Search Results

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

< Back Irène Léger Staunch Arbitrator Biography • Over 13 years of practice in international arbitration and litigation in Amsterdam and Paris, with a focus on international commercial arbitration. • Experience of arbitrations conducted in English or in French under the ICC, NAI, ICSID, UNCITRAL and PCA rules on a wide range of commercial, energy, insurance, technology or post-M&A issues. • Particular areas of knowledge with respect to procedural issues, the energy market and French law Contact Details Netherlands +31622614760 irene.leger@staunchlaw.com 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, French Specialisation Corporate Law / M&A, Employment, Energy and Natural Resources Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Climate Change Post-UNOC3: Business Rallies for Ocean Action with Landmark Call to Policymakers 30 Jun 2025 Over 80 businesses and networks joined an ICC-led declaration at UNOC3, urging urgent action to protect ocean health as key to climate resilience and economic prosperity. The Business Call to Action outlines commitments and policy asks to scale sustainable ocean solutions and is open for more support. Over 80 businesses and networks unite behind ICC-led declaration to protect ocean health and strengthen global resilience. As the Third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) concluded earlier this month in Nice, the global business community made its voice heard with a clear message: safeguarding the ocean is essential to economic prosperity and climate resilience. In a joint Business Call to Action, more than 80 organisations from 25 countries—including 55 businesses representing over €600 billion in turnover and more than 2 million employees—urged both public and private actors to accelerate action to conserve and sustainably use the ocean. The initiative was co-convened by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), alongside key partners including the UN Global Compact, the World Economic Forum, Business for Nature, and the We Mean Business Coalition. 📄 Read the full Call to Action The Ocean Economy: Vital and Vulnerable The ocean supports over 3 billion people with food and livelihoods, facilitates 80% of global trade, and carries 95% of international data traffic. It also plays a critical role in regulating the climate and sustaining biodiversity. Yet its health is increasingly under threat. UNOC3 produced a high-level declaration and strong commitments on marine protection, sustainable fisheries, and marine pollution. But as ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO noted, "We now need to match ambition with action." The Business Call to Action provides a framework for doing just that. Business Commitments The Call to Action highlights how businesses—regardless of whether they operate on land or at sea—can support ocean health and contribute to a thriving blue economy. Recommended actions include: Integrating ocean considerations into climate and nature strategies Contributing to ocean science and data-sharing Reducing pollution and promoting circularity across value chains Scaling investment in ocean innovation and sustainable blue finance Supporting a just transition, including skills and livelihoods for coastal communities Raising awareness and making the ocean a shared responsibility From clean shipping and offshore energy to blue biotechnologies and eco-tourism, companies are already moving—but the declaration urges faster, broader action. Policy Priorities To scale impact, the private sector also calls on governments to: Ratify and implement key agreements on fisheries subsidies, deep-sea mining, plastics, and climate-smart shipping Integrate ocean targets into national climate and biodiversity plans Invest in ocean science and strengthen science-policy interfaces Develop robust and innovative financing mechanisms—such as blended finance and blue bonds Plan for long-term coastal adaptation and sea-level rise With these steps, governments can help unlock the full potential of ocean-positive business models and strengthen economic and climate resilience worldwide. What’s Next The Business Call to Action remains open for additional signatures and serves as a concrete contribution to the post-UNOC3 momentum. ICC and its partners will continue to amplify business leadership and push for the enabling frameworks needed to deliver real-world results. A healthy ocean is the foundation for a resilient economy. Let’s work together to protect it—on land and at sea (John W.H. Denton AO, ICC Secretary General).

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

< Back < Previous | Next > International Arbitration: from a neutral’s perspective Tom Scott 1 Dec 2025 Continuing our series of interviews with arbitration experts, we spoke with Marieke Witkamp, a retired Dutch commercial judge now based in Houston, where she serves full-time as an international arbitrator. [...] In this interview, she reflects on the moment she truly understood the power of arbitration, the advantages it offers over litigation, and how dispute resolution continues to evolve across different sectors. International Arbitration: from a neutral’s perspective Continuing our series of interviews with arbitration experts, we spoke with Marieke Witkamp , a retired Dutch commercial judge now based in Houston, where she serves full-time as an international arbitrator. With a career spanning roles as in-house counsel, arbitration attorney, and judge, and with licences in both the Netherlands and Texas, Marieke brings a valuable dual civil-law/common-law perspective to her work. She is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a member of ICC Netherlands. As she puts it: “Over the years I've had different roles. That helps you to see things from different perspectives.” In this interview, she reflects on the moment she truly understood the power of arbitration, the advantages it offers over litigation, and how dispute resolution continues to evolve across different sectors. When did you first realise that arbitration was such a powerful tool for dispute resolution? I started my career in the Dutch courts. I was trained among very qualified lawyers and senior judges, and I really believed that litigation was the natural path for resolving disputes. Arbitration only crossed my desk when there was a jurisdiction challenge because a contract included an arbitration clause. Things changed when I worked in Qatar and later in the United States. Confronting so many different court systems – each with its own language, procedural expectations and cultural habits – made me realise how complex cross-border litigation truly is. Watching foreign parties try to find local counsel, navigate local courts, translate everything, and learn unfamiliar procedures made a deep impression on me. Looking at the process of litigation from the client’s perspective, I realised: this is why you need arbitration. It was a long time in the making, but that experience made me a believer. Is arbitration typically between two parties, or can it involve more? You can absolutely have multiparty disputes. This can only complicate matters because arbitration always relies on an arbitration agreement, so you need all relevant parties bound by such an agreement. If you don’t have that, there are still ways to get the so-called non-signatory parties involved in arbitration, but that is less straight-forward than in a court proceeding with multiple parties. What matters is understanding the underlying agreements and ensuring the arbitration clause(s) actually cover(s) all the parties involved. Many people assume arbitration happens in one of the parties’ home countries. Is it common to select a neutral venue? Yes, and that’s one of arbitration’s strengths. An American and Dutch company can agree to arbitrate in France, the UK, Singapore – anywhere. In litigation you often end up in the court of the defendant, whether you like it or not, unless you agreed to the jurisdiction of a specific court. But in arbitration you can choose the forum, the procedural rules, the hearing venue and the law that applies. It’s all about party autonomy. What do think are the main advantages of arbitration over litigation? I often refer to five main advantages: Neutrality : in an international context, no party wants to appear before the other party’s national courts. Arbitration offers a neutral forum. The ability to choose your arbitrators : parties can appoint arbitrators with specific legal backgrounds or nationalities. In a US–Dutch dispute, for example, you often see one Dutch and one US arbitrator, balanced by a chair with experience in both civil and common law. Another aspect is that arbitrators do not have to be lawyers. It is not uncommon to appoint expert arbitrators in e.g. construction or maritime cases. That is something courts usually cannot offer. Confidentiality : arbitration protects sensitive business information. Finality : there is no appeal, which gives parties closure. Last but not least: the New York Convention 1958 ensures the global recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards. This Convention is signed by 172 countries and really is the foundation for international arbitration. How common is it to include non-lawyers on an arbitral tribunal? More common than people think: especially in technical sectors. In construction, maritime, or other ‘engineering-heavy’ disputes, you might have one, and sometimes even, more arbitrators with specialised knowledge. Also in general commercial disputes, parties might choose someone with for example financial expertise. The key is that arbitration gives you that option. Besides legal expertise, arbitration experience or specialist knowledge, how important is an arbitrator’s personality in guiding parties towards a resolution? Personality does matter. By the time parties reach litigation or arbitration, they have already tried and failed to resolve their dispute themselves. A good arbitrator is open to what parties need and listens carefully. What’s more, there’s room for creativity in guiding parties through the process, helping them see common ground, and managing the procedure so it remains constructive. If arbitration has so many advantages, why is litigation still more common in many places? It’s helpful to distinguish between domestic and international disputes. For domestic parties, litigation often makes perfect sense: the courts are local, the language is familiar, and the legal culture is known. For international parties, the situation changes. Neutrality, enforceability under the New York Convention, and procedural flexibility become crucial. Sectors also differ. Construction and maritime industries frequently choose arbitration because disputes require specific expertise. Maritime arbitration is often associated with London. Why is that? The maritime sector has its own traditions. Many maritime arbitrations are conducted under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Rules. London is globally regarded as the centre for maritime dispute resolution. Historically, when England ‘ruled the waves,’ much of the world’s shipping business ran through London brokers. Contracts were drafted there; expertise accumulated over generations. Even today, English law is often the applicable law in maritime arbitrations seated around the globe, because it provides predictable, well-developed case law. What’s interesting is how many maritime cases settle early. Simply initiating arbitration under LMAA Rules signals seriousness; that alone prompts many parties to negotiate. A large percentage never reach a final award. How does mediation fit into the picture? Is it used enough? I believe mediation is undervalued in business. It has enormous potential but is still not used as widely as it should be – especially compared to the United States, where nearly every dispute goes to mediation first. In mediation, parties work with a neutral facilitator who has no decision-making power. It is a collaborative and creative process. I’m convinced it should be used more. Maybe this is a silly question, but does arbitration take place in courtrooms? One of arbitration’s defining features is that hearings can take place anywhere but in a court room – hotel conference rooms, law firm offices, and even in community centres. It is more informal and more adaptable to the needs of the parties. As a result, the parties involved find it a less overwhelming process. Despite this informality, the process still follows key stages: submissions, document production, and then the hearing. What role does the arbitrator play in the process? In arbitration, the tribunal is involved from the very beginning. After appointment, we hold a case management conference to set procedural rules and, in ICC arbitrations, to discuss and finalise the Terms of Reference. This early conversation is essential; you get to see where parties are coming from. It helps clarify expectations and build a working relationship – not just within the tribunal but also with the parties. When issues arise later, it becomes much easier to organise a status conference and resolve them efficiently. For me, this early communication reflects the spirit of arbitration: clarity, collaboration, and moving the process forward in the best way possible.

< 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 > “Geopolitics is back in the boardroom”: a conversation with Marhijn Visser Tom Scott 3 Mar 2026 Ahead of WTO MC14, shifting trade dynamics and geopolitical pressures are directly affecting supply chain resilience, digital trade continuity and long-term planning; we discuss what Dutch business should anticipate and how engagement can strengthen predictability. “Geopolitics is back in the boardroom”: a conversation with Marhijn Visser As the World Trade Organization prepares for the next Ministerial Conference (MC14) later this month, questions about the future of multilateral trade have never been more pressing. Marhijn Visser, Deputy Director of International Affairs at VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland and Board Member of ICC Netherlands, will once again join the Dutch delegation. With experience from both inside government and at the WTO, he shares his perspective on reform, geopolitics and what Dutch business should prepare for next. Ahead of MC14, the WTO has been described as being ‘at a crossroads.’ Is that correct? And is it still fit for purpose? To put it diplomatically, people say this at every ministerial conference. For example, two years ago in Abu Dhabi, everyone was saying it was the ‘make or break summit’. However, the reality is more nuanced. On the one hand, the WTO is still very relevant. Around 75% of global trade still takes place under WTO rules, not under free trade agreements. Trade continues to flow, and the rulebook still provides the foundation for the global trading system. On the other hand, reform is clearly needed. One major issue is that the dispute settlement system is no longer fully functioning, because the United States has blocked the appointment of judges to the Appellate Body. It’s good to keep in mind that while President Trump started this in his first term, it was already underway during President Obama’s administration, then continued by President Biden. So this is not only a Republican issue. The second problem is that the rulebook itself is outdated. It has not been updated for over 30 years. Since then, we have seen the rise of e-commerce, the Internet, artificial intelligence – none of which are reflected in the current framework. Industrial subsidies are another major issue. China, but also the United States and Europe, have significant subsidy programmes. And finally, there is the issue of consensus. Formal WTO decisions require agreement from all 160-plus members. In today’s geopolitical climate, that is increasingly difficult to achieve. In representing Dutch business at MC14, what are your key priorities for the Ministerial Conference? Reform of the WTO is the first priority. Without reform, the system risks becoming less relevant over time. Second is maintaining the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. This is extremely important. The moratorium ensures that countries do not impose customs duties on electronic transactions. If customs duties were applied to electronic transmissions, it would seriously disrupt digital trade. Third, there needs to be a broader discussion on industrial policy. We are currently seeing something of a global subsidy rat race, with major programmes in the United States, Europe and China. This has significant implications for competitiveness, making it more difficult for developing countries to keep up. The WTO remains the natural platform to discuss these issues. Trade policy is increasingly shaped by geopolitics. How should Dutch businesses adapt? The most important message is simple: geopolitics is back in the boardroom. This is something we hear not only from multinationals, but also from SMEs. As a result, long-term planning has become more difficult. The key response is resilience. One of the most effective tools companies have is due diligence. By mapping their supply chains and understanding their dependencies, companies can reduce risks and become more resilient. Interestingly, this overlaps with ESG requirements. If you are already conducting supply chain due diligence for ESG purposes, you are also strengthening your geopolitical resilience. This is not just a compliance exercise – it can become a competitive advantage. We are also seeing the emergence of new roles within companies, such as geopolitical risk specialists. That reflects how fundamentally the business environment has changed. What are the key trade policy priorities of the new Dutch government? We are very pleased that trade policy has been given a more central place by the new government. Around 35% of our national income comes from trade so it is essential that trade policy reflects that reality. We also see a change regarding the importance of free trade agreements. For example, the political debate around the EU-Mercosur agreement shifted significantly; there is increasing awareness that trade agreements are essential for supply chain diversification and economic security. Another positive development is that trade will again have a dedicated minister, rather than a state secretary. Budget cuts for embassies have also been reversed, which is important for supporting Dutch businesses abroad. Overall, I think politics in the Netherlands is moving in the right direction. Are you optimistic about the future of multilateral trade? Or are we entering a more transactional, power-driven era? We are clearly entering a new era. After the Cold War, we experienced what you could call both a peace dividend and a globalisation dividend. Companies and societies benefited from stability and open markets. We are now finally waking up to the fact that era is over. We are entering a more unstable and uncertain global environment; we cannot simply go back to business as usual. At the same time, change is possible. For example, the EU recently concluded a trade agreement with India after more than 20 years of negotiations. This shows you that, once the political will was there, progress was made quickly. Change is possible, if we want it to happen. The same could happen at the WTO – but it will require leadership and engagement. What role should business play in shaping the future of the trading system? Business needs to be more vocal and more engaged. At the last Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, there was an enormous business presence; hundreds, perhaps thousands of representatives. That shows how much is at stake. The International Chamber of Commerce has a particularly important role to play as a bridge between business communities around the world. In many countries, especially in the Global South, government positions do not always fully reflect the interests of their own business communities. By strengthening dialogue and cooperation between businesses globally, ICC can help ensure that the voice of business is heard more clearly. That's the main priority – and we’re happy to contribute to that.

< Back < Previous | Next > A Deeper Dive into the Importance of Dispute-Resolution Clauses Tom Scott 3 Feb 2026 Dispute-resolution clauses are often treated as boilerplate — but they are anything but. In our latest interview, Marieke Schaink explains why getting them right is a core element of risk management in international contracts. A Deeper Dive into the Importance of Dispute-Resolution Clauses An interview with Marieke Schaink , Partner at Avizor advocates & arbitrators Marieke Schaink has worked primarily in international arbitration since beginning her legal career in 2011, save for a three-and-a-half-year stint at the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM). As a Partner at Avizor advocates & arbitrators, she specialises in commercial arbitration, with a particular focus on complex contractual disputes. In this interview, she explains why dispute-resolution clauses deserve far more attention than they often receive. Why is it so important for companies to think carefully about dispute-resolution clauses at the contracting stage? A dispute-resolution clause determines the framework of how a dispute will be resolved: who will decide the dispute, where it will be decided, under which rules, and how the outcome can ultimately be enforced. In that sense, it is much more than a technical clause: it’s actually a risk management tool. If it is not correctly formulated, there is a real risk that a dispute cannot be resolved efficiently, or that an award is rendered but cannot be enforced. Even though it may seem like a small issue, a well-written dispute-resolution clause makes sure that both parties know exactly what to expect and can resolve disputes through a clear, structured and efficient process. Why is the contracting stage the right moment to address this? At the contracting stage, parties’ interests are aligned in at least one aspect: everyone wants the transaction to succeed. There is usually a willingness to give and take in order to reach an agreement. Once a dispute arises, that willingness often disappears: the parties find themselves on opposing sides and, at a minimum, perceive each proposal from the other as disadvantaging them, which in turn makes them less engaged and less open-minded. So agreeing on procedural matters becomes much more difficult. Addressing dispute resolution early avoids that problem, at least to some extent. In cross-border contracts, is international enforceability the key advantage of arbitration? International enforceability is one of arbitration’s most important qualities, particularly due to the New York Convention. A large number of countries are party to it, which means arbitration awards can be recognised and enforced almost worldwide. That level of enforceability is difficult to achieve with court judgments. What elements should companies include to ensure an arbitration clause is effective and enforceable? There are several ‘must-haves’ in an arbitration clause; you have to include these otherwise things just don’t work. The most fundamental is an unequivocal submission to arbitration; it must be absolutely clear that the parties are opting out of the state court system. Another crucial element is the seat of arbitration, which determines the nationality of the award and the applicable arbitration law. Choosing a reputable, arbitration-friendly seat with an independent legal system is vital. That’s because non-reputable seats or non-arbitration-friendly jurisdictions certainly do exist. The third important element is whether to work with an arbitration institution. While parties can carry out arbitration without an institute – known as ad hoc arbitration – having an institute involved means that the arbitration process is taken care of. The institute provides rules, procedures, administrative support and safeguards against procedural deadlock. Beyond that, parties can include all kinds of add-ons such as language, number and qualifications of arbitrators. What are the most common mistakes you see in practice? I often see jurisdictional disputes caused by clauses that are unclear or imprecise. This frequently arises with split jurisdiction, where multiple dispute resolution mechanisms apply within the same contract. That choice can work, but the drafting must be extremely precise. If the language is unclear, a lot of time, effort and money may be lost on disputes about how the disputes should be resolved. That is not to say that more detail is the solution. In fact, another pitfall I see is overengineering. Being overly prescriptive, for example by stipulating narrow arbitrator qualifications, may sound sensible, but combined criteria (such as a specific language requirement plus expertise in the governing law) can severely shrink the arbitrator pool, slow appointments, and complicate the process. Why is Netherlands-seated ICC Arbitration particularly suitable for businesses? The ICC is an internationally renowned arbitral institution and ICC arbitration benefits from truly global input. The rules are shaped by contributions from local committees around the world, including the Netherlands, which makes them robust and well balanced. Combined with the Netherlands’ strong arbitration community, with experienced arbitrators, an independent, arbitration-literate judiciary, and an arbitration-friendly legal framework, this makes the Netherlands an attractive seat, even for disputes where neither party is Dutch. How can in-house counsel and commercial teams work better together on dispute-resolution strategies? It is important that in-house counsel understands commercial priorities, while commercial teams are aware of which legal points should not be conceded. That mutual understanding makes a real difference. I can imagine that in the heat of a transaction, achieving that mutual understanding can be difficult. A practical way to approach that can be to develop an internal playbook: a clear framework outlining preferred dispute-resolution options for different situations. Finally, what advice would you give to young practitioners starting out in arbitration? Get involved early. I waited quite long before actively participating in the arbitration community because it didn’t seem like something I’d truly enjoy or fit naturally into. But there are so many approachable events for young practitioners, and they offer real opportunities to learn, connect, and find mentors. My advice is to dive in: you’ll learn a great deal, build meaningful relationships, and, above all, it’s genuinely a lot of fun!

< 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 > 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

< Back < Previous | Next > The Eight Key Benefits of ICC Arbitration for Business Disputes Tom Scott 2 Jan 2026 The Eight Key Benefits of ICC Arbitration for Business Disputes When settling business disputes, choosing ICC arbitration over regular court systems offers businesses a wealth of advantages. We spoke to ICC Netherlands’ Secretary General Laure Jacquier to find out more. Here’s what we discovered: the eight key benefits of ICC arbitration. It’s hard to rank the advantages of ICC arbitration in order of importance. That’s because every dispute is different. That said, the key advantages below help explain why so many businesses turn to arbitration as a dispute resolution method. 1. Confidentiality: the foundation of trust Confidentiality is often the first benefit businesses mention when discussing arbitration. Unlike court proceedings, which are usually public, arbitration takes place behind closed doors. For companies dealing with sensitive commercial data, trade secrets or reputational risks, privacy is crucial. By keeping disputes out of the public eye, ICC arbitration allows parties to focus on finding solutions rather than managing unwanted exposure. “This level of privacy can be critical for maintaining a competitive edge and protecting a company’s reputation,” Laure explains. “ICC arbitration gives businesses peace of mind, knowing their interests are safeguarded.” 2. Efficiency instead of prolonged litigation Another major advantage is efficiency. Court cases can drag on for years, often involving appeals that add more time, cost and uncertainty (the very three things that are not included in a company’s strategic plan). In fast-moving industries, in particular, any time that can be saved makes a real difference. “In contrast, ICC arbitration is designed to move cases forward efficiently,” says Laure. “The ICC applies strict timelines, offers discounted fees if arbitrators are late in issuing awards, and provides expedited procedures where appropriate. This allows companies to resolve disputes faster and return their focus to running the business.” 3. Flexibility built around business needs Companies like to set their own agendas. As such, ICC arbitration offers a level of flexibility that court systems rarely match. Instead of rigid procedural rules, parties can tailor the process to fit the unique needs of their own dispute. This includes choosing arbitrators with relevant expertise and shaping how and where proceedings are held. “Parties can agree on the language, location, and procedural timetable,” Laure notes. “The process is designed with business realities in mind.” 4. Global enforceability under the New York Convention For companies operating across borders, enforceability is a massive concern. However, thanks to the New York Convention, ICC arbitration awards are recognized and enforceable in more than 170 countries. This means national courts in contracting states are generally required to enforce arbitral awards, subject to limited exceptions. “International enforceability is a major advantage,” says Laure. “It offers a level of certainty that court judgments don’t always provide, particularly when recognition across jurisdictions is uncertain.” What does this means in practical terms? “It ensures that an award carries real weight; it’s not just symbolic.” 5. A cost-effective option in the long run Although arbitration is sometimes seen as expensive, ICC arbitration often proves more cost-effective than lengthy court litigation. Prolonged lawsuits can generate high legal fees, court costs, and indirect business disruption. With its streamlined procedures, ICC arbitration “often results in lower overall costs,” Laure explains. “That allows businesses to focus on growth instead of mounting legal expenses.” 6. Impartiality and strong institutional oversight Neutrality is essential in international disputes. ICC arbitration addresses this through strict standards governing arbitrator independence and expertise. “Arbitrators are selected based on their independence and qualifications, ensuring decisions are made solely on the merits of the case,” Laure says. “Combined with oversight by the ICC International Court of Arbitration, this provides businesses with confidence in a fair and objective process.” 7. Predictability and procedural control Unlike congested court systems, ICC arbitration gives parties greater control over timelines and procedures. “Parties can agree on deadlines and structure the process to suit their needs,” Laure explains. “That predictability helps businesses manage disputes without unnecessary disruption. For ongoing operations, that level of control can be invaluable.” 8. Expert-driven decision-making Finally, ICC arbitration allows disputes to be decided by arbitrators with industry-specific expertise. The flipside to this is that court judges may not always have specialized knowledge of complex commercial or technical issues. “This expertise leads to more informed and commercially sensible decisions,” Laure concludes. “Businesses benefit from the insight of professionals who truly understand their industry.”