Search Results

< Back Jeremy LACK LAWTECH Mediator Biography JEREMY LACK is a lawyer and ADR neutral admitted to the bars of England & Wales (1989), New York, USA (1990), and Geneva, Switzerland (2003). He specializes in commercial, technology, life sciences, IT, intellectual property, and complex international disputes. Jeremy founded LAWTECH.CH and INNOVADR Ltd. , and is a Door Tenant with QUADRANT CHAMBERS (GB) and counsel to HELVETICA AVOCATS SARL (CH). He serves as an Ombudsperson for DRUGS FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES INITIATIVE (CH) and has held key executive and legal roles in several companies. A certified IMI mediator and practicing arbitrator, he is ranked by WHO’S WHO LEGAL as a Global Elite Thought Leader (2019-2024). Jeremy holds an MA (Oxon) from Oxford University and works in English, French, and Spanish. He lives in Geneva, Switzerland, and designs bespoke international commercial dispute resolution processes. He holds Swiss, British, US, and Israeli citizenships. For more information, please visit: www.lawtech.ch and www.innovadr.com . Contact Details Switzerland (International) +41792471519 jlack@lawtech.ch Additional Links Link About ICC Netherlands We ensure that Dutch business interests are heard and represented in international policymaking. We deliver tools and standards that simplify cross-border business like model contracts or Incoterms®. We support fair and efficient dispute resolution . Become a member Upcoming events Learn more Check our latest news! News Languages Spoken English, French, Spanish, Hebrew Specialisation Competition, Consultancy Services (Other than Legal), Corporate Law / M&A, Distribution, Information and Communication Technologies, Intellectual Property, Investment / Public International Law, Joint Ventures, Pharmaceutical, Sales, Sports, Arts, Employment, Energy and Natural Resources Bar Admission(s) Credentials IMI, CEDR, Other CV

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics How businesses can tackle isolationism and protectionism Tom Scott 3 Feb 2025 Andrew Wilson As Deputy Secretary General for Policy at ICC Global, Andrew Wilson ’s job focuses on any public policy relevant to business. That’s everything from trade to tax, from climate to financial regulation. He carries out this work at a range of different levels: national, EU, but mainly various United Nations bodies such as the WTO. He describes ICC’s role as being “the voice of business in international policymaking, ensuring that what is agreed at the UN or WTO really meets the needs of local private sectors across the world”. We caught up with Andrew to talk to him about the challenges of geopolitics today: how it affects international trade, the global shift towards isolationism, the impact (if any) of Trump’s second term in the White House. In addition to ICC’s response to these issues, we also discussed the various options open to businesses to tackle the trend of increasing unilateralism and protectionism. What is ICC’s view of the current state of geopolitics? We are living in an increasingly fragmented and uncertain world. We’ve got hot conflict in Ukraine and, until recently, the Middle East. And we have severe tension between the largest two economies in the world: the USA and China. In addition to this, there is also a steadily growing mindset of unilateralism and protectionism within many economies. Looking closer at unilateralism and protectionism, how does this affect international trade? The trade environment is far more complex and certainly less stable than it was, say, before the pandemic. In 2023, for example, there were 3,000 new trade barriers erected by governments across the world. This represents a five-fold increase over the previous five years. This steady drift, almost unnoticed by much of the media, towards greater isolationism is certainly not conducive to high levels of trade growth, which powers long-term job creation and GDP growth. Indeed, the USA is currently getting a lot of media attention about tariffs. Surely this huge increase in trade barriers is not originating only from the White House? This is an important point of clarification that we want to bring to the debate. The USA is certainly not alone in its protectionist policies. This is part of a much broader trend towards unilateralism in trade: the steady erosion of the multilateral trading system. There are governments in other regions – Southeast Asia and, to a lesser extent, Latin America – that are introducing some forms of restrictions to trade. These aren’t necessarily tariffs; it could be distortionary subsidies or export restrictions. Just how much influence does the USA have? Another point of nuance that is sometimes missing is that the USA accounts for only ten per cent of global trade flows. Compared to the 1930s, for example, the USA just simply doesn’t have the same market power today. However, we are very conscious of how countries may respond to the ‘America First’ policy. What possible options do countries have? They could choose to negotiate. Or accept the imposition of tariffs. Or to retaliate. Our big concern from a systemic perspective is if other major economies start to retaliate – the European Union, China, Canada, for instance – then we could end up with tariff escalations within the G20 or even the G7. That would obviously be extraordinarily concerning. Our message is to see the bigger perspective and avoid retaliation: keep calm and negotiate. And what advice can ICC give businesses to deal with the trend of unilateralism and protectionism? Coming from discussions we’ve run together with the International Monetary Fund with a whole range of corporates, we have identified six best practises for how businesses can navigate this very uncertain environment. Maybe it sounds facile, but there’s no need to overreact or to essentially follow the media cycle. We think it’s important that businesses stay sanguine. We strongly recommend internal education by ensuring that relevant teams are properly educated about tariffs, currency fluctuations and other trade barriers. In some cases, companies will need to extend this education down their supply chains. Companies should have a contingency plan. So as soon as there is any indication of possible trade policy changes, companies know how they may be impacted by tariffs or any other import or export restriction. Then they can respond accordingly, for the short-term but also potentially for the mid-term and long-term. Invest in intelligence. We know that not every company can do this, so wherever possible, use advanced tech such as AI to develop intelligence on supply chain shifts, possible policy changes and uncertainties. Use this intelligence to manage supply chains and volumes. Clear communication with suppliers is vital. If you’re at the top of the supply chain, or near the top, make sure to maintain solid relationships with suppliers, particularly if those are of a strategic or long-standing nature. Create a joint plan of action throughout the supply chain. We recommend effective advocacy. Companies can use associations like ICC as a way to influence government policy in a constructive way. Considering ICC’s history, established in 1919 to promote open global trade and investment after Word War One – and consequently promoting peace – what is ICC’s position in today’s world? We see this as a key moment for ICC to step up. We are very well aware of the responsibility we have at this moment to respond to the needs of business in an effective way. This is using our position in the WTO system, in the UN, and with our global network of chambers. I think of ICC being a space where business can convene to openly and honestly discuss how they are approaching some of the challenges they’re facing. In practical terms, how will ICC achieve this? In terms of external focus, we have three main aims. Our objective number one is the preservation of the existing multilateral trading system which is absolutely vital for the global economy and for society as a whole. This includes maintaining the WTO. Although the WTO is not the ‘new thing in town’, it underpins a huge percentage of international trade and it is absolutely critical for developing and emerging economies. We published research last year that showed that if the WTO was to disappear overnight, the impact on trade would be enormously severe. Here’s just one example: trade flows in sub-Saharan Africa would decline within a five-year period by 40 per cent. The second point is how do we effectively remake the case for international trade? Twenty years ago, the mainstream consensus was that multilateral trade was a good thing. I fear that this opinion has been lost in many ways. Therefore, we want to look at how we can tangibly, realistically and creatively start to rebalance the discussion on trade. The third and final point is, as the world appears to be going in a protectionist direction, what practical solutions can business bring to government discussions to strengthen the system? Here’s one example. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism no longer functions because under the Obama administration, the USA refused to appoint new judges. That is hugely problematic for the WTO to provide discipline and order within the multilateral system. We accept that there is very little prospect of this being resolved in the new Trump administration. As an alternative to the classic model of WTO dispute resolution, one idea we’re working on is state-to-state arbitration to enable the resolution of trade disputes and thus avoid escalation. It’s this kind of practical, but potentially very valuable intervention that we need to pursue with greater vigour. These solutions would be informed very much by the needs of the business community – in our case, ICC members – to identify the problems, work together on practical solutions, and then use our position to advocate for those solutions.

< Back < Previous | Next > Digitalisation 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.

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

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Taxes Developments on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation 27 May 2025 The ICC convened a timely briefing to update business stakeholders on the UN-led process to negotiate a new Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. This follows the landmark UN General Assembly resolution adopted in late 2023, which launched the first steps toward a globally negotiated, binding agreement on international tax governance. While this move signals a more inclusive and multilateral approach, especially in giving developing countries equal footing , it also introduces new uncertainties for businesses already adjusting to recent OECD tax reforms. The ICC emphasised that structured private sector engagement will be essential to ensure that the future convention remains coherent, predictable, and administrable. Key Developments The Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Committee has been established and will begin formal negotiations in the coming months. Business stakeholders are now able to register as observers of the sessions and are encouraged to submit technical input through ICC or national associations. The convention’s scope is broad, aiming to set global norms and principles rather than detailed rules - but its legal status could be binding. Many businesses expressed concern about potential regulatory fragmentation , especially if the new framework does not align with OECD's Pillar One and Pillar Two standards. The need for capacity building in developing countries was widely recognized, as inclusive participation requires not just access but also resources. The ICC reiterated that this new track does not render existing OECD efforts obsolete but rather opens a parallel process , one that risks adding complexity unless clear coordination mechanisms are established. Business leaders were urged to engage early and constructively to safeguard key principles like simplicity, neutrality, and predictability in global tax standards. Recommendations for Business Register to observe the UN tax negotiations and follow developments closely through the channels outlined by the UN. Coordinate input through ICC channels to avoid fragmented responses. Evaluate compliance exposure in anticipation of potentially overlapping global standards. Support efforts to promote coherence between UN and OECD frameworks. The ICC will continue to provide analysis, updates, and advocacy to ensure that the private sector's voice is heard throughout this evolving process. A formal position paper will follow once the first draft of the convention is released.

< Back < Previous | Next > Orchestrating the back office of the future: why the human factor is becoming the primary vulnerability 25 Mar 2026 As financial institutions digitalise their back offices, fraud is evolving from technical breaches to human manipulation. What does this shift mean for control, governance and risk in increasingly automated environments? Orchestrating the back office of the future: why the human factor is becoming the primary vulnerability As financial institutions continue to digitalise their operations, the back office is undergoing a profound transformation. This was the focus of the “Orchestrating the Back Office of the Future” executive dialogue, which brought together actors from across the banking and trade finance ecosystem to reflect on how automation, data and AI are reshaping back-office functions. Organised in collaboration with Iron Mountain and Conpend, the dialogue explored how institutions can move from fragmented, manual processes towards more integrated and intelligent operations. Within this broader transformation, one question becomes increasingly important: where does risk sit in a digital back office? A paradox: stronger systems, growing losses Financial institutions have invested heavily in securing systems and strengthening controls. Yet global losses from fraud are estimated at around $5 trillion annually , and a significant share of successful attacks involve a human element. This points to a structural paradox. As technical systems become more robust, fraud does not disappear, it adapts . Rather than attempting to break systems, fraudsters increasingly operate within them. From technical “hacks” to social engineering A key shift highlighted in the discussion is the move from technical attacks to social engineering . This does not necessarily involve sophisticated hacking. Instead, it relies on: impersonation, manipulation of trust, and the creation of urgency or pressure to trigger action. In such scenarios, processes are followed correctly. Transactions are approved. Systems function as designed. The difference lies in intent. This makes detection significantly more complex. Controls are typically designed to identify incorrect processes, but are less effective when correct processes are used for the wrong purpose . The human factor as the primary entry point As highlighted during the session, between 70% and 90% of successful attacks involve a human element . This shifts the focus from systems to behaviour. Fraud today often emerges in situations where: decisions are taken under time pressure, authority is not challenged, or a request appears credible enough to bypass verification. These are not technical failures. They are organisational and behavioural vulnerabilities . Importantly, this also means that fraud is not always external. Insider actions, mistakes, or misjudgements can play a role, further blurring the line between error and intent. Technology accelerates both sides The increasing use of AI adds another layer to this dynamic. While it offers significant opportunities to improve efficiency and detection, it also enables fraudsters to operate faster, at lower cost, and at greater scale . This creates what can be described as a defender’s dilemma : institutions must continuously adapt, while attackers can rapidly leverage new tools to refine their approach. Rethinking control in a digital back office These developments suggest that strengthening systems alone will not be sufficient. As back-office functions become more digital, the main vulnerability is no longer the technology itself, but the interaction between people, processes and systems . This requires a shift in perspective. Controls must not only verify whether a process is followed, but also consider: whether the context is consistent, whether the request aligns with expected behaviour, and whether individuals feel able, and responsible, to challenge anomalies. In practice, this means integrating the human dimension more explicitly into process design, governance and risk management. A shift in mindset The evolution of financial crime ultimately challenges a fundamental assumption: that trust can be embedded solely in systems and procedures. In an increasingly digital environment, trust must be actively managed, across technology, processes and people. As back offices become more efficient and interconnected, resilience will depend not only on how systems are designed, but on how they are used in practice.

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics Geopolitics insights: “These are just warning shots of the kind of tectonic shift that is happening” Michael Every 1 Apr 2025 Michael Every from Rabobank explains that the current geopolitical situation poses a major systemic shock threatening international trade, comparable but opposite to the end of the Cold War. Companies can either ignore these changes or adapt, but options are limited and often conflicting, as national security interests increasingly outweigh economic ones, with banks and businesses being increasingly directed by government policies focused on national security. Michael Every For our fourth conversation about Geopolitics in 2025, we spoke to Michael Every , Global Strategist in Rabobank’s Global Economics and Markets Division. As you will read, he doesn’t beat around the bush, drawing on his 25+ years of experience working in “cross-asset, cross-geography, cross-disciplinary” matters of strategy and market analysis to give straight answers to our straight questions. How does the current state of global geopolitics affect international trade? To answer most concisely: it threatens to be as large a systemic shock as what we experienced at the end of the Cold War, but in reverse. How can internationally operating companies react to the present situation? There are just a few choices. The first is to ignore it: don’t admit the world is changing. I can assure you that many CEOs fall squarely into the bracket of ‘don’t take any risks, don’t rock any boats, and don’t offend the shareholders’. Maybe they are thinking that everything will be as right as rain in six months. Good luck with that. The second more consequential option is to change: to try and read what’s actually happening and then act on that. However, available actions are largely a binary choice, or involve a very limited set of options which can contradict sharply with each other. To be blunt: for most companies, things are not as good as they were before. Surely it can’t all be bad. Someone must be gaining from this increased fragmentation and protectionism? The most obvious winner of the last two and a half months is European defence stocks which have gone through the roof. However, for various reasons, I don’t know how long that’s actually sustainable. In a de-globalising or re-globalising world most of the winners are now losers. The global economy risks becoming a bifurcated trading system with protectionist blocs with fractured payment systems; the euro used by one group of countries, the dollar by another, and Bitcoin used somewhere else, etc. Just because no-one has lived through this recently doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened before. The 1930s is a past example. And we have seen snippets of this recently. How many people lost money on Russia after they invaded Ukraine? How many people are suddenly freaked out about owning American assets? These are just warning shots of the kind of tectonic shift that is happening. How does the current state of global geopolitics affect international trade? It means something: in the short term, obviously, they’re still powerful. But once you start getting back to the nuts and bolts of geopolitics and geoeconomics – to where we are now – business is told to do what national security wants it to do. And, to be clear, America didn’t start this; this was happening before Trump. America is actually echoing things that happened earlier in other countries. It’s just that we didn’t recognise it. To be blunt, the emerging thinkers who are setting the pace in the White House and many other economies see the concept of the International Chamber of Commerce as anathema. I don’t see any argument that the International or any Chamber of Commerce can bring to the White House to make them pivot. They only want to hear: How can we help you make this transition happen faster? What can we do to make this work better? Can the banking community play a role in bringing stability? No. Because what we’re seeing unfold most graphically in America is a shift from economic policy, where businesses and banks have a say, to economic statecraft, where they largely don’t. Such statecraft concerns itself in the grand strategy of national security rather than rising stocks. In that environment, banks and businesses will be first politely, and then more and more forcibly, be told ‘here’s how you can help. Here’s what we want you to be doing’.

< Back < Previous | Next > What Businesses Really Want to Know About Arbitration: Top Questions from Last Week’s ICC Workshop 27 Nov 2025 What questions do businesses really ask about arbitration? From sanctions and enforcement to confidentiality and clause drafting, discover the top questions businesses raised during our latest ICC arbitration workshop. What Businesses Really Want to Know About Arbitration: Top Questions from Last Week’s ICC Workshop When businesses, engineers, in-house counsel, and lawyers gathered last week for ICC Netherlands’ workshop Managing Risk in Cross-Border Transactions , one thing quickly became clear: organisations may face similar legal risks, but the questions they bring to the table come from very different day-to-day realities. Led by arbitration specialist Ulrich Kopetzki , the session evolved into a highly interactive conversation shaped almost entirely by participant questions: practical, specific, and grounded in real operational dilemmas. Below are the key themes that emerged, the questions businesses are actually asking when it comes to international contracts and ICC arbitration, and what they reveal about the challenges companies face today. 1. “What happens with enforcement if the counterparty is based in a sanctioned country but they have assets are located elsewhere?” The most-asked question of the day was also the most fundamental: enforcement . Participants described scenarios where the counterparty was registered in a sanctioned or high-risk jurisdiction, the contract was governed by a different law, and the only practical assets were located in yet another country. The takeaway was clear: enforcement follows the assets , not the counterparty’s nationality, registered seat, or the governing law. In the example discussed, a Dutch company contracting with a Libyan entity whose assets were in France, enforcement in Libya would have been impossible, but an ICC arbitration award could still be enforced in France under the New York Convention. 2. “Has Brexit made English courts harder to rely on?” Brexit continues to create confusion, and participants openly questioned whether English court judgments have become riskier than arbitration awards. The workshop confirmed a reality many suspected: enforcement of UK court judgments in the EU has indeed become more complicated. Arbitration, however, has remained stable. London continues to be one of the world’s top seats, and English law among the most frequently chosen for international contracts, a testament to its predictability and global reputation. 3. “Why are so many ICC cases in construction, engineering and energy?” Participants from offshore construction, infrastructure and energy immediately recognised themselves in this question. These industries were strongly represented in the room, and for good reason. These sectors rely on complex, high-value projects, international standard forms such as FIDIC, and tight timelines. Delays, variations, and unexpected conditions are common, and the technical nature of disputes means parties prefer arbitrators with sector expertise. Naturally, ICC statistics reflect this: construction, engineering and energy disputes consistently form the largest share of the caseload. In other words, the industries that build the world also generate many of its disputes and arbitration remains the preferred tool for resolving them. 4. “Is the finality of arbitration a benefit or a risk?” This question divided the room. Some participants saw finality as a major advantage: no years of appeals, no long-term uncertainty on the books, and no draining internal resources on prolonged litigation. They valued the ability to “close the file” and focus on business continuity. Others worried: What if the tribunal gets it wrong? Without an appeal route, there is no second chance. The discussion crystallised an important insight: parties’ comfort with finality depends heavily on their ability to select qualified arbitrators who understand their industry. As several practitioners noted, this is often a greater safeguard than an appeal mechanism itself. 5. “How do we avoid reputational damage?” For companies in regulated or high-visibility sectors, confidentiality was a key concern and an area where many assumptions do not match how ICC arbitration actually works. Contrary to popular belief, ICC arbitration is private but not automatically confidential . Unless parties include a confidentiality clause in their contract, they cannot rely on secrecy. While tribunals may issue confidentiality orders, there is no inherent guarantee. Participants were therefore strongly encouraged to address confidentiality explicitly when drafting their dispute-resolution clauses. 6. “Are we drafting arbitration clauses correctly?” The final set of questions went straight to the heart of contractual risk management: drafting. Lawyers in the room shared stories of “creative” clauses that ended up causing more disputes than they resolved. From unclear multi-tier clauses to mismatches between chosen law and the arbitration framework, poorly drafted clauses can create procedural traps, delays, or even unenforceable awards. The workshop advice was unambiguous: Use the ICC Model Clause . Specify seat, law, and language clearly. Be cautious with bespoke additions. Do not over-engineer multi-tier clauses. Clarify whether confidentiality and expedited procedures apply. A good clause won’t guarantee a smooth project, but a bad clause can guarantee a difficult dispute. Businesses Want Practical Answers, Not Theory What made the session unique was the openness of the participants. They did not ask abstract legal questions; they asked business questions: Where will we actually get paid? How do we protect our reputation? Which process gives us the least disruption? Which mechanism can we explain to our board? How do we prevent disputes instead of fuelling them? The workshop showed that arbitration is not only a legal tool, it is a strategic business choice. The ability to manage enforcement risk, maintain neutrality, select experts, and resolve disputes efficiently is at the core of cross-border commerce. For many companies in the room, the greatest insight was that dispute resolution begins long before a conflict arises. It begins with drafting the right clause. Want to join our next ICC NL training? Let us know: more sessions are on the way! info@icc.nl

< Back < Previous | Next > Highlights from the Week of Integrity 2025 1 Nov 2025 The Week of Integrity 2025 brought together organizations across sectors to explore how integrity strengthens culture, trust, and sustainable growth. From the launch of the new Book of Integrity to inspiring partner initiatives and thought-provoking dialogues, the week proved that integrity is a year-round capability, not just a one-week commitment. Integrity & Culture: Highlights from the Week of Integrity 2025 From 27 to 31 October, organizations across the Netherlands and beyond came together for the Week of Integrity 2025 , a week dedicated to reflection, dialogue, and action on how integrity strengthens culture, trust, and long-term business resilience. Opening: Integrity as a cultural foundation The week opened with a clear message: integrity is the cultural foundation for resilient institutions. Speakers Mirjam Bakker-Vergouw and Lousewies van der Laan highlighted the urgency of restoring trust in a polarized world. Prof. Dr. Muel Kaptein delivered an interactive keynote introducing a practical framework for measuring and managing ethical culture, setting the tone for a week focused on how integrity sustains open, just, and sustainable societies. The week also marked the launch of the seventh edition of the Book of Integrity , “Culture of Integrity” , featuring essays from business leaders and experts on how ethical culture underpins sustainable growth. The book set the tone for the discussions that followed: integrity is not just a principle, but a practice that defines how organizations lead, decide, and grow responsibly. Partner Spotlight The Week of Integrity thrives thanks to its many partners, whose creativity and engagement brought the theme to life across sectors and industries: KPMG published a five-part blog series inspired by Prof. Kaptein’s keynote, each day exploring a dimension of ethical culture—from the value of integrity and the balance between hard and soft controls, to preventing ethical complacency. Forvis Mazars launched a daily blog series analyzing corruption risks through 99 FCPA cases , covering topics like kickbacks, nepotism, shell companies, and self-reporting—concluding with a practical self-scan for organizations. Kickbacks en fictieve facturatie: zo herkent u het in de praktijk - Forvis Mazars - Nederland NIBC Bank released its updated Code of Conduct , hosted an engaging internal event with CEO Nick Jue and guest speaker Prof. Marjan Olfers , and reinforced its Speak Up culture with interactive role-plays and manager-led initiatives. Damen , in collaboration with Van Oord and SBM Offshore , organized a Compliance Champion spotlight, an open Compliance Café , and an Industry Roundtable on Culture , encouraging open dialogue and peer learning. On October 27, Geert Vermeulen from De Integriteitscoördinator and Lucianne Verweij , Business Integrity Specialist, hosted a session inviting experts to discuss Whistleblowing Management Systems and related topics such as the benefits of a speak-up culture, the value of effective speak-up mechanisms, and the associated challenges. Marijntje Zweegers , Research and Prevention Coordinator at the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority , provided insights into the role of the Huis voor Klokkenluiders, while Wim Vandekerckhove guided participants through the Speak-Up Self-Assessment (SUSA) online tool. Triple Jump encouraged employees to engage in informal lunch discussions about integrity and sustainability, helping colleagues reflect on how everyday choices shape ethical behavior. They complemented this with an Integrity Quiz and an invitation to read the Book of Integrity , featuring a contribution from their Compliance Manager, Margherita Noto . These initiatives demonstrated how integrity can be embedded across sectors, from finance and infrastructure to professional services and compliance. Seminar: Culture and Integrity in a Shifting World At the seminar “Culture and Integrity in a Shifting World” , participants explored how organizations can uphold integrity amid growing geopolitical and regulatory uncertainty. The session opened with Casper Roerade (Evofenedex) , who outlined how global trade fragmentation and political pressures are reshaping corporate governance and ethical expectations. A panel featuring Christiene Everaars , Tekla Surguladze (Magnum) , Alessandro Fontana (Saipem do Brasil) , and Angeliki Mitropoulou (SBM Offshore) — moderated by Suzanne Kröner-Rosmalen (NautaDutilh) — examined integrity challenges across global supply chains and ESG compliance. Sonia Garcia delivered a compelling keynote on the role of organizational culture and psychological safety, while Mariet de Boer and Twan Hol from the Dutch Whistleblower Authority shared practical tools to foster open, speak-up environments. Closing: Integrity as a capability The week concluded with an inspiring message from global thought leader Brett Hudson : integrity must be more than a value — it must be a capability. Hudson emphasized that ethical failures often result from structural weaknesses rather than individual flaws. He called on leaders to intentionally design systems that enable integrity under pressure and to use technology, including AI, responsibly, as a support for human judgment and values. The Week of Integrity 2025 once again proved that integrity is not only about compliance but about culture, leadership, and courage. Across industries, partners showed how principles can be turned into practice, strengthening trust, resilience, and purpose in an increasingly complex world. Keep the conversation going Integrity is not a one-week theme — it’s a year-round commitment. There are 52 weeks of integrity , and organizations are encouraged to keep the momentum going. If you’re inspired to take action, explore the Week of Integrity Toolbox — a collection of free resources, case studies, and interactive tools that can be used any time of the year to strengthen integrity, spark dialogue, and build ethical cultures within your organization.

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture “I Thought It Couldn’t Happen Here” 7 Apr 2025 In this candid interview, a regional director in France reflects on the lasting impact of a workplace harassment case, which challenged her views on leadership and integrity. Two years later, she sees integrity not as a fixed ideal, but as a daily commitment to psychological safety, accountability, and readiness. In conversation with a regional agency director in the construction sector, two years after a workplace harassment incident challenged her assumptions about trust, leadership and vulnerability in a tight-knit company. This article, challenging the idea that integrity is ever black and white, is part of ICC Netherlands’ monthly series leading up to the Week of Integrity 2025, where we spotlight real-world experiences and dilemmas at the intersection of culture and integrity. “We had built a culture together” Can you tell us a bit about your company and your role? We are a small public works company based in a town in southern France, with about thirty employees. I’m the agency director and have been with the company for more than twelve years. How would you have described the culture of your company before the incident? The company had gone through tough times before — high employee turnover, lack of shared values — but in recent years we had worked hard to build a more cohesive environment. We brought in an external coach, developed a sense of collective identity, and shaped a family-like atmosphere. We weren’t just colleagues; we’d grown together. That’s why what happened was such a shock. “The atmosphere was heavy — something had happened” How did you first learn about the incident? It was right after the Christmas break. Typically, our administrative team returns a bit earlier than the field staff, so it was a quiet Monday. We all had lunch together, as we usually do — but I felt something was off. There was a heavy, almost oppressive atmosphere. The next day, our accountant came to see me and told me she was the victim of harassment. What was your first reaction? I was deeply shaken — on several levels. First, I had absolutely no idea it had been going on, and apparently it had been happening for months. I always thought my team knew they could talk to me. It was hard to accept that something so serious had happened right under my nose and no one had come forward. Second, the person accused of harassment was someone I trusted completely. He had been with the company for 15 years — one of the pillars of the business. He was someone I worked with daily, someone who had even driven my daughter home when she did a summer internship with us. “No one told me and that was devastating” You mentioned no one came forward. Why do you think that was? That’s something I’ve reflected on a lot. Two colleagues were aware of the situation, including our retired accountant, who’s still someone I hold in high regard, and a trusted site manager. They knew, but they didn’t tell me. The victim had convinced them that she would handle it on her own. She didn’t want any trouble. She was still in her probationary period at the time and probably felt vulnerable. The accused, on the other hand, was seen as irreplaceable; a highly skilled, longstanding team member. In the end, the two colleagues who stayed silent suffered enormously. It was a form of torture for them to hold it in. They felt they had failed to act. And I… I felt betrayed and deeply questioned my leadership. Why hadn’t anyone felt safe enough to come to me? “There were no warning signs” Had you seen any signs or had concerns about the accused employee’s behaviour before this? None. Not a single red flag. He was respectful, kind, professional. I never heard a sexist remark from him — nothing inappropriate, not even close. Honestly, I had colleagues who were a bit rough around the edges, but not him. That’s what made it all so incomprehensible. What about mechanisms for reporting? Were there anonymous channels available?No, we don’t have anonymous reporting in place. We’re a small company, under 50 employees, so it’s not required by law. But we do have elected staff representatives trained as harassment contacts. When we initiated the internal investigation, confidentiality was strictly respected — to this day, very few people in the company know what really happened. Do you think an anonymous channel would have made a difference? Honestly? I’m not sure I would have acted on an anonymous letter. I’ve received anonymous complaints in the past — about things like drinking on worksites — and felt powerless to investigate without knowing who was involved. Also, in this particular case, I had so much trust in the accused that I might not have believed it without seeing the victim’s distress firsthand. “It unravelled everything” What was the impact on your business? Operationally, it was hell for several months. The internal atmosphere was incredibly tense. The investigation was emotionally draining for everyone involved — especially the victim, the accused, and the two colleagues who knew. And me. I had to face the fact that something serious had happened on my watch. The inquiry itself concluded that it wasn’t legally harassment in the strictest sense —but I classified it as such anyway. There were repeated inappropriate actions. Regardless of intent, the behaviour was unacceptable. We brought in a lawyer and imposed disciplinary measures, but ultimately, the accused left the company. So did the victim, after a mental health breakdown. A breakdown? Yes. The situation spiralled. She had initially insisted it was “all sorted” and didn’t want us to act. I tried to support her — encouraged her to take time off, offered psychological help, reassured her about her job. But things got worse. One day, I walked into the office and saw her shouting at our former accountant, who had returned temporarily to help with year-end finances. She was gripping her arm, screaming. It was frightening. That’s when I realized there were deeper psychological issues at play. “I tried to do everything right — and still, it wasn’t enough” How did it end? She went on medical leave, came back briefly, then left again. Eventually, we received a letter through her union representative — claiming I had known for months, had silenced her, even intimidated her. It was crushing. I had done everything in my power to protect her. We settled with a mutual termination agreement and a significant payout — for someone who had been with the company for less than a year. Meanwhile, I lost the trust of our head office. We’re still feeling the operational impact. Looking back, is there anything you would do differently? Yes. I would have taken the time to truly educate myself about harassment before it happened. I thought I was doing enough by sending two staff to get trained. I thought this couldn’t happen in a small company where everyone knows each other, where we have lunch together every day. I was wrong. Were there any signs you missed? No clear ones. She was always cheerful, always brought cakes, lit up the room. But later we learned she had recently lost 50 kilos, gone through a divorce… there were emotional wounds beneath the surface. Still, no one saw it coming. She kept it all inside. And the accused? He had a history of burnout. In hindsight, both of them were probably in a fragile mental state. And yet, the dynamic between them became unhealthy. Even when we tried to separate them, she would go into his office — lock the door. It was messy, blurred, toxic. “I used to think harassment only happened elsewhere” What would you say to other business leaders? Prepare yourselves. Really prepare. Don’t just tick boxes. Understand what harassment is, how it starts, and how to respond. Get trained yourself — not just your team. Don’t assume that being small or close-knit makes you immune. It doesn’t. Make sure people know the procedures. Put them on the wall if you have to. Talk about it — not just when something goes wrong, but regularly. Make it normal. Make it part of your culture. Because when it happens — and it might — you don’t want to be figuring things out in the middle of the storm. You want to be ready. And what does integrity mean to you, today? Initially, I only thought of integrity in financial terms — being honest in business dealings. But now I see it’s broader. It’s about doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. In terms of safety — including psychological safety — that’s where we’ve still got work to do. Is there anything else you’d like to share? Only this: two years later, I’m still learning. Doing this interview made me realize how much I haven’t yet done — especially in terms of prevention. I managed the crisis. But I haven’t finished the job. Now, my responsibility is to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

< Back Sophia Elisabeth von Dewall DERAINS & GHARAVI Arbitrator Biography Sophia von Dewall is partner at Derains & Gharavi and has acted in numerous international arbitration proceedings, as well as in legal proceedings before Netherlands state courts. She has handled arbitrations conducted under the arbitration rules of the NAI, CEPINA, ICC, HKIAC and ICSID. Her areas of practice include international investment disputes and international commercial disputes arising out of international contracts, joint-venture and shareholder relationships and large infrastructural projects. She also acts as arbitrator, including in arbitrations administered by the ICC Rules (further information, see firm website). In addition, she is Member of the Executive Board of the Dutch Arbitration Association and Member of the ICC Task Force on Corruption. Sophia is admitted to the Amsterdam Bar and registered in the Paris Bar. She obtained an LL.M. in Public International & European Law (cum laude) and an LL.M. in Dutch Law (cum laude) from the University of Amsterdam. Contact Details Netherlands, France 00 33 (0)1 40 55 51 00 svondewall@derainsgharavi.com Additional Links Link About ICC Netherlands We ensure that Dutch business interests are heard and represented in international policymaking. We deliver tools and standards that simplify cross-border business like model contracts or Incoterms®. We support fair and efficient dispute resolution . Become a member Upcoming events Learn more Check our latest news! News Languages Spoken Dutch, English, French Specialisation Energy, Construction, Contracts, Distribution, Information and Communication Technologies Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV