situations (according to agreed procedures); the culture ensures that employees actually adhere to these expectations. To help organisations build integrated and coordinated integrity management, the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority developed the Integrity Infrastructure Model (see Figure 2), which consists of seven crucial and interconnected elements. Figure 2: Integrity Infrastructure by the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority The Integrity Infrastructure is also used as a guiding framework for the Integrity Compass ( IntegriteitsWijzer ). This is a free online tool that organisations can use to assess their integrity management and identify the strengths and weaknesses of their approach. After answering 35 questions – covering the seven elements of the Integrity Infrastructure – the organisation receives a customised report with recommendations for further strengthening its integrity management. 5. Successful Reporting The Whistleblowers Protection Act requires organisations with over 50 employees to have an internal reporting procedure. However, simply having a procedure does not guarantee its effective operation. Several conditions contribute to its success. Research by Utrecht University, in collaboration with the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority , provides insight into how interpersonal contacts between those involved play a key role in the successful handling of internal reporting processes. Specifically, organisations must ensure: Social and psychological safety, so that whistleblowers feel safe enough to come forward; A careful and swift procedure, where the involved actors take decisive and visible action; A reporting process that aligns with both written and unwritten agreements, and of course complies with legal requirements; Expert and objective investigators who are also well-intentioned and empathetic, so that the reporter feels seen, heard, and supported; Investment in the knowledge, skills, competencies, and attitudes of the actors involved in the reporting process, such as managers, confidants, investigators, and other integrity actors; A personal approach combined with continuous and timely contact with everyone involved, so they see that active steps are taken and the report is taken seriously; Openness and transparency to ensure it is clear to everyone what information can and cannot be shared and why; Ongoing, up-to-date information about the steps in the process for all involved, so they understand why specific steps are taken and know what the next steps are; Systematic evaluation of reports and reporting processes so that lessons can be learned and the reporting process is continuously improved. 6. In a Nutshell Whistleblowers are crucial for organisations to detect integrity issues and ensure they are addressed promptly. According to ACFE data, employees prefer to report internally. To make this possible, not only is an internal reporting system necessary, but also a positive integrity culture where whistleblowers feel confident that their reports will be handled safely and effectively. At the core lies an integrated and coordinated integrity policy. There are conditions for successful reporting. On one hand, there is a professional, proper, swift, and visible approach that follows established procedures and agreements. On the other hand, there is great attention to transparency and interpersonal contacts between those involved. This strengthens trust that the organisation will handle the report quickly and sincerely. The Dutch Whistleblowers Authority is happy to provide organisations with practical support through various tools and information available on its website .

< Back < Previous | Next > What Geopolitical Fragmentation Means for International Business Tom Scott 3 Feb 2026 Geopolitical fragmentation is no longer a risk scenario, it is the operating environment. In our interview, Michael Every unpacks what today’s geopolitical shifts mean for international business, and why companies must rethink strategy, resilience and assumptions. What Geopolitical Fragmentation Means for International Business It has been almost a year since we spoke to Michael Every , Global Strategist in Rabobank’s Global Economics and Markets Division, about the impact of geopolitics on international trade. At the time, his core message was stark: “These are just warning shots of the kind of tectonic shift that is happening.” With the world again struggling to process events in Venezuela, Greenland, Iran and Syria, we returned to Michael to ask what has changed – and what internationally operating businesses should be doing differently. We start the conversation with the topic of geopolitical fragmentation and how businesses should react. Michael is clear in his answer: “I think the first thing that businesses must do is to take 15 minutes out of their busy day to absorb the fact that they are operating within an overarching environment. The foundational pillars of that environment are not the ECB, not EU regulation, not Wall Street; they are the global geostrategic, geopolitical and geoeconomic architecture. If you don’t understand that fundamental architecture, then you don’t fully understand what’s likely to happen to your business.” Fragmentation as the new normal “Businesses have got used to operating within a technocratic, largely transparent and understandable world map,” he explains. This is the predictable and controlled (even well-behaved) rules-based world order – the end of which we have read so much about in the media over the previous year. That this world is likely to disappear is not a new phenomenon, notes Michael. “World orders do collapse. And when they do, in the overwhelming majority of world history, it is when countries put national security ahead of markets.” Historically, territory was the asset deemed worthy of fighting for. “Now it’s commodities: how much oil do you have? How much gas do you have? How much lithium do you have? Power will determine which country or which constellation of countries have access to these critical supply chains.” Europe’s strategic dilemma We are now in a world in which Europe has repeatedly said, ‘we understand – it’s a world of hard power’. However, few of Europe’s actions demonstrate that they actually do understand,” Michael argues. Even with plans to slowly increase military spending to 5% of GDP, “Europe will still be a military minnow compared to America for years.” From his perspective, this has a hard implication for businesses: “If America is now an opponent… America will win every time. Therefore, Europe needs to be pragmatic in terms of what it can do.” Pragmatic action or misplaced expectations? Readers may point to the recent Mercosur and Indian trade deals as examples of such pragmatic action. On Mercosur, it’s fair to say that Michael is not filled with hope: “Especially if you take the Donroe Doctrine into account; I think it's a joke to presume that a piece of paper signed between Mercosur and Europe will be more important than an American aircraft carrier off the coast of Latin America controlling what goes in and what comes out.” And while he finds the EU/India deal genuinely interesting in that it “shows for the first time that Europe is able to do something that America hasn’t”, he has steadfast reservations. “The broader thrust of it is that Europe is going to be importing a whole lot more from India. As such, lots of European industries will suffer from more competition from India.” “This is not just about Trump,” Michael stresses. On the contrary, he adds, there are multiple actors around the world. “And not all of them involve America; other countries are doing things that we tend to overlook. China, for example, which Europe refuses to decouple with and continues to invest in.” The power to change There is light at the end of the tunnel: there is potential for positive action. “The power to change the world lies within European hands. However, I think that Europe has far too much belief in itself, but not enough action. Too much ego and not enough ergo,” states Michael. “From a geostrategic perspective, if Europe implemented the Draghi reforms [referring to the 2024 Draghi report on European economic competitiveness and the future of the European Union], all of which are domestic, Europe would strengthen its hand internationally vastly more than with any deal it can strike with India or anyone else. However, as things are currently structured in terms of strategic autonomy, reducing dependencies, investment and governance reform, nothing in the Draghi report has been addressed.” Strategic advice for businesses We ask Michael the billion-dollar question that geopolitical strategists dread: do you have any advice for internationally operating businesses? He is happy to answer: “Europe’s greatest ability to strengthen itself and to plan long term on an international basis can be achieved by planning better within Europe. If you’re a Dutch business, why are you constantly looking further abroad rather than investing in your own bloc? What can you do with this collection of countries that you have far more in common with than others?” His final point brings the conversation full circle: back to fragmentation, and the balance between risks and opportunities. “The fragmentation process has a great deal further to run,” Michael concludes. “Venezuela was just one example. If Cuba falls this year, it’ll be another. What if the Iranian regime were to fall – and suddenly a new market of 90 million people opens up?” For businesses, the message is not to freeze, but to adapt. “The world is changing – bringing great risks, but also great opportunities. And with that, businesses need to be the change they want to see in the world.”