Search this site

“Geopolitics is back in the boardroom”: a conversation with Marhijn Visser Tom Scott 3 Mar 2026 “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 The second problem is that the rulebook itself is outdated.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.

The end of the neoliberal era Tom Scott 1 Sept 2026 Paul Verhagen is not easy to place. Dutch-American-Chinese by background, trained in theoretical physics, philosophy, energy policy and artificial intelligence, and now teaching sociology at University of Amsterdam while researching AI-related inequality and technological change – it’s fair to say that he doesn’t have a standard vantage point of the world. And that is exactly why we wanted to interview him for this ICC Netherlands newsletter. In addition, you may remember him as being one of the guest speakers at the ICC Netherlands General Assembly back in May. His forthcoming book, The Techtonic Shift , attempts to make sense of the moment we are living through: the breakdown of the globalised order that shaped the past three decades, and what comes next. We spoke to him about what that breakdown means for European business – and for the Netherlands specifically. You talk about the end of what you call digital Pangea. What do you mean by that? The world that my generation grew up in was essentially a digital super-continent. When the Soviet Union collapsed, borders dissolved, enemies disappeared, and technology became the great unifier that connected markets, cultures and economies. Pokémon is actually a good example: a niche thing that emerged in Japan, dovetailing with globalising information markets and consumer electronics, to become a worldwide phenomenon. That was only possible because technological dissemination and commercial incentives were perfectly aligned. Technology was a market. All of that is changing. We are seeing the return of great power competition, and technology – instead of being a unifier – is becoming the dividing line for a new world order. This digital Pangea is breaking up. And because of what I would call catastrophic mismanagement by the United States, it has not split into a Western and non-Western bloc as expected. It has split into three: the United States, Europe and China. That is what the book is about: the tectonic forces pulling the world apart into new power blocs that are very reminiscent of the Cold War. During your talk at the ICC Netherlands General Assembly, you said that Europe is facing three simultaneous threats. Is this a temporary crisis or something more structural? Europe is facing a strange combination of factors. The Treaty of Maastricht built Europe as a pacifist free trade project; it made a huge amount of sense at the time, because there were no security threats and globalisation was the prevailing logic. However, we now live in a world that is neither pacifist nor committed to free trade. The two fundamental pillars of the European architecture no longer describe the world we are operating in. Europe is not ready for these three distinct but interconnected threats. There is the military threat from Russia. There is economic pressure from China, which has hollowed out significant European industrial capacity through market dynamics. And, probably the most shocking, is the technological threat from the United States. Europe needs to deal with all three of these civilization-altering challenges at the same time. Can we dive a bit deeper into the technological threat from the USA? Here’s an example: something as basic as collecting tax revenue has in many European countries become dependent on American IT infrastructure. Education, defence, healthcare, water, electricity: all of these have become contingent on technology that is no longer sovereign. For a long time, we assumed technology was neutral, that assumption of neutrality no longer holds. And with artificial intelligence, it holds even less, because AI requires you to codify what you consider moral behaviour – and what counts as virtuous is heavily contingent on culture, politics and interest. You have argued that Europe should pivot toward China – including dropping tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. Can you explain more of what is essentially a provocative position? A simplified version of power politics is about a balance between the three entities of the United States, European Union, and China. A global order in which business thrives is generated when two out of those three are on the same side. For a very long time, this has been the United States and Europe. However, the Americans have decided they no longer want this – meaning that we need a new global balance. Europe – essentially going through a messy divorce with the Americans – needs friends abroad, which means that China is the only option. Another example: Europe needs to rearm. In order to rearm, you need industrial capacity, energy and raw materials; none of which Europe has in abundance. You also need to free up electrical capacity. Chinese EVs are cheap, qualitatively good, and more competitive than European alternatives. In fact, Europe has been protecting Volkswagen and BMW from them. But if you open the Wall Street Journal, the market is already telling you: you are subsidising a European product for which a superior alternative exists. If you are going to subsidise something, surely it should be European weapons – not European EVs. So the logic is: buy Chinese EVs, free up European industrial capacity for defence, and use what China actually wants, which is access to ASML – as leverage for rare earth minerals. Europe might need to deal with the Chinese even if they don’t want to – these are the kinds of hard strategic choices that the end of the neoliberal era forces you to make. Both your talk at ICC NL and your book mention a model for Europe called the ‘garden with high walls’. Can you briefly describe your thinking behind this? There are three elements. First, the garden itself: the European standard of living. High levels of education and healthcare is genuinely aspirational. It is worth protecting. Second, the walls: Europe needs to keep out things that degrade its ability to sustain that garden. For example, European governments rely so heavily on American tech companies. But as we can no longer assume American interests and European interests are aligned, this means that Europe needs to build its own alternatives. That starts with strategic autonomy in security, but very quickly snowballs into other adjacent sectors such as energy, education and healthcare. The closer something is to core strategic interests, the more important it is to have European alternatives. The third element to the model are the gates, which is not some impenetrable barrier. Europe has a labour force problem; it cannot build what it needs without people. And right now there is an exodus of talent from both the United States and China – engineers and skilled workers who do not appreciate the political environment they are operating in and are looking elsewhere. Europe should become a beacon for that talent. Anyone willing to contribute to the defence of the garden should be welcomed through the gate. The Netherlands sits at the intersection of all of this: deeply dependent on trade, a NATO member with strong ties to both the US and China, and home to ASML. Is that a strength or a vulnerability? The Dutch are in an interesting place. Being so trade dependent, the Netherlands is a product of the neoliberal order. And then there is ASML, which is becoming both a blessing and a curse. On the broader level, technology has shifted from a commodity to the weapons sector. In a commodity system, only price and efficiency matter. In the weapons sector, what matters is control. Since 2018, the Americans have been pressuring ASML not to sell to China. The Dutch went along with this in exchange for American commitment to NATO. However, that commitment has not materialised in the way that was expected. So now we need to ask a hard question: why are we withholding one of Europe’s most significant strategic assets for what appears to be very little European gain? And there is a further problem: by blocking Chinese access to EUV machines, we have created a powerful incentive for China to develop its own. The golden goose that is ASML may be degrading. Europe is simultaneously pursuing the Chips Act, the Green Deal, the AI Act, the Mining Act and military rearmament. You have called this megalomania. Where should Europe’s priorities lie? You cannot build everything at once. Take just three of the things on that list: military rearmament, an industrial mining complex to supply the raw materials for rearmament, and the Green Deal requiring both to be CO 2 neutral. Building a mine in Scandinavia takes ten years and is environmentally damaging. By the time it is operational, you’re way too late with your military aims. This is where China comes back into the picture. China can supply the rare earth minerals needed to accelerate European rearmament. You should also build the mine, but you should make a deal with China to accelerate your timeline. You buy their electric vehicles. In return, you negotiate on minerals. It helps the Green Deal, it helps rearmament, and it reduces the pressure on the Mining Act simultaneously. The priority has to be strategic autonomy, starting with security, then energy, then education and healthcare. Not everything at once. For too long we have operated under the assumption that technology is neutral, which is now revealed to be a complacency. Technology shapes society, and therefore control over technology controls everything. Technology is a source of power, and the world is beginning to reorient itself around that realization. Book: The Techtonic Shift by Paul Verhagen

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

The 2026 Rules are in force. And Dutch arbitration is on the rise. Laure Jacquier 5 Jul 2026 The 2026 Rules are in force. And Dutch arbitration is on the rise. The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules entered into force on 1 June. New 2025 statistics from the ICC Court add context, including a notable jump for the Netherlands as a seat of arbitration. The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules officially entered into force on 1 June 2026. From that date, every new case submitted to the ICC International Court of Arbitration is administered under the updated Rules. The reform streamlines procedural steps, sharpens tools for early case management, reflects the growing role of technology in international dispute resolution, and continues the Court's long-standing focus on efficiency, transparency and the enforceability of awards. The timing is significant. The ICC has just released its 2025 statistics, and they show a system being called on more than ever, with meaningful year-on-year growth across almost every metric. The 2025 numbers, in brief 881 new cases filed under the ICC Arbitration Rules, up from 831 in 2024. Combined with cases under the Appointing Authority Rules, 894 new cases in total. 1,869 cases pending at year end : a new record, up from 1,789 in 2024. 607 awards approved (444 final, 118 partial, 45 by consent): the second-highest annual total on record, up from 577 in 2024. 2,531 parties involved from 147 countries , up from 2,392 parties across 136 countries in 2024. Arbitral tribunals sat in 123 cities across 70 jurisdictions in 2025, compared to 107 cities across 62 countries in 2024. The system is reaching more of the world. In December 2025, the ICC Court registered its 30,000th case since the Rules were first adopted in 1923, one year after passing the 29,000th case mark in 2024. The top five seats in 2025 remained France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Switzerland and Singapore. What the numbers say about the Netherlands Beneath the headline figures is a story that matters for Dutch business. The Netherlands is emerging as a rising seat of arbitration. The Netherlands was chosen as the place of arbitration in 13 cases in 2025, up from just 4 in 2024 . Every one of the 13 was chosen by the parties themselves, not fixed by the Court. That is more than a threefold increase in a single year . 38 Dutch parties were involved in ICC arbitration in 2025 (16 as claimants, 22 as respondents), placing the Netherlands 16th globally by party nationality, compared to 54 parties and 13th place in 2024. This reflects a broader redistribution of parties across a wider set of jurisdictions rather than a decline in Dutch activity. Dutch law was the applicable law in 7 cases , up from 6 in 2024. 11 Dutch arbitrators were confirmed or appointed: 3 as sole arbitrator, 4 as co-arbitrator, and 4 as president. Taken together, the picture is one of a Dutch arbitration ecosystem becoming an increasingly preferred venue for cross-border commercial dispute resolution. This is a story we explored in more depth with Bas van Zelst of Enhance Arbitration , who set out what makes the Netherlands an attractive seat of arbitration. Diversity, quietly moving 29.6% of arbitrator confirmations and appointments in 2025 were women , up from 28.6% in 2024. Individual women arbitrators came from a growing range of jurisdictions. Progress remains gradual but consistent, and one of the areas where the Court's own leadership on appointments has been most visible. Read the 2026 Rules → https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/2026-arbitration-rules/ Read the 2025 Statistics → https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/icc-releases-preliminary-2025-dispute-resolution-statistics/ What next ICC Netherlands will host different dispute resolution events later this year: the Dispute Resolution Forum and the YAAF event, both with ICC Court President Claudia Salomon, and the Joint Arbitration Day with our European colleagues. Save the dates. ICC NL Young Practitioners in Paris: visit to the ICC International Court of Arbitration. 9 September 2026, together with our colleagues from ICC UK, Belgium and Sweden. Capacity is limited. Details and registration → ICC YAAF fireside chat with Claudia Salomon and young practitioners' canal cruise. Amsterdam, 11 November 2026, hosted by Houthoff. An evening designed for younger arbitration and ADR practitioners to meet and connect ahead of the Forum. Details and registration: Young Arbitration and ADR Forum (YAAF) | ICC WBO Netherlands ICC Netherlands Dispute Resolution Forum , with ICC Court President Claudia Salomon. Amsterdam, 12 November 2026. Dispute Resolution Forum | ICC WBO Netherlands Joint Arbitration Day, second edition. 3 December 2026 in Amsterdam, hosted at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek. A full afternoon of cross-border discussion on the issues shaping international commercial arbitration in Europe today, from the EU's evolving relationship with arbitration, to the new 2026 ICC Rules in practice, to the disclosure questions raised by AI. Jointly organised with ICC Belgium, ICC France and ICC Germany. Free for ICC members. Details and registration →

Why the Netherlands Must Go Beyond the Electronic Bill of Lading 12 Mar 2025 After three years of preparation, the Dutch Parliament is set to deliberate on a bill introducing electronic bills of lading (eBLs) this month. This legislative move aims to modernize trade documentation, enhancing efficiency and security within the logistics sector. While this is a crucial step forward, it is only one piece of the puzzle in achieving full trade digitalization. To maintain momentum, the Netherlands must now focus on a broader legal transformation, particularly the full implementation of the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR). What This Means for Businesses The adoption of eBLs allows companies to transition from traditional paper-based bills of lading to digital formats. This shift is expected to: • Expedite transactions by eliminating paper- based delays. • Reduce administrative burdens and costs. • Minimize fraud risks through secure digital tracking. • Improve operational efficiency by integrating digital trade documents into IT systems. However, while beneficial, this reform alone does not fully enable the digitalization of trade. For businesses to truly benefit from a paperless system, other critical transferable records— such as promissory notes and trade finance instruments— must also be legally recognized in electronic form. Why This Is Not Enough for Trade Digitalization Although the introduction of eBLs marks significant progress, it addresses only one type of transferable document. Comprehensive digital transformation necessitates a legal framework that recognizes and facilitates the use of all electronic transferable records, ensuring their enforceability and interoperability across international markets. Without this broader framework, businesses will still face inefficiencies and legal uncertainties when using digital trade documents beyond eBLs. The Importance of Fully Implementing MLETR The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) provides a global framework for the recognition and use of all electronic transferable documents. By fully adopting the MLETR, the Netherlands can: • Establish legal certainty for all forms of electronic trade documents. • Reduce reliance on paper-based processes across supply chains. • Improve cross-border trade efficiency, ensuring alignment with international partners. • Strengthen the competitiveness of Dutch enterprises by reducing trade friction. • Reduce corruption risks by minimizing manual handling and document forgery opportunities. • Enhance sustainability by cutting down on paper usage and inefficient transport of physical documents. • Improve data security and transparency, ensuring real-time traceability of trade documents. The Role of ICC and DSI in Driving Trade Digitalization ICC actively advocates for harmonized international trade laws and facilitates dialogue between businesses and policymakers to accelerate digital adoption. The Digital Standards Initiative (DSI), an initiative under ICC, focuses on developing digital trade standards that enhance interoperability between different stakeholders in global trade. By working alongside governments and industry leaders, ICC and DSI are instrumental in creating a regulatory environment that enables full- scale adoption of electronic transferable records, including electronic bills of lading, digital promissory notes, and digital trade finance instruments. By aligning national regulations with international standards, Dutch businesses can remain competitive and seamlessly integrate into global trade ecosystems Urgent Next Steps for the Netherlands To capitalize on the momentum generated by the eBL initiative, the following actions should be prioritized: 1. Full Implementation of MLETR – Ensure all electronic trade documents are legally recognized, not just eBLs. 2. Update Existing Legislation – Revise outdated laws that still require paper-based documentation. 3. Invest in Digital Infrastructure – Secure and standardized platforms for digital trade document processing. 4. Educate Businesses – Provide training and support for companies transitioning to electronic trade. The introduction of eBLs is a positive but incomplete step toward full trade digitalization. If the Netherlands wants to lead in global trade efficiency, it must broaden its regulatory reforms to encompass all transferable records. By implementing the MLETR and updating national laws, businesses can fully embrace a paperless, efficient, and secure trading environment, ensuring that the Dutch economy remains competitive in an increasingly digital world. Stay updated and engage in the conversation! Join our MLETR implementation working group.

Join the ICC Global Digital Trade Sandbox Laure Jacquier 3 Feb 2026 ICC Global Digital Trade Sandbox From ambition to execution: join the ICC Global Digital Trade Sandbox Digitalisation is transforming international trade, but adoption remains uneven. While international standards, technologies and policy frameworks are advancing rapidly, many companies still struggle to move from awareness to practical implementation. Fragmentation, interoperability challenges and legal uncertainty continue to slow progress. To address this gap, ICC has launched the Global Digital Trade Sandbox , a flagship initiative starting in early 2026 that shifts the focus from advocacy to execution. This challenge is particularly visible in the Dutch context . Despite broad political and business support for digital trade, regulatory reform to fully enable the use of electronic trade documents, such as electronic bills of lading, has been repeatedly delayed . As a result, Dutch companies risk falling behind peers in jurisdictions that have already modernised their legal frameworks. Bridging the gap between policy and practice The Global Digital Trade Sandbox responds to a growing gap between what is technically possible and what is legally and operationally enabled . It provides companies with a structured, vendor-neutral environment to test digital trade processes in real-world conditions, without commercial or regulatory risk. Importantly, the Sandbox does not replace legal reform. Rather, it complements it by generating evidence from practice : what works, what does not, where interoperability breaks down, and which regulatory barriers have the greatest impact on business. For countries like the Netherlands, where legal reform is pending, this evidence is particularly valuable. What is the Digital Trade Sandbox? The Digital Trade Sandbox is not a technical platform and does not promote specific technologies. Instead, it is an ICC-led orchestration environment that brings together companies, banks, logistics providers and technology vendors to test digital trade workflows using existing systems and international standards, including ICC’s Key Trade Data & Documents Elements (KTDDE). Through guided pilots and proofs of concept, participants explore processes such as e-invoicing, electronic transport documents and digital trade documentation. The objective is to demonstrate interoperability, identify operational bottlenecks and support scalable adoption across borders. Why this matters for Dutch companies For Dutch companies engaged in international trade, the Sandbox offers a pragmatic way forward, even while regulatory reform is ongoing: Prepare ahead of regulation by testing digital trade processes before legal change is finalised Reduce uncertainty by identifying legal, operational and contractual barriers early Stay competitive internationally as other jurisdictions move faster on digital trade Contribute to reform by providing concrete business evidence to policymakers Participation allows companies to move from waiting to learning, and from learning to readiness. A global initiative with local anchoring The Sandbox operates through ICC’s global network, with National Committees acting as local convenors . ICC Netherlands supports Dutch companies in exploring participation, connecting them to global pilots and ensuring that Dutch business insights feed into international discussions. This local anchoring is essential. Without practical input from companies, regulatory reform risks remaining abstract, or misaligned with real trade flows. How to get involved Companies interested in participating can: Review the available Sandbox materials (hereunder) Join one of the information sessions on 10 February 7AM CET / 2PM SGT / 1AM NYT register here 2PM CET / 9PM SGT / 8AM NYT register here Contact ICC Netherlands to discuss suitability and next steps Participation in the Sandbox is free of charge for eligible ICC members. Moving forward, despite uncertainty Digital trade is no longer a future ambition. It is a strategic necessity, especially in a volatile geopolitical environment where efficiency, resilience and trust matter more than ever. While regulatory reform remains essential, waiting for it to be completed is not a strategy. The ICC Global Digital Trade Sandbox offers Dutch companies the opportunity to prepare, test and shape the future of digital trade: together, pragmatically and at global scale. Interested in joining or learning more? Please reach out to ICC Netherlands for further information - info@icc.nl 3. ICC DSI Digital Trade Sandbox Brief (1) .pdf Download PDF • 903KB

Tariffs in 2026: from tariff management to tariff intelligence Marhijn Visser, Khalid Abdullah 31 Aug 2026 Tariffs have moved from a temporary shock to a structural feature of doing international business. The EU-US framework has moved into implementation with a fifteen per cent ceiling on most EU exports to the US, but the headline does not tell the whole story: steel and aluminium are treated differently, product-specific tariffs and exemptions keep evolving, and the US has strengthened customs enforcement with the most consequential executive order in years. Meanwhile, the EU has moved CBAM into its definitive phase, launched record numbers of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations, and reserved the anti-coercion instrument (the "trade bazooka") as a potential response tool. At the third ICC Netherlands Digital Business Lunch on 28 August, Marhijn Visser , Deputy Director of International Affairs at VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland, and Khalid Abdullah , attorney and EMEA Knowledge Lead at KPMG Meijburg & Co, joined moderator Tom Scott for a practical conversation on what it means for Dutch business and what companies should be doing about it. A moving target The main change over the summer, Visser said, is not a single policy but the constant motion between them. "In every boardroom, the question is: what’s the next strike?" The Turnberry deal, which sets the fifteen per cent US tariff ceiling, has been implemented, and does give European companies more predictability. But Section 301 measures are being layered on top of it, with the American administration turning to those legal grounds after the Supreme Court struck down others. New developments have followed between the US and Canada. The picture is not one of stability. It is one of a moving target. Where the headline number is misleading For a Dutch company reading that its tariff is now fifteen per cent, that number can be seriously misleading, said Abdullah. "The tariff rate on paper and the tariff cost in practice are two different things." He walked through the four places where the gap opens up. The first is classification. The HS code determines which rate applies, and the difference between one code and another can be the difference between fifteen per cent and fifty per cent. Abdullah described a recent case in the steel sector where a client had been paying the full Section 232 tariff. A review of the technical specification of the product and its precise classification showed that the product fell outside the scope of the steel tariffs. A single reclassification exercise removed a fifty per cent duty entirely. The second is origin. New Section 301 forced-labour tariffs cover around sixty economies, with rates that depend on the country of origin. The production process determines origin, and origin determines the rate. The third and fourth, discussed later in the session, are customs valuation and supply chain structure. Together, these four determine what a company actually pays. Start with mapping Asked what a Dutch company should do first thing Monday morning, both speakers gave the same answer. "Mapping," said Visser. "Pull your customs data. Look at the top twenty import lines by duty cost. What are you paying?" said Abdullah. The reason is that few companies actually know their exposure. Most can quote a headline duty rate. Very few can tell you their landed cost per product, per route, per current tariff regime. Mapping is a data exercise: take the top product lines by import value, and for each one, identify the classification, the country of origin, and the applicable tariff layers. Visser added that the mapping exercise is useful well beyond tariffs, feeding into resilience planning, due diligence and ESG. It is worth doing for an SME as much as for a multinational. The EU Commission’s Access to Markets tool and the Dutch Enterprise Agency’s resource s are both free. Even for small and medium-sized businesses, Abdullah’s threshold is instructive. "If your US annual import duty bill exceeds around one hundred thousand euros, a focused review of classification or valuation will almost certainly pay for itself." In sectors where the effective rate has increased significantly, such as steel, aluminium and pharmaceuticals, the return on a review can be substantial even below that threshold. "The question is not how large you are, but how exposed you are." The levers Once exposure is known, several levers become available. The quick wins Abdullah highlighted are classification review and the duty-relief mechanisms that many Dutch companies underuse: free trade zones and inward-processing arrangements. These instruments are not new, but companies were rarely faced with the duty levels that would make them worth the effort. That has changed. The lever Abdullah returned to most emphatically was customs valuation. Traditionally, multinationals used their transfer-pricing mechanisms to optimise corporate income tax and treated customs as marginal. With higher duties, that is no longer sustainable. A lump-sum transfer price often bundles non-dutiable elements into the invoice. "I was working with a client importing heavy industrial machinery," said Abdullah. "It was large equipment that required post-import assembly and installation at the buyer’s premises. They invoiced a lump sum, and customs duties were calculated over that entire amount. We reviewed the transaction, and it became clear that the post-import assembly service was separately identifiable and should be excluded from the customs value. We split it out of the invoice, rearranged the contractual terms in line with WTO valuation rules, and we were able to reduce their tariff burden by fifty to sixty per cent." Supply chain diversification is another lever, and one where Visser saw both opportunity and complexity. The EU has recently concluded free trade agreements with Indonesia, India and Mercosur. The Vietnam FTA has been in place for eight years and has become a real sourcing alternative. But diversification is not a free lunch. "If you shift sourcing from one country to another, you might solve one tariff problem but create another," Abdullah said. Different origin rules, different preference regimes, different documentation requirements. A tariff impact assessment should precede any sourcing decision. Where the line sits The US enforcement landscape has hardened materially. In summer 2026, Abdullah noted, the Trump administration issued an executive order to strengthen customs enforcement, "the most consequential piece in US customs enforcement in years." Getting the line right has never been more important. "It all comes down to substance," said Abdullah. If a classification position is defensible on its technical merits, the company is on the right side. If an origin determination is supported by genuine production processes and follows the applicable rules, the company is on the right side. It becomes risky where a company creates an artificial structure that does not reflect the underlying economic reality. His practical rule: tariff positions must be defensible in an audit. Any Head of Trade should be comfortable explaining the rationale to a customs inspector. The road ahead Both speakers converged on the view that tariffs are now a permanent variable. "Tariffs will be a permanent variable, and the landscape will change significantly," said Abdullah. "The companies that will thrive are the ones that build tariff intelligence into their operating model. The time of the wait-and-see approach is already over." The image he reached for: "The time to build your roof is when the sun is shining. At this time, the sun is shining, but the clouds are gathering." For Visser, the single largest shift in the next six months will not be in the White House but in Brussels. The day before the session, the Scientific Council of the Netherlands (WRR) published a report highly critical of China’s trade practices, calling out dumping, subsidies and currency manipulation. Similar shifts are visible in France and Germany. Visser expects the European Commission to take formal action against China within the next six to twelve months. That could include the anti-coercion instrument, the same trade bazooka Brussels has so far kept in reserve. The main shift, he said, will be Europe’s position on China. The parallel Visser drew was to Canada. Ottawa has now accepted that it will be hurt by American trade policy. Europe faces the same question. Is it willing to accept the pain that would come with a firmer position on Beijing? What Dutch business should do now Asked to close with one action for Monday morning, both speakers converged. Marhijn Visser: map your exposure. Khalid Abdullah: pull the customs data, look at the top twenty import lines by duty cost, and know what you are paying. And avoid the temptation to be too optimistic in mitigation. The line between avoidance and optimisation is narrower than it looks. Next Digital Business Lunch The conversation continues on Friday 11 September, when Ridvan Taçi (Customs Software Alliance) and Jochem Sprenger (FENEX) turn to the EU Customs Reform: the Single Window, the Customs Data Hub, and what Rotterdam and Dutch forwarders should have in place for the first Single Window deadline on 1 October. The Digital Business Lunch is a monthly online series discussing the issues that move international trade, covering subjects from tariffs and customs reform to AI in trade compliance, sustainability and IFRS. For more information about upcoming Digital Business Lunches: iccwbo.nl or our LinkedIn page .

What Geopolitical Fragmentation Means for International Business Tom Scott 3 Feb 2026 What Geopolitical Fragmentation Means for International Business It has been almost a year since we spoke to Michael Every , Global Strategist in Rabobank’s Global Economics and Markets Division, about the impact of geopolitics on international trade. At the time, his core message was stark: “These are just warning shots of the kind of tectonic shift that is happening.” With the world again struggling to process events in Venezuela, Greenland, Iran and Syria, we returned to Michael to ask what has changed – and what internationally operating businesses should be doing differently. We start the conversation with the topic of geopolitical fragmentation and how businesses should react. Michael is clear in his answer: “I think the first thing that businesses must do is to take 15 minutes out of their busy day to absorb the fact that they are operating within an overarching environment. The foundational pillars of that environment are not the ECB, not EU regulation, not Wall Street; they are the global geostrategic, geopolitical and geoeconomic architecture. If you don’t understand that fundamental architecture, then you don’t fully understand what’s likely to happen to your business.” Fragmentation as the new normal “Businesses have got used to operating within a technocratic, largely transparent and understandable world map,” he explains. This is the predictable and controlled (even well-behaved) rules-based world order – the end of which we have read so much about in the media over the previous year. That this world is likely to disappear is not a new phenomenon, notes Michael. “World orders do collapse. And when they do, in the overwhelming majority of world history, it is when countries put national security ahead of markets.” Historically, territory was the asset deemed worthy of fighting for. “Now it’s commodities: how much oil do you have? How much gas do you have? How much lithium do you have? Power will determine which country or which constellation of countries have access to these critical supply chains.” Europe’s strategic dilemma We are now in a world in which Europe has repeatedly said, ‘we understand – it’s a world of hard power’. However, few of Europe’s actions demonstrate that they actually do understand,” Michael argues. Even with plans to slowly increase military spending to 5% of GDP, “Europe will still be a military minnow compared to America for years.” From his perspective, this has a hard implication for businesses: “If America is now an opponent… America will win every time. Therefore, Europe needs to be pragmatic in terms of what it can do.” Pragmatic action or misplaced expectations? Readers may point to the recent Mercosur and Indian trade deals as examples of such pragmatic action. On Mercosur, it’s fair to say that Michael is not filled with hope: “Especially if you take the Donroe Doctrine into account; I think it's a joke to presume that a piece of paper signed between Mercosur and Europe will be more important than an American aircraft carrier off the coast of Latin America controlling what goes in and what comes out.” And while he finds the EU/India deal genuinely interesting in that it “shows for the first time that Europe is able to do something that America hasn’t”, he has steadfast reservations. “The broader thrust of it is that Europe is going to be importing a whole lot more from India. As such, lots of European industries will suffer from more competition from India.” “This is not just about Trump,” Michael stresses. On the contrary, he adds, there are multiple actors around the world. “And not all of them involve America; other countries are doing things that we tend to overlook. China, for example, which Europe refuses to decouple with and continues to invest in.” The power to change There is light at the end of the tunnel: there is potential for positive action. “The power to change the world lies within European hands. However, I think that Europe has far too much belief in itself, but not enough action. Too much ego and not enough ergo,” states Michael. “From a geostrategic perspective, if Europe implemented the Draghi reforms [referring to the 2024 Draghi report on European economic competitiveness and the future of the European Union], all of which are domestic, Europe would strengthen its hand internationally vastly more than with any deal it can strike with India or anyone else. However, as things are currently structured in terms of strategic autonomy, reducing dependencies, investment and governance reform, nothing in the Draghi report has been addressed.” Strategic advice for businesses We ask Michael the billion-dollar question that geopolitical strategists dread: do you have any advice for internationally operating businesses? He is happy to answer: “Europe’s greatest ability to strengthen itself and to plan long term on an international basis can be achieved by planning better within Europe. If you’re a Dutch business, why are you constantly looking further abroad rather than investing in your own bloc? What can you do with this collection of countries that you have far more in common with than others?” His final point brings the conversation full circle: back to fragmentation, and the balance between risks and opportunities. “The fragmentation process has a great deal further to run,” Michael concludes. “Venezuela was just one example. If Cuba falls this year, it’ll be another. What if the Iranian regime were to fall – and suddenly a new market of 90 million people opens up?” For businesses, the message is not to freeze, but to adapt. “The world is changing – bringing great risks, but also great opportunities. And with that, businesses need to be the change they want to see in the world.”

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

UN Tax Framework Convention: the fifth session sets up the substantive fights 31 Aug 2026 Between 3 and 13 August 2026, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee held its fifth session in New York on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. It was the round where the shape of the actual instruments started to become concrete: a Convention text, a Protocol on the taxation of cross-border services, and a Protocol on the prevention and resolution of tax disputes. The Sixth Session takes place in Nairobi from 30 November to 10 December 2026. ICC filed its formal responses in the last week of August: on Workstream III (dispute prevention and resolution) on 24 August, on Protocol One (cross-border services) on 26 August, and on the Framework Convention itself on 28 August, before the UN public consultation window closed. Where the substantive fights sit Two files stand out. The first is Article 21 of the Framework Convention, which governs the relationship between the new Convention and existing international tax agreements. In the draft discusses at the Fifth Session, paragraph 2 preserves rigthts and obligations under pre-existing agreements, subject to paragraph 3, which requires States Parties to take progressive and meaningful steps to align existing international tax agreements with the Convention, including renegotiation where necessary. The second is Protocol One on cross-border services. Three drafts are currently on the table. The Indian text reintroduces the concept of Permanent Establishment and proposes a hierarchy of nexus approaches. The UN Secretariat and co-lead text proposes a two-stage architecture combining a general principle for source taxation with an optional gross-basis withholding and a specific provision for automated and digital services. A third African Group text is at an earlier stage. Whichever formulation prevails will materially reshape how digital and services revenues are attributed for tax purposes. What ICC members can do before 11 September ICC is accredited to participate in the negotiations. ICC National Committees that wish to participate under their own organisational accreditation may apply separately; once granted, that accreditation remains valid throughout the INC process, while authorised representatives must register for each session. The application window for the Sixth Session in Nairobi closes on Friday 11 September at 23:59 New York time. Applications go through the UN Indico portal, event 1021522, and templates are available from the ICC Netherlands secretariat. Members with tax leadership interested in following the file, or in nominating a delegate for the Nairobi round, are invited to signal interest by 8 September. The Global Tax Commission's next meeting takes place on 7 October and offers a natural forum for members to feed Dutch business perspectives into ICC's coordination.

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

Arbitration in Focus Tom Scott 3 Nov 2025 Getting some answers about arbitration: a conversation with arbitration specialist Bas van Zelst As soon as we sit down with Bas to pick his brains about the role of arbitration in dispute resolution, he starts by giving us a couple of general statements to set the scene. The first relates to a question that he is often asked: what is better – arbitration or litigation? “The key point is that it’s really a matter of ‘horses for courses’ in that dispute resolution is really about finding the right fit to the particular dispute or disagreement. I would also add mediation to the dispute resolution equation. In mediation, the parties themselves decide whether to settle the dispute. In arbitration, the arbitrator issues a binding decision. That makes mediation less suitable for certain types of disputes.” The second point Bas wants to make is more of an opinion, one that goes against the commonly shared view that legal contracts are set in stone: inflexible and immovable. “Parties include a certain type of dispute resolution mechanism in their initial contract. However, if and when a dispute arises months or years later, the setting may now actually be much more suitable to a different type of dispute resolution,” he says. “So don’t take the dispute resolution mechanism that you agreed to at the contracting stage as final. Have a conversation about what fits the dispute best; the situation might have changed.” The rigidity of the courts vs. the agility of arbitration This opinion outlines a crucial characteristic of arbitration as a dispute resolution method: the value of staying flexible when discussing processes. This reflects a significant difference between arbitration and litigation. “Courts have their standard set of rules that they apply rather indiscriminately to every case they deal with. This is the good thing about arbitration: it offers flexibility to the parties in agreeing on the procedure most suited to an effective resolution of the dispute.” We ask Bas if there are any other explanations that some business-to-business disputes are better resolved by arbitration. Confidentiality and international enforcement are his two first answers. “Having the arbitration proceedings take place outside the public eye is another reason for arbitration to be preferred. And the New York Convention of 1958 – which is applicable in 172 jurisdictions worldwide – means that arbitral awards can be enforced internationally. This is a big upside.” What about the costs? According to Bas, the subject of costs raises one of the biggest misconceptions that businesses have about arbitration. “That arbitration is per se more expensive than going through the courts. This is not always true – especially when you consider the value of expertise, confidentiality and the finality of the decision. The idea of arbitration is that it is a one-stop-shop; there’s no appeal, the decision is final.” We wrap up talking about the characteristics of arbitration by looking at how it is very much outcome-focused. “Judges tend to be generalists right by nature, whereas arbitrators are appointed for their particular expertise – they have actual knowledge on the particular topic and offer the parties guidance on how to best resolve their dispute.” Moreover, he says, arbitrators are very much mindful of preserving the commercial relationship between the two parties. “Litigation is about the past, but businesses like to think about the future.” Focusing on the Netherlands Our conversation with Bas turns towards the Netherlands. We often hear the country termed a ‘seat of arbitration.’ What does that actually mean? “The seat of arbitration refers to where the arbitration formally takes place and the arbitration law – the so-called lex arbitri – that is applicable in that jurisdiction. The arbitration act in that jurisdiction sets out formal requirements for the arbitration process; for example on how arbitrators are appointed. Oftentimes, parties deviate from default provisions in the applicable arbitration act. They may do so, for instance, by reference to the rules of an arbitration institute – such as the ICC. These rules provide specific arrangements – including on appointment of arbitrators.” How does the Dutch legal framework support arbitration compared to other jurisdictions? “The Netherlands has a rich history as a trading nation, and today this translates to having a supportive approach to international business,” answers Bas. “The Netherlands is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The Arbitration Act – revised in 2015 – has helped make cases less susceptible to be set aside. Likely thousands of arbitration cases are conducted every year in the Netherlands. My research provides that only a very small percentage of the resulting awards get set aside. I think that’s good news for parties seeking to resolve their disputes within the Dutch arena.” A relevant player in this Dutch arbitration arena is the ICC, which offers arbitration services and all the associated administrative matters. What sets the ICC apart, says Bas, is the concept of scrutiny. “The ICC court assesses arbitral awards for quality, providing suggestions to arbitrators on how the award can be improved. This ensures that the arbitral awards stand up to further scrutiny in, for instance, the context of a normal proceedings with the state court.” Arbitration: a broader tool for peace? For us, the link between arbitration and the ICC is tangible. The first is an often international dispute resolution process known for its balanced and constructive methods. The second is an international organisation borne out of the desire to promote peace through international trade. In fact, the ICC often speaks about arbitration as a tool for peace. How does Bas see this connection? “Historically, arbitration has served to help parties with broad opposite perspectives resolve disputes. This idea – of resolving disputes amicably – aligns well with the ICC’s broader mission as the World Business Organization: to create peace through trade. You only need to open a newspaper to see what happens when conflicts go unresolved.” As Bas reminds us, arbitration is more than a mechanism for resolving disputes – it’s a practice rooted in dialogue, expertise and mutual respect, principles that underpin the ICC’s global mission. Read more. DAA 2015 Quo Vadis? An Empirical and Substantive Analysis of Decisions on Applications for Set-Aside of Arbitral Awards under the Dutch Arbitration Act of 2015: Has the Dutch Legislator Reached Its Objectives? Bas van Zelst Journal of International Arbitration Volume 42, Issue 5 (2025) pp. 661 – 690 httpss:// doi.org/10.54648/joia2025043 Bas van Zelst Bas van Zelst is co-founding partner at Enhance Arbitration in Amsterdam . He acts as counsel and arbitrator in investment and commercial matters – including construction cases . He is frequently engaged as expert and has particular experience in matters pertaining to the annulment of ISDS awards. Bas combines his legal practice with his position as professor of Dispute Resolution and Arbitration at Maastricht University . He is a member of the editorial board of the Dutch Journal on Arbitration (TvA) and sits on the advisory board of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute . Bas regularly acts as expert in relation to both Dutch and foreign seated arbitration proceedings. He is also a CEDR accredited mediator . Bas holds an LLm and a PhD degree from the University of Amsterdam. He was a visiting researcher at Harvard Law School in 2006/2007 and a visiting professor at the University of British Columbia (CA) in 2017.