Search this site

Customs at an inflection point 21 Apr 2026 Two back-to-back events in April 2026, a conference in Brussels on the new Union Customs Code hosted by ICC Be, and the latest meeting of the ICC Customs and Trade Facilitation Commission hosted by ICC NL, offered a useful snapshot of where global customs is heading. Different audiences, different levels of detail, but the same underlying currents. Four trends in particular deserve business attention this year. In one minute (for non-specialists) If your business ships goods across borders, or works with companies that do, the systems governing those movements are being rewritten. The EU is building a single digital platform to replace 27 national customs systems, starting with e-commerce in 2028 and extending to all trade by 2034. Worldwide, customs authorities are shifting from checking paperwork to analysing live data, with artificial intelligence doing more of the work every year. Companies that share clean, consistent data with customs get faster clearance; those that don't get more friction at the border. Four trends stand out in 2026: data quality becomes a business priority, AI is changing how controls work, "trusted trader" status is being redefined, and global rules are harmonizing, but unevenly. The rest of this article explains each, with a short glossary of the main terms at the end. 1. Data is becoming the unit of customs compliance For decades, customs has been organised around declarations. A trader submits an entry summary, an import declaration, a transit message, an export declaration, often into separate national systems, often with overlapping content. The EU's new Union Customs Code, politically agreed in late March, is the clearest signal yet that this model is giving way to something else: a data-driven, consignment-centric system in which the same information is submitted once and consumed many times. The EU Customs Data Hub will go live for e-commerce in July 2028 and become mandatory for all operators by 2034. The same shift is visible at global level. The World Customs Organization's 2025 edition of the SAFE Framework of Standards makes data harmonisation one of its headline priorities, explicitly to reduce duplication and streamline cross-border processes. At the operational level, Dutch Customs is piloting what it calls "digital corridors", arrangements with trusted operators who make supply-chain data available via API, in exchange for lighter-touch controls at the border. The conceptual direction of travel is unmistakable. For business, the practical implication is that data quality moves from being a back-office concern to a compliance KPI. Unique identifiers that follow a consignment from origin to destination, consistent product classifications, clean master data on parties in the chain — these stop being "nice to have" and become the basis on which risk, duty and release decisions are made. Several speakers at both events made the same point in different words: the technology is not the problem, the data model is. 2. The AI adoption gap is widening, not narrowing The WCO's 2026 Study Report on Disruptive Technologies, based on a survey of 116 customs administrations, makes for sobering reading. Only around 10 percent of administrations report using artificial intelligence or machine learning in production. Another 37 percent are experimenting or piloting. Roughly 30 percent still describe themselves as "operational", meaning foundational systems are in place but limited advanced analytics. Against this, private-sector adoption of AI has accelerated sharply. UNCTAD projects the technology will be the frontier technology with the largest market size by 2033, at around USD 4.8 trillion. The gap has two consequences. First, administrations will increasingly rely on private-sector data quality and self-assessment because they cannot inspect their way through growing volumes, 5.8 billion e-commerce items entered the EU alone in 2025. Second, where administrations do deploy AI, they deploy it in ways that demand more from industry, not less. Several customs authorities are now using large data models to identify "risk clusters" at a macro level, then asking individual importers to prove their specific shipments are outside those clusters. Rotterdam's AI-driven x-ray image recognition is an encouraging example of how automation can raise coverage without adding headcount. But the gap between administrations with that capability and those still working from paper-based processes is not closing. 3. The trust architecture is being rebuilt A common thread across the EU reform, the WCO SAFE update, and recent bilateral trade agreements is that the relationship between administrations and compliant businesses is being redefined. Three examples make the pattern visible. In the EU, the new Trust & Check trader regime, on top of the existing AEO programme, offers self-assessment, self-release and reduced controls to companies willing to grant customs real-time access to their data. This is a significant step beyond AEO: the balance of effort shifts from periodic audit to continuous visibility. Whether the benefits will justify the investment for most companies is an open question, and one industry is actively shaping through the delegated acts still being drafted. At the same time, the EU's co-legislators wisely chose to retain AEO in parallel, preserving a more accessible tier for companies that cannot or will not go that far. In origin certification, research presented at recent WCO events suggests full self-certification does not produce measurably lower compliance than third-party certification. That evidence is nudging administrations that had resisted the shift. But the picture is not uniform: India's new "authentication" requirement under the EU-India and UK-India agreements introduces a verification layer on top of self-certification, requiring exporters to provide additional identifiers through new IT systems. The UK and the EU have built two different solutions. Expect this pattern, self-certification at the level of principle, authentication in the detail, to spread. On the platform side, e-commerce marketplaces are being drawn into the compliance chain as "deemed importers", liable for customs compliance, duty and VAT on goods sold to EU consumers. The shift in responsibility is less a change of doctrine than a recognition that trust, data and liability must be realigned for the actors who actually hold the commercial information. 4. Harmonisation is uneven and will stay that way Against the direction of travel towards greater integration, real-world harmonisation remains patchy. HS 2028 was finalised in January 2026 and enters into force across the WCO membership in 2028, but a meaningful number of countries are still implementing HS 2017, with all the friction in correlation tables, tariff engineering and origin determinations that implies. In the EU reform, centralised customs clearance for imports is being introduced, but the VAT framework has not been aligned, leaving a gap industry has flagged as a missed opportunity. Penalties are only partially harmonised: the final text sets a minimum common core of infringements and non-criminal sanctions, but Member States retain room to add national sanctions on top. The United States is debating a bill that would replace its first-sale valuation rule with a last-sale rule, converging with other jurisdictions but doing so through a politically charged process with affordability implications for consumers. None of this is an argument against the direction of travel. But it is an argument for realism about timelines and transition costs. Companies operating across multiple jurisdictions will continue to need parallel capability for some years, systems, data, and compliance processes that accommodate different rules, different timings, and different assumptions. So what? The operational substance of customs reform is being written now, in the delegated and implementing acts of the EU Union Customs Code, in the explanatory notes accompanying HS 2028, in the work programmes of the WCO Permanent Technical Committee and its technical sub-committees, and in the bilateral IT systems being built around new trade agreements. These are not abstract debates. They will determine the data companies have to provide, the systems they have to connect to, the trusted-trader status they can realistically target, and the penalties they are exposed to. The practical channels for businesses to engage are well established: national trade facilitation committees, industry federations, chambers of commerce, and global business organisations with formal observer status at the WCO. Where those channels are used well, the detail reflects operational reality. Where they are not, business ends up implementing rules that were designed without it. The next twelve months, between now and the first EU Data Hub go-live in mid-2028, will set the tone. Key terms at a glance Harmonised System (HS) — the global product-classification language used by customs authorities in 200+ countries. Every tradeable good is assigned an HS code, which drives duty rates, origin rules and statistics. The system is updated every 5–6 years by the WCO. HS 2017 / HS 2022 / HS 2028 — successive editions of the Harmonised System. HS 2028 was finalised in January 2026 and takes effect in 2028; many countries are still implementing HS 2017 or HS 2022, which creates classification gaps between trading partners. WCO (World Customs Organization) — the Brussels-based body that develops global customs standards, including the Harmonised System and the SAFE Framework. 185+ member administrations. Union Customs Code (UCC) — the EU's foundational customs law. The "new UCC" is the reform politically agreed in March 2026, introducing the EU Customs Data Hub, the EU Customs Authority and the Trust & Check trader regime. EU Customs Data Hub — a single EU-wide digital platform that will replace the 111 national and EU customs IT systems currently in use. E-commerce goes first in 2028; all trade by 2034. AEO (Authorised Economic Operator) — the existing trusted-trader status in the EU and most major economies. Companies meeting security and compliance criteria get lighter-touch treatment at the border. Trust & Check — a new, higher-tier trusted-trader regime in the EU reform. In exchange for giving customs real-time access to company data, traders get self-assessment and self-release. AEO remains in parallel. Deemed importer — an e-commerce platform or marketplace treated, for customs and VAT purposes, as if it were the importer of the goods it sells — even if it never physically handles them.

Boards under the microscope: from compliance to ethical stewardship 27 Feb 2026 Boards Under the Microscope: From Compliance to Ethical Stewardship On 27 February 2026, ICC Netherlands hosted the 12th Ethics & Compliance Observatory Group Meeting at our offices in The Hague. The morning brought together compliance leaders, board advisors, recruiters and governance experts for a focused discussion on a question many organisations are currently grappling with: how can ethics and compliance move from a defensive control function to a strategic force shaping boardroom decision-making? While ICC Netherlands briefly introduced its broader work, including our efforts to connect standards with impact and our Week of Integrity initiative, the heart of the meeting lay in two substantive conversations: a panel on the evolving compliance function and a keynote on how boards should oversee ethics. What emerged was a clear message: the future of ethics is not technical. It is structural, cultural and deeply connected to governance. Compliance as a Strategic Function: Beyond the “Checkbox” The first panel, moderated by Andrea Cardoso, explored how compliance is changing in practice and in the labour market. Bringing together perspectives from industry and executive search, the discussion highlighted a profound shift in expectations. Compliance is no longer perceived as a back-office “checkbox” function. C-level leaders increasingly expect strategic input. Boards expect foresight. Business teams expect partnership. Three themes stood out. The Skillset Is Expanding Technical knowledge remains essential. Professionals must understand regulatory developments in areas such as AI, ESG, sanctions, and geopolitical risk. However, the panel emphasised that soft skills are now decisive. Bridge-building, stakeholder management and the ability to translate complex risk into business-relevant language were described as core capabilities. Compliance leaders who succeed are those who can sit at the table early in a project, not only at the end when something goes wrong. In other words, credibility is built through enabling the business, not blocking it. Talent Shortages and Changing Profiles Recruitment data presented during the discussion showed a noticeable gap in mid-level compliance professionals with five to ten years of experience. At the same time, backgrounds are diversifying. The function is no longer dominated exclusively by lawyers; professionals now come from finance, data, behavioural science and operational roles. AI is also reshaping entry-level roles. As routine tasks become automated, junior compliance professionals are expected to contribute more analytical and advisory value from the outset. This evolution raises an important question for boards: are we investing in the right competencies for the risks we face? Central Oversight vs. Local Autonomy In global organisations, tension persists between centralised policy-making and local implementation. The panel reflected on the need to balance consistency with contextual sensitivity. Cultural differences, including differing perceptions of practices such as nepotism or gift-giving, complicate the picture. The conclusion was pragmatic: effective compliance culture is built through relationships. Early engagement with local business leaders, understanding operational realities, and empowering them to take ownership of decisions strengthens both integrity and performance. Compliance, therefore, is not merely about rules. It is about trust. How Boards Should Oversee Ethics: From Aspiration to Practice If the panel addressed the “how” of compliance in organisations, the keynote by Vera Cherepanova , Director of Boards of the Future, addressed the “who”, the board itself . Her presentation was grounded in the How Boards Should Oversee Ethics: A Ten-Practice Guide for Modern Boards . The document, outlined on pages 1 and 5 of the guide, sets out ten concrete practices designed to embed ethics into governance rather than treat it as an afterthought. The tone was clear: ethics must evolve from a “nice-to-have” add-on into a core operating system for modern boards. Several practices resonated strongly with participants. Ask Better Questions One of the most compelling concepts introduced was FOFO, the “fear of finding out”. Boards often receive polished reports and may hesitate to probe further. Yet corporate scandals rarely arise from unknown risks; they emerge from known issues left unexplored. Curiosity requires courage. Boards must move beyond rehearsed answers and formulate questions that challenge assumptions. Ethics oversight begins not with additional reporting, but with better inquiry. Oversee Culture, Starting with the Board’s Own The guide emphasises that culture is no longer a “soft” topic. It is measurable, strategic and directly linked to enterprise value. However, before evaluating management’s culture, boards must examine their own dynamics. How are dissenting views handled? Is debate encouraged? Are uncomfortable issues addressed openly? Board culture shapes organisational culture. The mirror effect cannot be ignored. Look Beyond the Numbers Financial expertise remains central to governance, but the guide cautions against “arithmocracy”, the dominance of numbers without narrative. Many of today’s most consequential risks sit outside financial statements until they crystallise into crises. Boards must therefore interrogate not only what the data shows, but why it shows it. Every debate may start with figures, but it ends with values and consequences. Set the Conditions for Speak-Up Whistleblowers were described as critical early-warning systems. Too few reports can be as concerning as too many. The board has a unique role in ensuring that reporting mechanisms are credible, protective and genuinely accessible. Importantly, psychological safety must be real, not performative. Artificial harmony, where everyone is polite but no one is honest, is a governance risk in itself. Bring in the Right Expertise A particularly practical recommendation concerns board composition. If ethics, risk and compliance expertise is absent, boards should add it or establish interim advisory mechanisms. Modern risk landscapes require modern competencies. This is not diversity for symbolism. It is alignment between risk exposure and oversight capability. Practice Stewardship Finally, the guide reframes the board’s legal discretion. Corporate law gives directors significant latitude under the business judgment rule. The central question is therefore not what boards must do, but what they choose to do with that discretion. Stewardship becomes the ultimate test of ethical governance. Ethics in a Time of Polycrisis The broader context underlying the discussion was what the guide describes as “polycrisis”, technological shocks, geopolitical volatility, leadership misconduct and societal distrust. These forces expose thin ethical oversight structures. At the same time, regulatory frameworks often treat ethics as a defence mechanism. Compliance becomes a shield rather than a compass. The Observatory meeting challenged that framing. Ethics is not about reducing liability alone. It is about improving decision quality. Boards that integrate curiosity, culture assessment, foresight and structured debate are better positioned to navigate uncertainty. Compliance leaders who speak the language of strategy are more likely to influence outcomes. From Reporting to Informing A subtle but powerful shift was discussed throughout the morning: moving from reporting to informing. Reporting is backward-looking and often technical. Informing is forward-looking and strategic. It shapes discussion rather than merely documenting it. For ethics and compliance leaders, this shift requires confidence and influence tactics. For boards, it requires openness to engage beyond financial metrics. For organisations, it offers resilience. The 12th Ethics & Compliance Observatory Group Meeting reaffirmed ICC Netherlands’ commitment to providing a neutral platform where business leaders, governance experts and compliance professionals can engage in substantive dialogue. Ethical oversight is no longer peripheral. It sits at the centre of sustainable value creation. The question is not whether boards will address ethics. It is how rigorously, and how courageously, they will do so.

ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics: 2024 24 Jun 2025 2024 key statistics The full 2024 statistical report reflects ICC’s standing as the preferred institution for international commercial and investment dispute resolution. The amount in dispute in cases registered in 2024 varied from just below US$10,000 to US$53 billion, with over a third of the cases not exceeding US$3 million. Alexander G. Fessas, Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration and Director of ICC Dispute Resolution services said: “ICC Arbitration remains a preferred dispute resolution method globally, attracting high-value, high-impact disputes as well as lower-value disputes. The 2024 statistical report reflects the trust placed in our services, from businesses and states in need of fair, efficient and forward-looking dispute resolution.” Distribution of parties by region Place of arbitration ICC arbitrations were seated in 107 cities across 62 countries or independent territories. Representation of arbitrators In addition to a wide geographic reach, diversity and inclusion are at the core of our service. In 2024, 577 draft awards were approved in Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Arabic, Italian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Turkish. and bilingually in Chinese/English, demonstrating the adaptability of ICC Dispute Resolution Services in tailoring arbitration services to assist businesses and state entities worldwide. Sectors and industries Cases filed in 2024 covered a wide range of sectors. Top 10 sectors included construction/ engineering; energy; transportation; financing and insurance; telecoms and specialised technologies; health, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics; business services; general trade and distribution; leisure and entertainment and industrial equipment and services. Mediation and other forms of amicable dispute settlement The ICC International Centre for ADR administered 61 new cases in 2024 across its range of services which include mediation, expert proceedings, dispute boards and DOCDEX cases relating to trade finance instruments. Expert proceedings accounted for 20 new filings , with the majority of proceedings from the construction and energy sectors. Parties and neutrals represented a broad geographic span including Africa, the Middle East, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific, reflecting the continuing adoption globally of ICC’s ADR services. For an ICC DRS data overview, download our one-pager in English , Arabic , Chinese , French , Portuguese and Spanish . Access statistical reports from previous years via the ICC Dispute Resolution Library . Download

Shaping the next chapter of global trade: the business agenda for MC14 27 Feb 2026 Shaping the Next Chapter of Global Trade: The Business Agenda for MC14 In March 2026, ministers will gather in Yaoundé for the 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) of the World Trade Organization. The conference takes place at a time of increased trade tensions, expanding unilateral measures and growing uncertainty in global markets. For the Netherlands – one of the most open and trade-dependent economies in the world – this context has direct implications. Dutch companies operate in global value chains that depend on predictable market access, enforceable trade rules and stable digital connectivity. When those conditions weaken, businesses face higher compliance costs, greater contractual risk and more complex supply chain management. Against this backdrop, 145 chambers of commerce and business associations from all regions have endorsed a Global Business Statement urging WTO Members to launch a structured, time-bound reform process at MC14. The statement calls for restoring the WTO’s ability to negotiate updated rules, resolve disputes effectively and provide transparency in global trade. 2026-icc-MC14-Global-Business-Statement-1st-release-145-signatories .pdf Download PDF • 71KB Alongside systemic reform, the signatories underline an immediate priority: renewing the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions. The Moratorium, first introduced in 1998, prevents governments from imposing customs duties on cross-border electronic transmissions. Its renewal is once again on the MC14 agenda. Why this matters for Dutch business The Dutch government’s official position ahead of MC14 confirms that a well-functioning WTO remains essential for Dutch and European prosperity. Approximately three-quarters of global trade continues to take place under WTO rules. For a country that accounts for roughly 3% of world trade, the stability of that framework is not optional. The WTO underpins several practical aspects of business operations: Market access predictability. Exporters rely on bound tariff commitments and non-discrimination principles when entering foreign markets. Dispute settlement. When trade rules are breached, a functioning dispute mechanism provides legal recourse rather than political escalation. Level playing field. Clear disciplines on subsidies and state intervention help ensure fair competition. Digital continuity. Cross-border data flows increasingly support logistics, finance, professional services and advanced manufacturing. When institutional processes stall or enforcement weakens, uncertainty increases. This can translate into delayed investment decisions, higher risk premiums and more complex compliance requirements. The Dutch “Kaderinstructie” for MC14 highlights the importance of safeguarding core WTO principles, advancing institutional reform and maintaining the Moratorium on electronic transmissions. These priorities closely align with the positions articulated by the International Chamber of Commerce at global level. From institutional debate to operational consequences The discussion around the e-commerce Moratorium illustrates how systemic issues translate directly into operational business impact. For nearly three decades, WTO Members have refrained from applying customs duties to electronic transmissions. This has provided legal certainty for cloud computing, data analytics, software distribution and digitally enabled services. If the Moratorium were not renewed at MC14, WTO Members would be free to introduce such duties. For companies relying on cross-border cloud infrastructure, this could lead to: Higher recurring operational costs; Reassessment of data storage and processing architecture; Fragmentation of IT systems across jurisdictions; Increased administrative complexity. An example cited in ICC discussions is HARA, an Indonesian agri-tech company that relies on global cloud services to process satellite imagery and verified farmer data. The affordability of cross-border digital services enables traceability, financial inclusion and export compliance. Additional duties on electronic transmissions would directly increase costs and affect scalability. While the Dutch economic structure differs, the underlying exposure is comparable. Dutch logistics operators, agri-food exporters, fintech companies and technology firms rely heavily on integrated digital services across borders. Even moderate cost increases or regulatory fragmentation can have cumulative effects, particularly for SMEs. In this sense, the Moratorium is not a technical trade provision; it forms part of the infrastructure that supports modern commerce. ICC’s global advocacy and business mobilisation In preparation for MC14, ICC has issued a Call to Action urging WTO Members to launch formal reform negotiations with a concrete work programme. Key elements include: Addressing institutional blockages that affect decision-making and plurilateral agreements; Reinforcing dispute settlement mechanisms; Ensuring structured engagement of the private sector; Committing to a standstill on new trade-restrictive measures; and Maintaining the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions. The Global Business Statement, now endorsed by 145 organisations worldwide, demonstrates broad cross-regional support for these priorities. The objective is pragmatic: restore confidence in the multilateral trading system and ensure it remains relevant to contemporary trade realities. ICC Netherlands: connecting global advocacy and national input At national level, ICC Netherlands convened a round table on 29 January to gather input from Dutch companies and partner organisations ahead of MC14. Discussions addressed dispute settlement, industrial subsidies, digital trade, sustainability and the broader reform agenda. The insights collected were transmitted to ICC’s global network and contributed to shaping the international business position. Importantly, there is substantial alignment between ICC advocacy and the Dutch government’s official MC14 framework. Such alignment enhances policy coherence. When national positions reflect practical business considerations, and those positions are reinforced at global level, the likelihood of consistent implementation increases. For internationally active companies, this consistency contributes to predictability. Looking ahead to MC14 MC14 is unlikely to resolve all systemic challenges facing the WTO. However, several outcomes would provide tangible value for business: Launching a structured reform process with defined timelines; Renewing the Moratorium to preserve digital trade stability; Reinforcing dialogue mechanisms that integrate private sector expertise into reform discussions. In the weeks leading up to MC14, ICC Netherlands will continue engaging with members and stakeholders to ensure that Dutch business perspectives remain visible in international discussions. Members wishing to contribute can: Participate in ICC NL trade and digitalisation workstreams; Share operational experiences related to digital trade, supply chain challenges or regulatory barriers; Endorse the Global Business Statement in support of WTO reform and Moratorium renewal. The multilateral trading system remains a cornerstone of international commerce. While reform is necessary, continuity and predictability remain essential. The decisions taken at MC14 will influence not only institutional dynamics, but also the daily operating environment of companies trading across borders. ICC Netherlands will continue to provide a channel for constructive business input as this process unfolds.

Policy uncertainty cost businesses US$202 billion in 2025 - and the stakes for 2026 are bigger 11 May 2026 Policy uncertainty cost businesses US$202 billion in 2025 - and the stakes for 2026 are bigger A new ICC report with Oxford Economics puts a price tag on policy volatility, for the first time quantifying its impact on real business investment across the world's largest economies - and the value of predictability itself. When the political environment is unstable, business does what business has to do: it waits. Boards delay capital projects, supply-chain decisions are postponed, hiring pauses, and the cost compounds. ICC and Oxford Economics have now put a price tag on that pattern. In a new report published in April 2026, they estimate that the surge in global economic policy uncertainty in 2025, driven primarily by trade policy volatility and culminating in the April 2025 "Liberation Day" tariff package, cost businesses around US$202 billion in lost or delayed investment across ten major economies, equivalent to 0.2% of global GDP. The figure is large in its own right. It is bigger than the entire United States defence procurement budget for FY2025 (around US$167 billion). It is more than double the global capital spend of Alphabet, Google's parent company, in a year of breakneck AI-driven expansion. And it is a conservative estimate — capturing only the direct, measurable impact on real business investment, holding other factors constant. The size of the underlying shock was itself unprecedented. The Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index in 2025 reached its highest level on record, surpassing both the global financial crisis and the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The damage was unusually broad-based: every one of the ten economies in the sample, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU-4 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain), India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States, together about 70% of world GDP, saw real business investment dragged down. Across the sample, investment grew just 0.4% in 2025. Absent the uncertainty shock, it would likely have grown more than four times faster, at 1.9%. The geographical pattern is instructive. Mexico and Canada were hit hardest in relative terms, with investment 6.8% and 5.3% below their counterfactual paths - losses comparable to a meaningful share of the contractions seen during the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States incurred the largest absolute loss, around US$74 billion, although a powerful AI-driven investment boom masked the underlying drag in the headline figures. South Korea, hit simultaneously by a domestic constitutional crisis and intensifying US trade pressure, saw investment 2.9% below the counterfactual. The United Kingdom, with a more services-led economy and lower exposure to US trade policy, was the least affected. The stakes for 2026 are higher still. The report models two scenarios. Under an adverse case - a renewed uncertainty shock of historical magnitude hitting all ten economies in Q2 2026 - real business investment could fall by 2.7%, or roughly US$380 billion, equivalent to 100% of FDI inflows to North America in 2025. Under a favourable case in which policy clarity is restored, investment could rise 1.8%, or US$252 billion. The gap between those two outcomes, more than US$630 billion, is, in effect, the value of policy clarity. The report's policy conclusion is deliberately non-partisan. Reducing the cost of uncertainty does not require policymakers to choose any specific direction; it requires clarity, consistency and predictability in how decisions are designed, sequenced and communicated. As the authors put it, "the way in which governments and international institutions manage the uncertainty that surrounds their decisions may matter as much as the decisions themselves." For Dutch businesses operating internationally, the takeaway is concrete. Predictability has moved from a political ideal to a balance-sheet item: something to be actively managed, monitored and, where possible, defended. ICC Netherlands will continue to advocate for policy stability, both in the global trade conversation and in the rule-making channels where Dutch business is represented. Read the full report → 2026_The_cost_of_policy_uncertainty_on_investment_Full_report_EN .pdf Download PDF • 2.46MB Read the summary → 2026_The_cost_of_uncertainty_on_investment_Executive_summary_EN .pdf Download PDF • 605KB For further details on the modelling or to discuss the findings, please contact Melanie Laloum at ICC.

Sanctions and export controls in 2026: where Dutch business is most exposed 26 Jun 2026 Sanctions and export controls in 2026: where Dutch business is most exposed For Dutch exporters, the trade-compliance landscape has shifted under foot. The Fiscal and Economic Investigation Service (FIOD) set up a dedicated sanctions enforcement team in 2025. Investigations and site visits are on the rise. The 20th EU sanctions package has landed, and the catch-all goods list has widened to a point where common consumer goods sit alongside the obvious dual-use items. At the second ICC Netherlands Digital Business Lunch on 26 June, more than 40 trade and compliance professionals joined Floor Koops, partner at Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz, and Ruud Altena, corporate compliance leader most recently at Braskem, for a practical conversation on where the risks now sit and what business should do about them. The session was moderated by Andrea Cardoso. A widening net The most striking trend, Koops said, is the steady tightening of the EU sanctions framework. Recent measures include new contractual clauses to prevent tankers being resold to Russian buyers, port infrastructure bans (including in Indonesia), restrictions on Russian crypto-asset providers, and an EU activation of its anti-circumvention tool with a full ban on certain exports to Kyrgyzstan. The number of exemptions and derogation options is shrinking. For an audience broadly familiar with sanctions, the most surprising element is how broadly the catch-all goods list now reaches. Typewriter ribbons, used clothes and seats for motor vehicles are now among the items restricted from export to Russia. A common reaction in the audience: we assumed our products were too ordinary to be caught. On Iran, Koops flagged the recent EU framework allowing further restrictive measures in response to actions threatening the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, on top of restrictions tied to UAV manufacture, technical assistance, brokering and intellectual property. The under-prepared side Companies focus heavily on the export side and miss the import restrictions, Koops said. Since January 2026, the EU has restricted the import of petroleum products bought from other countries when they contain Russian-origin oil. Cigars, pebbles, refrigerators and dishwashers are also caught. Services are the other blind spot. EU restrictions cover two categories: outright bans on providing certain services to Russia (engineering, technical, IT and others), and services tied to goods that were previously restricted from export. Koops described seeing cases where a Dutch company owns goods already inside Russia from before 2022, and is now still prohibited from servicing them because of the underlying restriction. “If you do business in Russia or you have a subsidiary in Russia, there is almost no chance that you don’t also provide a service,” she said. Is a ship just a ship? Altena brought a case to the room. A USD 550 million shipbuilding project, financed in part by a Norwegian pension fund, sourced eight vessels from a Chinese shipyard. Due diligence revealed that the shipyard also built military vessels. The vessels were destined for Asia and South America, never the United States, but the team could not fully eliminate the risk that, somewhere in the operating life of the ship, US sanctions would touch the crew, the maintenance, the bunker fuel or the flag. “Is a ship just a ship? It’s much more. It’s by itself a legal entity. It’s a floating village requiring a crew, requiring maintenance of the ship itself, of the equipment on board,” Altena said. Each layer carries its own sanctions exposure. Sanctioned parties can supply bunker fuel, provide maintenance, or sit in the crew roster. The flag adds a diplomatic angle. Asked what he would do differently with the benefit of hindsight, Altena was direct: he would have pushed harder for South Korea over China. More expensive, politically safer, and the project sponsor would have slept better. The spare-parts trap Where Koops sees classification go wrong most often is in the treatment of spare parts. Companies routinely classify spare parts under the same HS code as the main good. The main good ships under its own export licence, but the spare part, taken on its own, may require a separate licence under the EU dual-use regime. A maintenance contract triggers a shipment of spare parts months later, customs treats it as classified, and the company has unwittingly breached. Even within the EU, certain dual-use items require a licence. A common mistake is to assume that intra-EU shipments are out of scope. They are not. Tone from the top On compliance programmes, Koops and Altena converged on the same message: trade compliance can no longer sit only with legal or the compliance function. A workable programme starts with a thorough risk assessment covering sector, goods exported and imported, counterparties (direct and indirect), geographies and modes of transport. From that assessment, a company can design a tailored programme with concrete steps, clear escalation paths, and workflows tailored to sales, procurement and supply chain. “Compliance should not be something that is a legal or compliance thing, but it should really be owned by the business,” Koops said. Sales, procurement and supply chain are the face of the company to the world. They have to own the risk. A clear, communicated risk appetite (what countries, what sectors will we not touch) is, in her view, the single most effective control a business can put in place. Altena added the operational piece. A regular survey of middle management, scoring the compliance posture on tariff classification, valuation, customs management and other dimensions on a one-to-five scale, lets a company track which weak points are improving and which are not. Annual full reviews, quarterly check-ins on the weaknesses. Document everything, train staff, audit at intervals. When the bank calls A significant share of unintentional breaches surface through bank payment screening. Koops urged companies to cooperate fully and document their answers carefully. Reluctance to share creates a worse problem than disclosure does. Banks that do not get clear answers will not process transactions, and over time they will close the account. Reopening an account elsewhere is materially harder than most companies expect. What Dutch businesses can start doing now Asked to close with five practical priorities, both speakers landed on overlapping but complementary lists. From Floor Koops : first, make sanctions and export-controls compliance a tone-from-the-top priority. It is a competitive advantage. Second, run a risk assessment and design a tailor-made compliance programme around it. Third, classify all of your goods, including spare parts. Fourth, set clear escalation paths, with business units owning the risk. Fifth, embed the culture: trade compliance as a strategic capability, not a backstop. From Ruud Altena : first, keep classification up to date, and aim not just for “correct” but for “optimised” for your supply chain. Second, validate your export tools and have a real conversation with your customs broker. Third, go beyond tier-one screening into the supply chain, on both supplier and customer sides. Fourth, take services seriously. They can be sanctioned, and the sovereignty discussion is widening the scope. Fifth, leverage tariff and free-trade agreements. They are also opportunities, and the Finance Director will thank you. The road ahead Through its Business Integrity Commission, ICC Netherlands continues to develop practical guidance across five working groups. The first deliverable, a set of minimum standards and plain-language one-pagers on sanctions compliance, is expected to be published after the summer, with further work underway on anti-corruption, integrated due diligence, and boardroom ethics. ICC Netherlands shares this work openly, and welcomes new organisations to join. The Digital Business Lunch is a monthly online series discussing the issues that move international trade, covering a range of subjects from tariffs and customs reform to AI in trade compliance, sustainability and IFRS. For more information about upcoming Digital Business Lunches: Events & Trainings | ICC WBO Netherlands or our LinkedIn page.

ICC NL has a new collaborative partner: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Tom Loonen and Jacco Wielhouwer 5 Apr 2025 Tom Loonen and Jacco Wielhouwer We are pleased to announce the start of a new collaboration. From now on, ICC NL will be working closely with the Compliance & Integrity Management programme of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) to broaden stakeholder engagement and share knowledge on several key subjects. We spoke to Tom Loonen and Jacco Wielhouwer to find out more. Tom is a professor in Financial Law and Integrity at the VU. He is responsible for the educational programmes focusing on Compliance and Integrity Management and Financial Economic Crime. Jacco is a professor at the VU’s School of Business and Economics and the Academic Director of the Executive Master of Compliance and Integrity Management. How did you come into contact with ICC NL? Tom: We knew, of course, about the Week of Integrity that ICC NL organises. The content of this week is very important for the VU, especially in the context of our Executive Master of Compliance and Integrity Management programme. This gave us the idea to work closer together. Jacco: If you look at the goals of ICC NL – they focus a great deal on integrity, fighting corruption, compliance and ESG. These subjects are very close to the goals of our education. Moreover, we regularly carry out scientific research together with companies; this yields results that are both relevant and practical to companies. Can you give some examples of your research at the VU? Jacco: To name just a few subjects... We look at international tax planning: the use of Incoterms by business units to shift costs between countries to influence taxes. Another example is where we look at how illegal or unethical behaviour develops and grows within organisations. This is very relevant in the fight against corruption. A third example is our research on how certain AI tools and processes can lead to discrimination. Why is this research relevant to the business community? Tom: What is interesting for ICC members is what we see very often; this is that regulators issue guidelines on a lot of legal topics. And instead of treating these purely as guidelines, many corporates deal with these more as ‘pseudo laws’ and stop thinking critically and just automatically tick the boxes of the guidelines. I would say our research is relevant for ICC members because it can help them think critically in order to be more effective when it comes to following regulations. Our research and training programmes based on up-to-date academic insights can guide and steer organisations towards good, efficient and effective conduct instead of just ‘ticking the boxes’ How do you see ICC NL and the VU helping each other? Tom: We really differentiate ourselves by taking a scientific approach to our training. To that end, we can give ICC NL access to interesting, relevant and accessible scientific material. And ICC has interesting access for us to the international business community which we would love to be in contact with for research or to welcome in our executive education. We are trying to link these two strong labels to help each other in a positive way. What’s the next step? Jacco: We are going to start pragmatically – seeing where we can help each other. ICC NL is quite small, but it has a big reach. The Netherlands also has a very important position in international trade and taxation. We hope to reach international companies with our programme. And on the other hand, we hope that we can help ICC NL by providing scientific insights to the companies and possibly in their global commissions, whether that’s on tax, integrity or compliance. Want to find out more about the educational programmes for professionals in the area of compliance and integrity management at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam? Here are some useful links. • If you are interested in the Executive Master of Compliance and Integrity Management, or specific trainings on Organizational Culture & Behavioural Risk, Enterprise Risk & Compliance Management, Data, Evidence & Compliance, Regulatory Impact & Organizational Response, see Executive Master Compliance & Integrity Management School of Business and Economics for Professionals - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. • Sign up for an information session. Onsite on 15 May, online on 20 May. Open Evening - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam • Information about the training to become a financial economic crime expert: https://vu.nl/en/ education/professionals/courses-programmes/fec-risk-expert/overview • Feel free to contact us - compliance.sbe@vu.nl

Business at the Table: ICC and the Private Sector at the SB62 Climate Talks 30 Jun 2025 How business voices shaped the climate agenda in Bonn—and what’s next on the road to COP30 in Belém The June 2025 Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB62) marked a pivotal checkpoint on the road to COP30. With rising climate impacts, growing geopolitical tensions, and increasing scrutiny of implementation gaps, business and industry leaders—represented through the UNFCCC Business and Industry NGO constituency (BINGO)—played a visible and engaged role in the process. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), as the leading global business representative, was at the heart of these efforts. Business Speaks Up at Opening and Closing Plenaries Rob Cameron, Chair of the ICC Environment Commission, delivered the BINGO opening statement, raising urgent concerns over delays in agenda adoption and calling for accelerated action across the climate agenda. “Ten years after Paris, COP30 must deliver—and it must do so for the real economy,” he emphasized. Four key points framed the private sector’s intervention: NDC Implementation: Businesses called on governments to translate Global Stocktake findings into ambitious, actionable Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) aligned with 1.5°C, with meaningful business engagement in their design and delivery. Adaptation: While mitigation remains critical, businesses urged for a robust framework to scale up private-sector-supported adaptation solutions. Finance: Echoing the Presidency’s USD 1.3 trillion roadmap, the private sector stressed that unlocking capital will require removing regulatory barriers and enhancing risk-sharing mechanisms. Carbon Markets: ICC strongly supported high-integrity carbon markets and rapid implementation of Article 6 as tools to drive finance to where it's most needed. At the closing plenary, the tone was cautiously optimistic. Delegates had worked constructively, but “significant divergences persist,” ICC noted. “Now is the time to transform promises made into real-world implementation,” the statement concluded. Financing Climate Action: Private Sector Ready—but Held Back During the Presidency-led consultation on the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3 Trillion, ICC highlighted the urgent need to align financial frameworks with climate goals. As Beth Burks (S&P Global), speaking for BINGO, noted: “We fully recognize the role we play in reaching the USD 1.3 trillion goal—but the current system is holding us back.” ICC’s contribution to the discussion outlined three priority areas: Enabling Environments: Policy coherence and predictability—especially strong offtake markets and stable regulatory frameworks—are prerequisites for unlocking private investment in developing economies. Reforming Development Finance: Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) must become real catalysts for private finance by accepting greater risk and investing in project development capacity. Prudential Regulation Reform: Current banking regulations penalize climate investment in emerging markets. ICC proposed a structured dialogue with regulators to explore targeted reforms, estimating that such changes could quadruple available bank capital for climate projects. ICC has now published this paper, setting out concrete steps to realign financial regulation with climate ambition. Read it here. Just Transition: Making Climate Action Fair and Inclusive ICC and BINGO welcomed progress on the Just Transition Work Programme, while stressing that implementation must now take center stage. In its statement, business emphasized that a truly just transition must: Be holistic and inclusive, engaging governments, large companies, SMEs, and local innovators. Provide the most vulnerable communities with the tools, skills, and opportunities to thrive. Avoid unintended cross-border consequences, especially for SMEs in developing countries. Business urged policymakers to ensure predictability and coherence across policies, warning that fragmented or duplicative efforts could slow investment and innovation. “There is no silver bullet,” the ICC statement noted. “Efforts must be tailored to national and local realities to be truly effective.” Observer Engagement and Implementation Gaps ICC also weighed in on the Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM) discussions, advocating for more inclusive and efficient observer engagement. Suggestions included shifting some Action Agenda activities to Regional Climate Weeks and leveraging expert dialogues to integrate real-world insights into the process. “The Brazilian concept of Mutirão—working together for the common good—captures what is needed now,” said Agnes Vinblad, representing the United States Council for International Business. “No one actor can tackle the climate challenge alone. We must unite.” What’s Next? Belém Must Deliver for the Real Economy With COP30 in Belém just months away, ICC’s message is clear: it’s time to move from negotiation to implementation. This means: Delivering updated NDCs aligned with 1.5°C. Advancing robust frameworks on adaptation and just transition. Fixing regulatory and financial barriers to unlock private capital. Accelerating Article 6 implementation and voluntary carbon market integrity. ICC stands ready to support the COP Presidencies and Parties in translating words into action. As underscored in the closing statement: “Our shared climate ambitions demand collaborative solutions. The private sector is ready to do its part—but it cannot do it alone.”

Incoterms® 2020: Navigating Risk, Responsibility & Reality in Global Trade 3 May 2025 New Insight: Managing Tariff Risk with Incoterms® As outlined in our April 2025 guidance note “Using the Incoterms® 2020 Rules to Manage Tariff Risk in International Trade,” businesses can use Incoterms strategically to reduce exposure to unpredictable tariff changes. While Incoterms do not affect tariff schedules directly, they clearly allocate responsibility for customs duties and import formalities. This clarity becomes critical in volatile trade environments. Key Takeaways: • Only DDP (Delivered Duty Paid) places full tariff risk and cost on the seller. • All other rules (EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, etc) shift import tariffs to the buyer. • Smart selection between DAP and DDP can make a difference when negotiating long-term contracts under changing trade regimes. Use cases: • Avoid seller exposure to future tariffs by shifting from DDP to DAP. • Use FCA or EXW to pass compliance burdens to better-prepared buyers. • Define roles clearly to reduce friction between logistics, legal, and finance. Understanding Incoterms® 2020: More Than Just Shipping Terms Incoterms® 2020 — shorthand for “International Commercial Terms” — are globally recognized rules to standardize obligations in international sales contracts. Incoterms clarify the responsibilities of sellers and buyers regarding transport costs, risk allocation, and logistics obligations at each point in the supply chain. While Incoterms do not govern ownership transfer or payment mechanisms, they serve as a common legal and commercial language that reduces ambiguity and friction in cross-border trade. • Who arranges and pays for transport and insurance? • Who handles customs clearance? • At what point does the risk transfer from seller to buyer? These are not trivial distinctions. Choosing the wrong Incoterm can lead to costly disputes, unpaid claims, or disrupted deliveries. The 2020 revision introduced updated insurance requirements, clearer allocation of security obligations, and a stronger recommendation to match Incoterms with the realities of modern logistics (like containerization). There are 11 terms, grouped as follows: Multimodal terms: EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAP, DPU, DDP Sea/inland waterway-only terms: FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF Understanding the practical application of these rules is where professionals gain the most value — and where costly misconceptions often arise. Incoterms Gone Wrong: 5 Real Mistakes to Learn From Choosing the wrong Incoterm might seem like a small slip — until it leads to costly delays, damaged goods, legal disputes, or unexpected tax bills. Below are five real-world examples, often used in trade compliance training, that show just how easy it is to get it wrong — and how to avoid the same fate. Misapplying Incoterms® can create costly confusion over responsibility, risk, and compliance — even in otherwise well-structured contracts. While the examples above are fictional, they reflect common pitfalls seen in international trade and logistics. Understanding Incoterms® isn’t just a legal formality — it’s a frontline tool for avoiding preventable disputes in global commerce. Incoterms® in Action: Would You Get It Right? Test yourself! Incorrect use of Incoterms isn’t just academic — it leads to costly errors, disputes, and legal risk. Think you’re covered? Take this quick quiz and test your instincts on three real-world scenarios. You’ll find the correct answers and explanations at the end of this newsletter!

ICC Report: Unlocking Private Sector Investment for Climate Adaptation 28 Aug 2025 ICC Report: Unlocking Private Sector Investment for Climate Adaptation Climate change is no longer a distant risk — it is already reshaping economies and societies worldwide. Extreme weather events caused over US$2 trillion in economic losses between 2014 and 2023 , directly affecting 1.6 billion people. Damages are escalating rapidly, with US$451 billion in losses recorded in just 2022–2023 . Despite this urgent need, adaptation finance lags far behind mitigation . In 2022, global mitigation finance reached US$1.3 trillion, while adaptation attracted only US$76 billion — and just 8% came from the private sector . Developing countries are particularly vulnerable: small island and least developed states paid over twice as much in debt service (US$59bn) as they received in climate finance (US$28bn). To address this gap, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) commissioned Oxera to analyse how the private sector’s role in climate adaptation can be scaled up. The report highlights that public finance alone cannot meet the scale of the challenge . Unlocking private capital is essential to drive the innovation and investment needed to build resilience at speed and scale. Key recommendations The report sets out three strategic priorities for governments, regulators and financial institutions: Strengthen climate risk information and transparency Improve access to high-quality, open climate risk data. Mandate proportionate disclosure of physical climate risks across operations and supply chains. Standardise adaptation metrics and taxonomies to make resilience measurable and investable. Establish enabling institutions and regulatory incentives Embed business participation in National Adaptation Plans. Create sandboxes and procurement frameworks that reward climate resilience. Adjust capital requirements to reflect the benefits of resilient investments. Scale adaptation finance with innovative instruments Expand blended finance, resilience bonds and insurance-linked products. Develop adaptation bonds tied to avoided losses or service delivery outcomes. Leverage insurers’ data and expertise to guide investment and maintain coverage in high-risk areas. ICC at COP30 As the official voice of business in the UN climate negotiations (UNFCCC) , ICC will use this report to advocate for a stronger role of the private sector in climate adaptation at COP30 in Belém, Brazil . With adaptation expected to be a central theme of the talks, ICC’s recommendations aim to shape an actionable policy agenda that enables businesses to be true partners in building global climate resilience. Read the full report 2025-ICC-Oxera-The-role-of-the-private-sector-in-climate-adaptation-Full-report .pdf Download PDF • 3.33MB Read the summary 2025-ICC-Oxera-The-role-of-the-private-sector-in-climate-adaptation-Report-summary .pdf Download PDF • 163KB

ICC Netherlands at the WTO Public Forum 2025 in Geneva Jasper van Schaik 6 Oct 2025 By Jasper van Schaik, Board Member, ICC Netherlands From 16 to 18 September, I had the privilege of representing ICC Netherlands at the World Trade Organization Public Forum in Geneva. This is the world’s largest trade gathering, bringing together over 4,500 participants at a moment when global trade is undergoing profound change. The multilateral trading system established by the WTO has delivered enormous benefits in terms of predictability and trust. Yet it is now under serious threat and urgently needs to adapt. This has been evident for some time, but in 2025 the urgency is clearer than ever. While 72% of global trade is still conducted under WTO terms, this figure has dropped from 80% just a year ago — a sharp signal of erosion. From shifting geopolitical dynamics to rapid digital transformation, it is obvious that a modernized and digitized trading system is no longer optional, but essential. We need a coherent framework for digital trade rules that reflect today’s realities, and anticipate tomorrow’s. At ICC, we believe the multilateral trading system remains an essential engine of shared prosperity. Legitimate concerns about the WTO’s adaptability must be addressed, but tactical unilateral trade deals are no substitute. Fragmentation and “quick fixes” risk raising costs and uncertainty, especially for SMEs, threatening their participation in global value chains. That is why WTO members must credibly commit to reform, and to modern rules on issues such as digital trade, AI, and sustainability. ICC is there to ensure the business voice, the voice of those who make trade happen, is heard. ICC Chair Philippe Varin underlined this point in the Forum’s main panel discussion, delivering a compelling message: trust, the very foundation of global trade, is eroding. Without urgent reform, risks will rise further, and SMEs will pay the highest price. WTO has to become more agile, and his call to action was clear: Revitalize the multilateral system and modernize WTO governance, including reform of consensus rules that allow a single member to block progress. Develop a new playbook fit for today’s world. Fix the dispute settlement mechanism, which has been not fully functional for too long. Here, our ICC Arbitration system may offer inspiration. Ensure business plays a key role, and is at the table from the start, not on the sidelines. Varin also emphasized that the future of trade will increasingly depend on tools. AI, for example, could boost global trade by up to 40% by 2040 beyond current forecasts, mainly by reducing trade costs, enhancing productivity, and opening new export pathways. AI also has enormous potential in trade operations, including predictive risk management, supply-and-demand assessments, tariff and duty calculations, and customs documentation. Another crucial tool is the digitization of documents for cross-border trade, which needs urgent acceleration. ICC Netherlands is working on this front together with the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation, already delivering impact through the digitalization of phytosanitary certificates — a critical step toward faster, more secure border processes. Our next step will be to digitize more trade documents in more countries, creating tangible benefits for business. Looking ahead, the next WTO Ministerial Conference , the WTO’s highest decision-making body, will be pivotal. The WTO Ministerial Conference, scheduled for 26-29 March 2026 in Cameroon, can take binding decisions on all matters under the multilateral trade agreements. Every member country, including the Netherlands, will be represented at ministerial level, usually the Minister of Foreign Trade. It is vital that the voice of business is heard. ICC Netherlands, together with VNO-NCW, will work in the coming months to gather inputs from Dutch business and ensure they are reflected in the discussions leading to this crucial Ministerial Conference. Please don’t hesitate to directly reach out to me or to Laure Jacquier, Director General of ICC Netherlands, already.

ICC Trade Register 2025 30 Oct 2025 ICC Trade Register 2025 The global benchmark for trade and supply chain finance For over a decade, the ICC Trade Register has provided the most authoritative, data-driven picture of global trade and supply chain finance. With aggregated data from leading international banks, now exceeding USD 25.7 trillion in transactions , it has become the industry’s reference point for understanding risk, guiding regulation, and shaping how trade finance supports the real economy. From data to policy impact The ICC Trade Register is more than a database: it is a strategic instrument for the financial system . Its empirical evidence has influenced major prudential reforms, ensuring that trade finance receives the risk-sensitive treatment it deserves under Basel III . Over the years, ICC data has: Demonstrated the short-term, self-liquidating nature of trade finance instruments, leading to the maturity flow waiver ; Supported a reduction in Credit Conversion Factors from 50 % to 20 % for performance guarantees in the EU and UK; Secured lower Required Stable Funding under the Net Stable Funding Ratio (from 10 % to 2.5 %); Helped regulators adopt Exposure at Default (EAD) instead of full nominal values for leverage ratio calculations. These outcomes are not abstract. They translate into 30–60 % capital savings , up to 90 % reductions in expected credit loss provisions , and EUR 1–2 million in annual liquidity savings for mid-size and large banks. A clearer view of trade finance performance The 2025 edition of the Trade Register provides insight into a trade landscape being reshaped by geopolitics, digitalisation and sustainability. Its findings confirm that trade finance remains one of the lowest-risk asset classes in banking, even amid uncertainty. Key trends include: Receivables finance is now the fastest-growing trade product, projected to expand at a 5.4 % CAGR through 2033 ; Sustainable trade finance continues to rise — 3.1 % of global transactions are clearly green, and 74 % show potential sustainability alignment; Digital trade is gaining legal force, with MLETR-based legislation now covering around 10 % of global exports; Artificial intelligence is moving from pilot projects to enterprise-wide tools, improving efficiency and compliance across banking operations. These shifts underscore how technology, regulation and sustainability are converging to redefine trade finance — turning it into both a growth engine and a channel for responsible investment. Membership: data, dialogue, and influence Participating in the ICC Trade Register gives banks access to exclusive benchmarking, early insights, and a direct voice in policy discussions. Members benefit from: Early access to the complete report and datasets; Peer benchmarking of trade finance portfolios; Members-only briefings on regulatory developments; Active participation in steering discussions that guide the industry’s collective advocacy. By contributing data, member institutions help build the evidence base that underpins future engagement with the Basel Committee , the European Central Bank , and other regulators, ensuring that the risk profile of trade finance is recognised fairly and accurately. “The ICC Trade Register has become the global benchmark for our industry, providing clarity, confidence and tangible impact.”Samuel Mathew, Chair of the ICC Trade Register and Managing Director, Head of Documentary Trade at Standard Chartered Accessing the Trade Register 2025 The ICC Trade Register can be downloaded instantly and digitally via 2go.iccwbo.org .Institutions can choose from four levels of access: global overview, regional breakdown, single-region detail, or full report with Loss Given Default (LGD) data. Financial institutions that wish to contribute data or join as members can contact the ICC Trade Register team directly. Learn more ICC Trade Register 2025 Brochure – Full overview of insights, membership and access options. ICC Trade Register Strategic Preview – A closer look at the data’s regulatory influence and the 2025 outlook. ICC Banking Commission – ICC’s global rule-making body for the banking industry.