Search Results

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture 2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum and ICC side event on business and government as partners for integrity to the OECD 6 Apr 2025 At the 2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum, ICC hosted a side event to boost business-government collaboration on integrity, highlighting tools like updated anti-corruption clauses. Forum discussions focused on bribery solicitation, tech-driven anti-corruption efforts, integrity in the green transition, and public-private cooperation for fairer global markets. On the sidelines of the OECD -OCDE Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum on March 24 in Paris, the ICC Global Commission on Business Integrity connected government and business leaders in encourage strong ethical standards that drive trust, investment, and strong-success for all. Key Takeaways • Companies need to sharpen their capacity to detect and assess geopolitical dynamics to do global business. • Harnessing trade facilitation to bolster integrity at border crossings. There are key risks at borders. Public and private partnerships are recommended to mitigate the risks. • Tools to drive integrity through contracts-update of ICC Anti-Corruption Clause. • ICC Guidance on Responsible Business for Challenging Contexts is an essential tool to support companies in anticipating crisis situations • Stronger together. Businesses and governments unite to drive integrity forward. The OECD Forum on Wednesday 26th started after the opening remarks by Mathias Cormann, Secretary-General, OECD, with launching the global dialogue; insights form leaders. The OECD forum was attended by representatives of the Public and Private sector, Universities and Civil Society. Key Topics • Galvanising the private sector for integrity: from policy to practice. Concrete solutions emerging from public-private cooperation such as peer-to-peer learning and the use of technology for integrity were topic of conversation. • Tackling the demand side: Innovative approaches to combat foreign solicitation. Bribery solicitation remains a pervasive challenge in global markets, undermining fair competition and public trust. The 2021OECDAnti-Bribery Recommendation introduced new provisions to address bribery solicitation, to move a step forward. Participants discussed how to enhance cross-border collaboration and enforcement can help disrupt solicitation schemes while fostering greater accountability and fairness in international business. The proactive role of companies in resisting solicitation, strengthening compliance programmes, and reporting corrupt practices were also highlighted. Tackling both the demand and supply sides of bribery is crucial to building a balance and effective approach, ensuring systemic change and promoting integrity in global markets. • Harnessing cutting-edge technologies and collaboration for a holistic fight against corruption. Cutting-edge technologies – such as data analytics, digital forensics, and artificial intelligenceare driving transformation in enforcement, compliance and oversight efforts. The collaboration between enforcements authorities , the private sector, and civil society, multistakeholder approaches and data-sharing framework, can strengthen the global response to corruption. • Addressing de-risking and illicit financial flows to unlock sustainable development financing. Panellists examined how cooperation, public-private partnerships, and strong political commitments can help mitigate de-risking and mobilise finance for sustainable development. • On Thursday March 27th focused a session on the OECD Public Integrity Indicators (Plls): From evidence to reform. The panellists, including Gonzalo Guzman, Chair of the ICC Global Commission on Business Integrity, shared insights on how the Plls can drive action, build resilience to risks, and support innovation. The Plls can help to a structured approach. The session also awarded the winners of the OECD Anti-Corruption Research Challenge, researchers who used the OECD Public Integrity Indicators to propose novel insights for anticorruption policies across OECD member and non-member countries. The winners didn’t really find significant results referring to the indicators. However transparency is quite important. The mentioned the Netherlands as one of the countries which can set more goals. • Greening with integrity: Tackling corruption in the green transition. The green transition offers immense opportunities for sustainable development but also presents significant corruption risks that could undermine its potential. How we can make sure that the green transition is with integrity. A panellist from the World Bank stated that corruption is everywhere. Insights were shared into how anti-corruption measures can strengthen trust and transparency, ensuring that the race toward a greener future remains both sustainable and equitable. Make the data available, use a multistakeholder approach and invest in transparency to make the difference. Not only the technical solutions are important, but also the political will. A challenge is how to show that a fair green transition is not slower, will cost no more. • Addressing strategic corruption: How to leverage the anti-corruption toolbox. • Bridging the data gap: Leveraging technology to strengthen the fight against corruption. In addition there were a lot of side events during the conference and the rest of the week.

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment Why services can’t realistically be tariffed and shouldn’t be 4 Jun 2025 New ICC brief outlines why tariffs on cross-border services are unworkable and what policymakers should do instead. In today’s digital economy, cross-border services are essential to how businesses operate, grow and compete. But while goods have long been subject to customs tariffs, applying tariffs to services would be both impractical and create significant legal, operational, and economic risks. This is because services are fundamentally different from goods, making them virtually unworkable to tax at borders. Unlike physical products that customs agents can see and inspect, services are intangible—think of things like consulting, software, or design work—that often cross borders digitally or through the movement of people, rather than in shipping containers. This creates multiple challenges: there is no clear moment when a service ‘enters’ a country, no global classification system comparable to the Harmonized System for goods, and no consistent method to assess what should be taxed. Even when governments try to tax cross-border services – such as digital services taxes (DSTs) or withholding regimes – they face legal challenges, high enforcement costs, and risks of international retaliation, as these approaches often violate established rules or conflict with trade and tax agreements. In contrast, some countries have opted for a more neutral approach by applying VAT to cross-border services —treating domestic and foreign providers equally. Beyond feasibility, there is also a strong economic argument to be made against tariffs on services. Services account for more than half of global trade on a value-added basis and are vital enablers of productivity, innovation, and inclusion. Imposing tariffs would raise costs, fragment global supply chains, and disproportionately harm MSMEs and developing economies that rely on affordable cross-border services to grow and compete, including legal advice, design, IT support and marketing. Tariffs on services would also increase compliance burdens and administrative costs for governments, requiring entirely new systems to monitor digital transactions, register providers, and audit contracts. Exporters would not be spared either: many countries are net exporters of services in areas like finance, education, and media. Tariff measures could trigger retaliation and reduce market access for these firms. In short: services can’t realistically be tariffed – and they shouldn’t be. Instead, policymakers should: Reaffirm multilateral norms by supporting the continuation of the WTO E-Commerce Moratorium and rejecting tariffs on services. Avoid unilateral tariff-like measures — such as DSTs or withholding regimes —that risk legal conflict, trade retaliation, and fragmentation. Pursue multilateral cooperation through appropriate multilateral and regional bodies to develop common rules for the taxation of the digital economy. Download

< 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 > Geopolitics Beyond the West: Rethinking Europe’s Role in the Global Order Alex Krijger 30 Jun 2025 Alex Krijger, a historian and geopolitical advisor, says the 2025 NATO Summit was a turning point, with Europe finally stepping up to take more responsibility for its own security. He believes the world is shifting toward a new global balance of power, and Europe needs to build fairer relationships with the Global South, rethink old institutions, and broaden its view beyond just Western perspectives. Alex Krijger Alex Krijger is a historian, geopolitical advisor, and founder of Krijger & Partners, a consultancy firm specialising in government relations and geopolitical risk. With a career spanning the military, politics, and global energy, he has served as a Dutch army officer, senior figure in the Christian Democratic Party, and a lecturer of geoeconomics at Leiden University. In this interview, he shares insights from the 2025 NATO Summit, discusses Europe’s place in a shifting global order, and warns: “We are not the centre of the universe anymore.” Let’s start off with current events. You attended the recent NATO Summit in The Hague. What are your main takeaways? It was a historic summit with a historic result. In the future, we will talk about the 2025 NATO Summit the same way we talk about the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. While in 2019 Emmanuel Macron said that NATO was becoming ‘brain dead’, this Summit shows that the Transatlantic Alliance – and Article 5 – is still alive. Europeans will take more ownership of their own defence and security (5% GDP at the latest in 2035), with the need to act quickly because of the Russian threat. That’s the priority. Now that the NATO Summit is over, what’s next? Over the last few days, European leaders have promised a lot of things. However, it’s always easier to promise things than do them because it’s the doing that requires the money. There is hundreds of billions of investment required and European taxpayers have to pay for that. That will hurt. On the other hand – looking at the bigger picture – it is crystal clear that, for the first time since World War Two, Europeans now have to stand on their own feet in terms of energy, raw materials, economy, security and defence. Do you agree that this a fundamental – almost seismic – shift in global relationships? The reality of the world today is that the world order is shifting. Yes, the United States remains by far the biggest power politically, militarily, economically; there’s no doubt about it. We have a strong number two, which is China. And then we have the Global South with ‘middle’ powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and, in particular, India. In the coming decades, we are heading towards a world with three major powers: the U.S., China and India. Where does Europe fit in to this new world order? It is important to realise that, as Europeans, we are not the centre of the universe anymore. The population of the European Union is 450 million: that’s 5.5% of the world population. That means that 94 out of 100 people in the world don’t live here in Europe. But what do we know about people in the Global South? About people in Latin America, Africa and Asia – regions where there is enormous growth? Can we talk more about Europe’s relationship with the Global South. What are the main issues? When it comes to building a stronger, more autonomous Europe, Europe needs to look more to the south. That’s because the rare materials for the digital transformation and for the sustainable energy, the population growth, market growth, economic growth: it’s all in the Global South. Another point is that, on the last day at the NATO Summit, many Western leaders talked about the need to maintain the international rules-based order. However, many leaders in the Global South don’t consider Europeans to be honest when it comes to maintaining and implementing the rules-based order because they see a difference in values in how Europe deals with Ukraine, the Middle East, and, the biggest war of all of them, Sudan. As long as we still look at the world through our Eurocentric lens, then we don’t see what’s really going on around the world. And if we – and organisations like the ICC in particular – don’t open up towards countries, decision makers and businesses in the Global South, then we are missing out. What are the key factors that European companies should take into account when looking at the Global South? Now we’re coming to something fundamental: in the new world order, the Global South will no longer accept an unequal balance of trade. Therefore, it’s crucial that we stimulate situations where trade relationships are fair, equal and sustainable. Otherwise countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia will say ‘we won’t do business with Europeans: we’ll do it with the Chinese’. The upcoming BRICS Summit in Brazil is a good example. If we ignore that, then we are doing something wrong because this is not just an annual meeting of few countries. No, it’s a growing, important international network and many countries want to be a member. Let’s not underestimate the BRICS – they are doing a lot of work on international trade. What is the impact of the changing world order on international institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation? It’s crucial to understand that the shift in world order means that international organisations and institutions have to be reformed. Think about the global conflicts at the moment. The 12-day war between Iran and Israel; the UN did not play a role. Ukraine; the role of UN is very limited. Even the war between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; a peace deal was signed just a few days ago with American intervention. On the subject of international trade, all the issues and the tariffs between the U.S. and China, the U.S. and Europe, are all being managed within their own regions; without the influence of the WTO. In the United Nations today, India has the same power as a country as small as Malta. That’s crazy because India is the world’s biggest democracy, has the largest population, and has the fourth largest economy. The UN, WTO, IMF, the World Bank, and the ICC need to realise that the world order is shifting. If we don’t reform these institutions to reflect the current world order, then the rest of the world will create their own new international institutions like BRICS. Do you have any advice for companies on how to manage geopolitical risk? If you want to manage geopolitical risk, it’s important to understand the global geopolitical trends. For this, you need to not only use Western European sources for your risk assessments. Let’s use an example of a company with 40%+ business interests in China and Taiwan. We don’t know what will happen in the future regarding Taiwan, but we can always make scenarios: one worst-case scenario, one best-case scenario, and one in the middle. This requires a lot of homework; talking with many people, local, provincial, national politicians, journalists, academics, businesspeople etc to get an understanding of the political risks. Based on those scenarios, you can make your geopolitical risk assessment: identifying, analysing and mitigating the risks. You also need to use strategic and analytic sources from that region; if you only use reports from Europe and the U.S., then you are doing something wrong. It’s about trying to see the bigger picture of the geopolitical trends – also from the perspective of the country you are doing business with. For example, what happens in India; try to understand it from the Indian perspective. What happens in the U.S.; try to understand it from the American perspective. That’s the work I do with my global partners: prepare geopolitical risk scenarios and strategies for small, medium and large international operating companies Where can we obtain this local perspective? Our view of the world is strongly determined by the media sources we use. I often ask people what sources they use for their news. And more often than not, they mention sources that are Dutch, European or American. This means that they are missing out on the perspective of the rest of the world. So, to the people who are reading this interview, I want to ask them: How often do you use a non-Western source to gain a different perspective on geopolitical trends and developments? This allows you to inform yourself as diversely as possible, with new and different insights. I recently published quite an extensive list of global news sources. This is a great place to start. You can find Alex Krijger’s suggested list of global news sources here .

< Back < Previous | Next > Taxes Recent Developments in the World of Tax 17 Feb 2025 The ICC is at the forefront of global tax discussions, ensuring that businesses have a strong voice in shaping fair and effective tax policies. From VAT regulations to the development of a United Nations (UN) tax framework, ICC works to create a tax environment that fosters trade, investment, and economic growth. VAT & Tariffs The recent policy brief issued by the ICC clarifies the distinctions between VAT and import tariffs, emphasizing VAT’s positive role in global trade. This comes in response to concerns raised by the U.S. in the ‘Fair and Reciprocal Plan’ about VAT potentially discriminating against American businesses. In the VAT system, businesses act as intermediaries that collect and remit the tax at each stage of the supply chain, but the final cost is absorbed by the end consumer. This structure ensures that VAT is effectively a consumption tax, with each participant in the supply chain reclaiming the VAT on their inputs so that the tax burden accumulates only at the final point of sale. As a result, VAT, is inherently neutral and non-discriminatory toward foreign businesses, reinforcing its role as a fair and efficient mechanism in international trade.Recognising these benefits, the ICC has been at the forefront of these discussions, advocating for balanced VAT policies that help eliminate unnecessary trade obstacles. More information on the role of VAT in international trade can be found here. The UN Tax Convention: ICC Representing Business Interests In 2024, the United Nations General Assembly established an intergovernmental negotiating committee to draft an UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. This process, running from 2025 to 2027, aims to create a clear and fair global tax framework that improves cooperation between countries. On 16 August 2024, the UN Ad Hoc Committee approved the Terms of Reference for the convention, marking a significant milestone in the process of developing new cross-border taxation rules. This approval sets the stage for future negotiations, shaping policies that will impact businesses globally. ICC has been actively involved in these discussions to ensure that the convention: • Promotes tax certainty and aligns with existing international frameworks. • Encourages investment, job creation, and sustainable economic growth. • Includes meaningful engagement with businesses throughout the negotiation process. Key Concerns and ICC’s Advocacy Efforts During the negotiations, ICC Global Policy Lead on Taxation, Luisa Scarcella, welcomed the inclusion of stakeholder participation in the drafting process but expressed concerns over the absence of explicit taxpayer safeguards in the final text. Additionally, the ICC emphasized the necessity for broad international coordination to ensure consistency with existing frameworks. Concerns were also raised about the ambitious timeline for negotiating the taxation of crossborder services, particularly regarding its potential economic impact on developing countries. ICC’s Commitment to Business-Friendly Tax Policies The ICC remains committed to working closely with policymakers to ensure balanced and effective tax policies that support global trade and investment. By actively participating in UN negotiations and advocating for business-friendly tax frameworks, ICC is shaping a more predictable and fair international tax system. Stay informed about ICC’s tax initiatives and how we’re working to protect business interests worldwide. Timeline 2025 The following is a timeline of the ICC’s Global Tax Commission for the remainder of 2025, with all dates subject to final confirmation and potential adjustments.

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics Talking geopolitics with Dr. Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer 31 Oct 2024 Here Dr. Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer answers some of our questions about the current state of global geopolitics, the impact of US-China competition, and the rise of the ‘global south’. She concludes with her top five tips for companies navigating the geopolitical landscape. Dr. Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer Dr. Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer is the President of the German Marshall Fund thinktank and a renowned expert in European affairs, transatlantic and international relations. She advises governments, companies and financial institutions on the political, economic and geopolitical risks and trends impacting their strategies, and helps them develop both early-warning and forward-looking decision-making. Can we start off with a broad definition... what is the current state of global geopolitics? Despite having worked in this field for 20 years now, I am still struck when I hear high-ranking political or industrial decision-makers say that ‘geopolitics is back’ when the fact is that geopolitics has always been here; it has always been relevant. What we are seeing today is not the return of geopolitics, but rather 1) accelerated pace of change: geopolitical shifts are occurring more rapidly, making their impacts more noticeable; 2) direct business impact: companies are experiencing more immediate and tangible effects of geopolitical events on their operations; 3) complexity of crises: the intertwining of various geopolitical issues (e.g., trade wars, technological competition, and regional conflicts) is creating more complex challenges; 4) erosion of post-Cold War stability: the relative stability of the immediate post-Cold War era is giving way to more volatile international relations. These trends are making companies realise that geopolitics actually impacts their daily business. Of the many current geopolitical crises, what main issues stand out from the rest? The number one factor driving geopolitical trends today is the escalating competition between the US and China. This is first and foremost a technological competition, a rivalry that is fuelling many other issues. This is affecting global governance; we saw this during Covid when the World Health Organization was unable to act; we see it with the United Nations Security Council which is completely paralyzed by power politics. So these post-World War Two organisations that are supposed to foster a collective response to global issues are not working anymore – again, fuelled by the US-China competition. And finally, going back to why things are so dramatic today, the US-China competition is fuelling the assertiveness of new powers on the global scene. What are the implications of the US-China relationship being ‘first and foremost a technological competition’? From the Washington angle, if China becomes the technological superpower, it will become the de facto 21st century military superpower. The pace of innovation is so fast, and that’s what scares the United States because technology – in the American vision – spills over into the military domain. With the US trying to innovate faster than Beijing, Europe has become the collateral damage of new American legislation such as CHIPS [the Chips and Science Act of 2022] and IRA [the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022] that have been implemented these past few years. This means that a European company operating in the US market needs to take into account these deep trends in US politics. So how can European companies not become collateral damage of the US-China rivalry? How can they contribute to boost Europe’s capacity? I see the European private sector playing a real role in strengthening Europe in the three critical domains of defence, digital, and energy. This can be achieved by reviewing market investments while de-risking from China and applying insights gained from the war in Ukraine to potential scenarios involving China: the challenges faced with Russia could potentially arise with China, necessitating proactive measures to safeguard European interests and values. This requires creativity, rethinking alliances, strategic partnerships and reassessing investment strategies. In this process, it is important to note that companies are not limited by short-term political cycles. A company thinks in terms of a long term plan. This long-term perspective allows companies to address complex challenges like climate change, technological disruption, or geopolitical shifts more comprehensively. It enables businesses to play a crucial role in areas where political action may be constrained or inconsistent. So who is responsible for solving geopolitical issues…. governments or companies? When addressing complex issues such as technology, energy, or healthcare, the private sector possesses invaluable field experience and specialized knowledge that often surpasses that of government entities. This expertise gap underscores the critical importance of robust exchanges between the private sector and political decision-makers. Geopolitical conversations should never be carried out with just political people or just corporate people. You need to incentivise private and public decision-makers to speak and to exchange views, perspectives and experiences. Along with my team of experts, I have developed forums, small-committee workshops and networking opportunities that facilitate open exchange of views, perspectives, and experiences. This is a time where we really need to work together, this is the way to move forward together and not separately. You mentioned the assertiveness of ‘new powers on the global scene’. Are you referring to the global south? Yes, countries like India, Turkey and Brazil which we call the global south or pivotal powers. These countries have never been as strong or influential as they are today. As such, we cannot solve any global issues – health, climate change, energy or tech – without bringing these countries into the conversation. We need to totally rethink the way we have been operating and investing in these regions. How important are these countries in the way that companies de-risk from China? I see this everywhere: companies are reviewing their investments and strategies in and with China. This is a de-risking policy. There is a huge rush to the Indian market as an alternative to Southeast Asian countries. Mexico is another one of the big winners as US companies move away from the Chinese market to reinvest in Mexico. Another trend that I’ve seen accelerating is that companies are increasingly looking at Africa because of its natural resources. But there is huge competition in Africa – the African continent has itself become a chessboard for US, Chinese and Russian competition. At the recent Forum on China-Africa Cooperation Summit, for example, China recently announced plans for a $51 billion investment over three years, aimed at increasing cooperation in industry, agriculture, infrastructure and trade. Of course, the consequence of companies de-risking from China is that China will find business elsewhere. Exactly. The China-Turkey relationship is a really interesting example of this. China’s car giant BYD announced in July that it was going to build a billion dollar factory in Turkey to build electric cars at a time where the EU Commission has been limiting the imports of Chinese electric vehicles. Turkey is 100 per cent playing the role of pivot power and actually helping China to continue to do its business in and with the EU, but without being sanctioned by high tariffs. So it’s really a geopolitical and geoeconomic game. And by playing that game with Turkey, China will be able to still export to Europe. Geopolitics is often closely associated with risks. Is there any way that companies can turn the risks into opportunities? In my approach to geopolitics, I always balance the risks and opportunities. For a company, it’s vital to have a horizon of opportunities and the opportunities are quite clear to me. The world order – or rather the geopolitics of alliances – is being redefined. While we are in this transitional phase, we actually have the capacity to influence what the world will look like tomorrow. Do you have any ‘geopolitical advice’ for companies operating internationally? What should their list of best practices include? There are a few best practices that should be fully integrated in any European company’s strategic thinking today. The first is to think global and hybrid, meaning that a risk that doesn’t seem very impactful at the beginning might be impactful in the months or years to come. The second is to think disruptions and continuities. Of course, you must think about the black swans, the crises and disruptions, but you also need to integrate what will not change. Taking the upcoming US elections as an example, of course you need to look at potential ‘Trump disruptions’. But you also need to look at what will remain the same from a company’s perspective. American protectionism, extraterritorial and political pressure on European companies, for example. The third thing is building flexibility and diversification. A company really needs to be able to resist shocks. To do this, you need to continuously revise and review the ‘risk mapping’ of a company. This builds resilience and a better capacity to react. The fourth is to rethink partnership strategies. This involves a more diversified way of investing and doing business, which is linked to de-risking from Russia and China. And the last thing is how do you think as a European company, as being part of European success in the three transitions of energy, digital and geopolitical. How do you become a leverage, an asset for the future of Europe at a time where it needs to boost these three important issues? What is the German Marshall Fund? GMF is a transatlantic Think-and-Do Tank committed to strengthening cooperation between the United States and Europe in a shifting global order. Our mission is to foster a resilient and dynamic partnership and develop innovative solutions to address shared challenges. GMF's unique strength lies in our extensive network of offices strategically positioned across the Atlantic: our headquarters is in Washington, DC, and we have offices in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Warsaw, Belgrade, Bucharest, Madrid, and Ankara, as well as a large, global network of fellows, particularly in Asia. Our work is characterized by a distinctive multi-layered approach: from convening to policy recommendations, we bring national, pan-European, transatlantic and global policy insights into the most pressing domestic and international issues. We work very closely with governments, corporates and civil society on both sides of the Atlantic. What is your role at the German Marshall Fund? I am the President of the German Marshall Fund. In my previous capacity as Senior Vice President for Geostrategy, I developed and led GMF’s geopolitical policy work and risk advisory. We help governments, companies and financial institutions to navigate the fast changing geopolitical environment. Can you briefly explain how you do this? First: early warning. We help organisations identify emerging issues that might not have been yet recognized. Second: forward looking. Despite the short-term crisis management happening within both governments and companies at the moment, we help organisations gain a sense of how to better anticipate future trends. And third: country deep dives. This is to zoom in on a specific country or market. Thanks to our geographical footprint or experts on the ground, we provide organisations with first-hand information on a specific country.

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture Week of Integrity 2025: A Culture of Integrity 4 Feb 2025 During an interview with a student a few weeks ago, I was reminded of why this year’s theme is so important. Coming from a very international study program, her teacher posed a simple question: Would you call the police? The answers were anything but uniform. Depending on their cultural backgrounds, the students’ trust in law enforcement varied significantly. This reminded me of an experience I had a few years ago while traveling to Vietnam. I was waiting for my colleague to pick me up at the hotel to visit a supplier’s office. Hours passed without any updates, and I grew increasingly frustrated by the apparent waste of time. Eventually, she arrived and explained what had happened. She had been stopped by a police officer who demanded a bribe to let her pass. When she refused, he took her to the station and made her wait for hours, only to release her without any fine or formal charge. At the time, I couldn’t understand why she didn’t pay. I thought, She can’t change the system by refusing to pay a small bribe if this is standard practice . But for her, staying true to her principles and refusing to participate in corrupt behavior was more important. That experience left a lasting impression on me and reinforced why promoting integrity in both the public and private sectors is essential. Even in the Netherlands, where such overt corruption might not be common, the challenges around integrity—such as fostering trust and accountability—remain pressing. Experiences like these highlight the stark differences in how integrity is perceived and practiced across cultures . As businesses become increasingly global and more foreign workers join Dutch companies, fostering a culture of integrity becomes not just desirable but essential. Employees must feel safe to speak up, report issues, and understand the principles outlined in their organization’s code of conduct. Culture—whether company, local, or national—is complex. But at its core, culture can be understood as a shared set of values, beliefs, and practices that guide behavior within a group or society. The Role of Integrity Culture in Whistleblowing This critical need—to foster a culture of integrity within organizations—was also highlighted in Transparency International’s recent report on whistleblowing frameworks in Dutch businesses . The report emphasizes that while many companies have formal whistleblowing policies in place, they often fail to address the cultural aspects that ensure these frameworks are effective. Employees must feel safe, supported, and confident that their concerns will be taken seriously and acted upon. Without a strong foundation of trust and accountability, even the best policies risk falling short of their purpose. The report identifies several key areas for improvement: Building Trust: Many employees fear retaliation or being ostracized if they report unethical behavior. This fear prevents them from coming forward, even when they witness serious misconduct. And for me this reluctance often has roots in childhood and education. From an early age, children who report issues are sometimes labeled as "tattletales" by their peers or dismissed by teachers who may tell them not to make a fuss or not to be so sensitive. These experiences shape how individuals perceive speaking up, associating it with negative consequences rather than constructive action. Addressing this ingrained mindset is essential to fostering a culture where reporting concerns is valued and encouraged. Embedding Integrity in Decision-Making: Ethical practices must be integrated into daily operations at every level. From the boardroom to frontline employees, integrity should guide decisions and behaviors. Encouraging a Safe Speak-Up Culture: Organizations must go beyond policies and create an environment where employees feel confident their concerns will be taken seriously and addressed fairly. Whistleblower Protection: While legal protections exist, businesses must ensure they actively safeguard whistleblowers and promptly address reports to reinforce trust in the process. The findings are a wake-up call for organizations to look beyond compliance and foster a genuine culture of integrity. However, this is not an issue for the private sector alone. Embracing the Complexity of Culture and Integrity I come from a multicultural family—my mother’s side has roots in Russia, Morocco, and Madagascar, while my father’s side is from Gascogne, proudly French. I was born and started school in Senegal, shaped by diverse cultures along the way. I then grew up in Marseille, a city full of contradictions, shaped by both vibrant diversity and complex integrity challenges. My teenage years were marked by the influence of the infamous Bernard Tapie—a businessman both admired and controversial. Marseille wasn’t exactly a model for integrity, but it was my home. This personal background makes me especially eager to explore this year’s theme. Integrity isn’t just about rules and compliance; it is deeply embedded in culture. Whether on a national level, within organizations, or even in childhood experiences, the way we perceive and act on integrity is shaped by the environments we grow up in and the societies we work and live in. The findings from Transparency International highlight how much still needs to be done—not only in the private sector but also in the public sphere. A strong integrity culture goes beyond policies and legal frameworks; it requires trust, leadership, and a willingness to create environments where speaking up is encouraged and protected. I look forward to engaging in discussions, hearing different perspectives, and exploring how integrity can be strengthened across cultures. This year’s theme invites us to challenge assumptions, learn from diverse viewpoints, and work together to build stronger integrity cultures in business, government, and society. Let’s start the conversation & please feel free to join our first partner meeting of 2025. Laure Jacquier, Secretary General Week of Integrity

< Back < Previous | Next > From Ambition to Economic Delivery: ICC’s Call to Action Ahead of COP30 2 Nov 2025 As world leaders prepare to meet in Belém for COP30, ICC calls on governments to turn climate ambition into economic delivery. Representing over 45 million companies, ICC urges concrete action on finance, adaptation and market integrity to unlock private investment and make the transition to net zero a driver of growth and resilience. From Ambition to Economic Delivery: ICC’s Call to Action Ahead of COP30 As world leaders prepare to gather in Belém for COP30 , the message from business is clear: climate ambition must now translate into economic delivery . In an open letter to Climate Ministers, ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO conveyed the views of more than 45 million companies across 170 countries , calling on governments to make COP30 the turning point where commitment becomes implementation . Business urges governments to make COP30 about delivery The global business community sees the transition to a net-zero, climate-resilient world not only as a moral imperative, but as an economic necessity . Businesses are already investing, innovating, and adapting to growing physical and transition risks. Yet progress is being held back by fragmented regulations and uncertainty around the enabling conditions needed to unlock private capital at scale. To deliver on the Paris Agreement, ICC calls on governments to anchor COP30 outcomes around three priority pillars: Investment-ready national climate action plans. Governments must co-design updated and ambitious NDCs with business, aligning climate goals with growth, energy security and industrial competitiveness. Predictable frameworks and clear market signals are essential to drive long-term investment. A Global Goal on Adaptation that mobilises private finance. Adaptation receives less than 10% of total climate finance today. ICC calls for robust metrics, risk-reporting standards, and smart incentives to make resilience investable, turning adaptation into a scalable economic opportunity. A finance implementation plan that operationalises the new collective quantified goal. The next step in the Baku-to-Belém process must be a concrete roadmap to channel funding into emerging and developing economies. That means addressing structural barriers, including reforms to prudential rules such as Basel III and more effective use of development bank balance sheets, to unlock private capital at scale. Scaling finance and integrity at the heart of ICC’s agenda ICC’s COP30 strategy sets out practical policy actions to turbocharge climate finance, strengthen carbon markets and embed adaptation into business models .Key ICC proposals include: Reforms to global financial regulations to enable greater green investment; New frameworks for Article 6 implementation and voluntary carbon markets; Development of investable adaptation pipelines supported by clear data, incentives and risk-transfer mechanisms such as resilience bonds; Recognition of trade finance as a key enabler of climate-aligned growth. At COP30, ICC will also highlight the role of small and medium-sized enterprises , presenting new data and insights on how SMEs can be empowered to take climate action. A partnership for delivery The private sector has proven its capacity to innovate, from clean energy systems to new low-carbon technologies, but cannot act alone. ICC is urging governments to work hand-in-hand with business to turn high-level ambition into real-world impact through policy coherence, transparent carbon markets and credible financing mechanisms. “COP30 can and should mark the point where climate ambition becomes economic strategy — anchored in growth, resilience and opportunity,” said ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO. How businesses can engage ICC Netherlands invites all members and partners to join this call to action: Use ICC’s key messages in your own communications and bilateral engagements with government representatives in the run-up to and during COP30; Share ICC’s Open Letter and Strategy across your business networks to amplify the voice of the real economy; Highlight concrete business actions that show how Dutch companies are driving sustainable growth and climate innovation. Join the ICC Netherlands Sustainability Commission meeting – 11 December : we will discuss how Dutch businesses can engage with the COP30 outcomes and shape our ICC Netherlands sustainability agenda for 2026 and beyond. The decisions made in Belém will shape global competitiveness, capital flows and resilience for years to come. Business is ready, and willing, to partner with governments to deliver the opportunity of a lifetime . Read further ICC and UNFCCC Business Group call on climate ministers ahead of COP30 (15 October 2025) Ahead of COP30 in Belém, ICC and the UNFCCC Business Group urge governments to make climate ambition a driver of economic transformation, calling for coherent policies that unlock private investment at scale. COP30 Open Letter to Climate Ministers (29 October 2025, ICC) ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO outlines the business priorities for COP30: investment-ready climate plans, a global goal on adaptation, and a finance implementation plan to deliver growth and resilience. COP30 Key ICC Messages and Strategy (October 2025, ICC) ICC’s roadmap for Belém sets out how to scale climate finance, drive private investment in adaptation, and strengthen carbon market integrity — turning the “opportunity of a lifetime” into tangible action. The opportunity to align Basel’s global banking rules with climate needs Basel III made the financial system sturdier after the 2008 crisis. But rules built to prevent a repeat of the last financial crisis now risk slowing the climate transition. Emerging markets need hundreds of billions annually for the world to meet climate targets and stay on a net-zero path. With rule clarifications, targeted adjustments and smart reforms, a unique opportunity presents itself to align financial stability with climate needs and unlock vital private capital.

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC Netherlands calls on Dutch Parliament to accelerate adoption of MLETR 1 Sept 2025 ICC Netherlands, together with a broad coalition of companies, banks and business associations, has presented a whitepaper to the Dutch Parliament calling for swift adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) – a move that will cut costs, reduce delays and strengthen the Netherlands’ competitive position. On 1 September, ICC Netherlands, together with a broad coalition of companies, banks and business associations, presented a whitepaper to the Dutch Parliament urging swift adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) . What may appear to be a technical legal change has enormous practical impact. Adoption of MLETR could: Save Dutch businesses hundreds of millions of euros in unnecessary costs Shorten trade document processing from 6–10 days to less than 24 hours Reduce bureaucracy and cut administrative burdens for SMEs by up to 35% Strengthen the Netherlands’ competitiveness as a global trading nation Why it matters International trade is the lifeblood of the Dutch economy: imports and exports together represent more than €1.6 trillion annually – nearly four times GDP . Yet many critical trade documents are still only legally valid on paper. This causes delays, higher costs, and a loss of efficiency. Other countries are moving faster. The UK, France, Germany and Singapore have already updated their legislation. The UK is even ready to advance digital cooperation with the Netherlands, but progress is stalled because eight key documents cannot yet be issued electronically under Dutch law . Clear call to action ICC Netherlands and its partners urge Parliament to: Quickly approve legislation for the electronic bill of lading Launch the legislative process for the remaining seven MLETR documents The digital future of trade starts now. With one simple legislative step, the Netherlands can unlock major efficiency gains and safeguard its position as Europe’s digital gateway and trade hub. The business community is ready to help make this a reality. 👉 Read the executive summary here: EN- Executive summary - Electronic transferable records (1) .pdf Download PDF • 1.84MB 👉 The whitepaper is available in Dutch, here De adoptie van de UNCITRAL‘Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records’ in NL (6) .pdf Download PDF • 3.28MB About this initiative The whitepaper was prepared by representatives of ICC Netherlands, ICISA, ING Bank, Port of Rotterdam and other experts, supported by a broad coalition of companies, banks and business associations.

< Back < Previous | Next > How to scale private finance for adaptation and unlock new business opportunities 28 Jul 2025 As the frequency and severity of climate-related events escalate, there is a growing consensus that mitigation alone is insufficient. Adaptation must play a central role in securing resilience. To support this shift, the new ICC-commissioned Oxera report assesses how the private sector’s role in climate adaptation can be strengthened and scaled. The report is intended to inform ICC’s advocacy as the official UNFCCC Focal Point for Business and Industry in the lead-up to COP30 in Belém. Adaptation cannot wait: why the private sector matters Climate change is already causing severe economic damage globally. A 2024 Oxera study for the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the world’s business organisation, found that extreme weather events resulted in US$2 trillion in economic losses between 2014-2023 , directly affecting 1.6 billion people . Annual damages are rising rapidly, reaching US$451 billion in 2022-2023 alone. Adaptation must match mitigation in urgency – and investing today is critical to reducing escalating future losses. While global mitigation finance hit US$1.3 trillion in 2022 , adaptation finance totalled just US$76 billion – only 8% of which came from the private sector, compared to 54% for mitigation. While no country is spared from climate-related disasters, developing countries are hardest hit – and least equipped to respond. In 2022, small island and least developed states paid over twice as much in debt service (US$59 billion) as they received in climate finance (US$28 billion). Public finance remains far below what is needed. The Glasgow Climate Pact urged developed countries to double adaptation finance to developing countries from 2019 levels by 2025 – but even if met, this would cover only a small amount of the estimated US$203-388 billion required annually in those countries. Public resources alone cannot meet the scale of the challenge – and this opens an opportunity for the private sector to step up and work with governments to drive the innovation and investment needed to build resilience at speed and scale. The private sector has both the determination and capacity to deliver scalable, locally rooted adaptation – particularly where it owns or depends on vulnerable assets and infrastructure. Key barriers blocking private sector investment Information barriers: Uncertainty about where, when and how climate risks will materialise hampers investment planning and risk pricing. Limited disclosure of climate risk exposure – only 35% of companies globally have disclosed an adaptation plan – restricts information sharing across markets. Lack of shared metrics and taxonomies for adaptation makes it difficult to compare costs and benefits, assess returns or standardise financial instruments. Institutional and regulatory barriers: Unclear policy signals – including National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) that often lack clarity on private sector roles and incentives – deter long-term investment. Limited public-private collaboration and rigid regulations delay project design, approval and implementation. Constrained access to capital and lack of technical capacity block investment, especially in developing economies. Financial barriers: Low or indirect return and unpredictable cash flows limit investment appetite. High political and regulatory risks, long time horizons and limited exit options, deter financing – especially under current prudential frameworks that do not adequately reflect the benefits of climate resilience. Fragmented and highly-localised projects limit scalability and complicate collaboration across actors. What is working: turning opportunity into scalable solutions Insurance innovations: concessional insurance premia and public-private collaboration – such as the Climate Insurance Linked Resilient Infrastructure Financing (CILRIF) initiative or Flood Re in the UK – create incentives for resilient investments while pooling risk to attract private capital. Parametric insurance offers fast payouts and crucial post-disaster liquidity, reducing financing costs and unlocking investment. Blended finance: structures combining concessional finance, risk sharing and technical assistance can unlock private investment, like the Africa Rural Climate Adaptation Finance Mechanism (ARCAFIM) – a Green Climate Fund (GCF) backed mechanism in East Africa that blends public and private capital to scale smallholder adaptation finance. Adaptation and resilience bonds: aggregated bond structures – such as European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Resilience Bonds – pool multiple adaptation projects into a single investment vehicle to attract institutional investors. By increasing scale and improving risk-return profiles, they can help overcome common financing barriers for smaller, localised adaptation initiatives. Digital platforms and open data : tools like Oasis Hub and geospatial risk models help reduce uncertainty and guide investment. In addition to supporting these efforts, ICC will collect and share success stories and business experiences in scaling adaptation and mobilising finance for it through its Global Climate Opportunity Campaign , helping to amplify what works and inspire broader replication. Policy recommendations for governments and regulators At COP30 in Belém, ICC calls on governments to forge a robust and coordinated policy agenda that brings together all relevant stakeholders – including multilateral development banks, financial regulators, business, financial and insurance actors – to scale private finance for adaptation and support the implementation of the Global Goal on Adaptation. This agenda should prioritise the following three key action areas: Strengthen climate risk information and transparency Build access to high-quality, open, climate risk data. Mandate disclosure of physical climate risk exposures proportionate to firm size and risk in both operations and supply chains. Providing sector-specific templates to guide reporting will be key in this regard. Support convergence and standardisation of adaptation metrics and taxonomies (building on UNFCCC and standard bodies’ work). Establish enabling institutions and regulatory incentives Include businesses explicitly in National Adaptation Plan (NAP) design and implementation – including through procurement frameworks, public-private partnerships and regulatory sandboxes. Clarify antitrust exemptions to enable pre-competitive collaboration on adaptation solutions. Adjust capital requirements and credit ratings to reward climate-resilient investments and reflect physical risk reductions. Scale adaptation finance with innovative instruments Support multilateral development banks and development finance institutions, working hand in hand with financial and insurance actors to expand the use of blended finance, resilience bonds and insurance-linked instruments to de-risk private investment in adaptation. Promote the design and deployment of structured financial vehicles, such as adaptation bonds, underpinned by robust metrics and repayment models linked to avoided losses or service delivery outcomes. Recognise the critical role of insurers and financial actors in climate adaptation by leveraging their unique data, expertise and risk-modelling capabilities. Establishing formal frameworks for public–private partnerships with insurers to prevent coverage retreat in high-risk areas and ensure continued financial protection for vulnerable communities is also important. This report and summary are part of ICC’s Opportunity of a Lifetime climate campaign, in the lead up to COP30 in Belém, Brazil. Learn more about our call for policy change and how to get involved.

< 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 > General Assembly Trading Blows or Building Bridges? Navigating Global Trade in a Multipolar World 20 May 2025 As global trade becomes increasingly politicised, polarised, and unpredictable, how should businesses respond? On 20 May, ICC Netherlands gathered leading voices from business, policy, and finance to explore the realities—and responsibilities—of trading in a multipolar world. What emerged was a clear message: navigating complexity isn’t optional, it’s strategic. On May 20, ICC Netherlands brought together members, partners, and experts for its 2025 General Assembly and a high-level discussion on the future of trade in an increasingly fragmented world. Hosted by Rabobank in Utrecht, the event gathered perspectives from leading voices across business, government, finance, and international institutions, reflecting the urgency, complexity, and strategic opportunities facing global trade today. Setting the Stage: From Strategic Priorities to Strategic Action The afternoon opened with the ICC Netherlands General Assembly, where Director Laure Jacquier presented the organisation's achievements in 2024 and outlined strategic priorities for the years ahead. Key themes included digitalisation, sustainability, dispute resolution, and business integrity. Importantly, the General Assembly also marked the formal welcome of three new board members: Shashank Jhawar (ING), Marhijn Visser (VNO-NCW), and Rogier Schellaars (Van Doorne). Their addition reflects ICC's commitment to broad-based expertise and diverse sectoral representation. Following the formal session, attention turned to the broader landscape of international trade through two expert panel discussions moderated by Jasper van Schaik, ICC Board member and an Agricultural Program Expert, with Rabobank Partnerships. The core question at the heart of the event: Are we trading blows in a fractured world—or still intend on building bridges? Panel 1: Global Trade in Transition The first panel, "Global Trade in Transition," offered a macroeconomic view of the shifts redefining trade. Otto Raspe, Chief Economist at Rabobank, opened the session by posing a critical question: “Are we resilient enough?” Drawing from 8 trade war scenarios, Raspe emphasised a fundamental shift from prioritising growth to ensuring risk resilience, particularly in the face of increasing protectionism and geopolitical tensions. Daan Vriens, CEO of Cefetra Group, illustrated how these dynamics are already affecting agri-trade. Using soy as a case study, he highlighted how sourcing decisions are being reshaped by geopolitics. “Every trade has its own dynamics—especially in agriculture,” he noted, urging companies to proactively reassess their supply chains, especially SMEs. Andrew Wilson, Deputy Secretary General for Policy at ICC Global, delivered a powerful reminder that many of the rules underpinning today’s global trade regime were written in the mid-20th century. “Most of the rules we still rely on were written in the 1950s,” he said, referring to the outdated nature of WTO regulations and the growing disconnect between markets and the real economy. Wilson warned of systemic risks and stressed the urgency of reforming multilateral frameworks, a key agenda item of ICC. Energy markets added another layer to the discussion. Coby van der Linde, Senior Fellow at CIEP, challenged prevailing optimism around energy transitions. “Europe thinks it’s already in 2050,” she remarked, cautioning against overreliance on LNG and the need for cost competitiveness in alternative energy sources. Dirk Klaassen of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs added a pragmatic policy view, noting that the Dutch and EU approach remains rooted in dialogue and negotiated solutions. “Let’s keep talking—that’s still our strength,” he concluded. Panel 2: Navigating Complexity: A Business View If the first panel focused on systemic shifts, the second panel—"Navigating Complexity"—zoomed in on the day-to-day realities facing businesses operating in this uncertain landscape. Rico Luman, Senior Economist at ING, dubbed 2024 “the year of uncertainty for supply chains,” referencing geopolitical flashpoints and a likely uptick in tariffs. He called on businesses to prepare for a prolonged period of disruption and to invest in resilience. Esther Berkelaar, Head of Trade & Commodity Finance at Rabobank, echoed this concern, describing the current moment as “a bit paralysed.” With fewer trades being recorded and shifting market dynamics, she stressed the importance of scenario planning and legal clarity in cross-border transactions. Rogier Schellaars, Partner at Van Doorne, offered a legal perspective on governance challenges. He warned that many boardrooms still lack a realistic view of today’s trade risks, saying, “Realism is not what I always see in the Dutch boardroom.” He stressed the importance of aligning contracts with new realities. Marhijn Visser of VNO-NCW concluded the session with a strategic policy lens. Representing over 90% of Dutch businesses, he called for stronger internal alignment between public affairs and executive leadership. His standout message: "Every company should be asking: how does geopolitics affect our business?", taking geopolitics into consideration in your strategy is good business while mayny corporate see this as a cost post. He even suggested appointing a "Chief Geopolitical Officer" to ensure this question is no longer overlooked. A Shared Sense of Urgency Across both panels, one theme resonated clearly: we are entering a new era of trade. One where adaptability, geopolitical awareness, and collaboration are no longer optional, but essential. Whether facing outdated regulatory frameworks or navigating supply chain disruption, companies and institutions must think ahead, act together, and communicate across borders. The event closed with informal networking, but the conversations are set to continue—at upcoming ICC Netherlands working groups, international forums, and future events aimed at turning insights into impact. As one participant aptly summarised: "The system may be strained, but it's not broken. There is still time to build the bridges we need." ICC Netherlands would like to thank Rabobank for hosting the event and all speakers, participants, and partners for contributing to an insightful afternoon of dialogue and action. Read more about ICC Netherlands here