Search Results

Team Members Brian Chung VP Product This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More Kelly Parker HR Representative This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More Ashley Amerson Product Manager This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More Marcus Harris Account Director This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More Brad Grecco Marketing Associate This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More Camilla Jones Content Manager This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Read More

< Back < Previous | Next > Circular Plastics and Dutch Leadership: An Interview with Willemijn Peeters, founding director of Searious Business Tom Scott 6 Oct 2025 "The Netherlands stands at a crossroads. If we embrace circularity at scale, we can future-proof our economy, strengthen our resilience, and prove that sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand". Circular Plastics and Dutch Leadership: An Interview with Willemijn Peeters, founding director of Searious Business Willemijn Peeters, founding director of Searious Business Could you introduce Searious Business and explain what you mean by circular plastics solutions? Searious Business is a social enterprise created with one goal – to prevent plastic pollution. We focus on preventing plastic waste before it becomes pollution, before it becomes waste. Instead of following the traditional linear take-make-waste model, we look upstream to circular plastic solutions that keep materials in the loop and out of the waste stream. We support major companies to transform how they use plastic, reducing environmental impact, and unlocking the economic potential of circular plastics. Our work spans packaging, furniture, and consumer electronics, where we develop innovative products and business models to create reusable packaging systems, move away from virgin plastics, and enable effective recycling. Circularity isn’t just an environmental necessity – it’s also a huge business opportunity for innovation, competitiveness and resilience. In short, our mission is to keep plastics inside our economy, and outside of our environment. What are your takeaways from the recent United Nations treaty negotiations? What’s needed to reach an agreement? And what’s the situation in the European Union – is there room for improvement? Obviously it was a massive disappointment to leave without an agreement. The draft text tried to please everyone but by doing so, it ended up pleasing no one. In some ways it is reassuring that we didn’t settle for something weak and ineffective. Now the red lines are all visible, negotiations can resume from a clearer position. It’s going to take real political courage to not water down standards and layout strong implementation mechanisms. Companies will be helped by harmonised rules, binding targets and transparent reporting There must be sufficient support for countries and companies making the transition – a robust financial package could be the lynchpin that brings more countries on side. We also have to face the reality that full global consensus may be impossible. With over 120 countries ready to act and a handful unwilling to move, the world cannot be held hostage to inaction. That’s why the ambitious majority must show bold leadership. It could be that voting may be needed to break the deadlock and create a treaty that countries can actually implement. At the EU level, we already have a strong foundation – policies like the Circular Economy Action Plan and the Single-Use Plastics Directive are pushing the market in the right direction. But there’s still room for improvement, particularly in harmonising rules across member states and speeding up enforcement. As the United States retreats from some climate commitments and environmental policies, the EU can use the circular economy as a strategic advantage: boosting resilience, reducing resource dependency, and increasing value-for-money. “Made in the EU” should come to signify not just high quality, but also high sustainability. A strong, circular European market would also safeguard us against growing global supply chain disruptions driven by geopolitical tensions. What is the most common misconception people have about circular plastics? One misconception I often hear is that circular plastics simply means “more recycling”. It doesn’t. Recycling is only one piece of the puzzle – and not the most efficient one. True circularity means redesigning products and systems from the ground up: that starts with design – creating products that are reusable and recyclable (and that incorporate recycled material), setting up take-back systems, closing material loops, and developing new business models that focus on reuse, repair, and shared ownership. This isn’t about doing more of the same. It’s about doing things differently. That’s why collaboration across sectors is so essential. What’s the most exciting development or trend you see right now in circular plastics? For me, one of the most exciting developments right now is the rise of reusable packaging systems. We are seeing innovative pilots emerge – from digital product passports that track materials, to take-back schemes and closed-loop logistics. Collaboration between universities, start-ups, and established companies is creating fertile ground for breakthroughs. The Netherlands has all the right ingredients: advanced infrastructure, strong consumer awareness, and a collaborative innovation culture. And yet, here is the paradox: the Netherlands is often seen as a world leader in circular solutions and recycling innovation, but when it comes to actual deployment and upscaling of reusable packaging, we lag behind France and Germany. If ever there was a country more suited to scaling reusable systems – densely populated, high-income, with short transport distances – it’s ours. This is an area where we urgently need to catch up and show the same leadership we’re known for in other fields. What advice would you give to companies trying to integrate plastic circularity into their business model – especially balancing environmental ambition with commercial realities? My advice is to think long-term and work collaboratively. Start by engaging with partners across your value chain – no company can do this alone. Invest in skills, R&D, and digital systems that allow you to track, reuse and recover materials. And above all, balance your environmental ambitions with commercial realities by building a strong business case: circular solutions can cut costs, create new revenue streams, and open up new markets if designed well. The Dutch context offers huge advantages: technical know-how, a collaborative culture, and growing consumer demand for sustainable products. This is not just about risk management – it’s a competitive opportunity. And perhaps the most important question for Dutch companies: where do you think Dutch businesses are leading the way, and where do they need to catch up? Dutch businesses are already leading the way in areas like recycling technologies, design for circularity, and digital innovation to trace and recover materials. We have a strong reputation for dialogue, consensus-building, and open knowledge-sharing – and that collaborative spirit is one of our greatest strengths. But we must also be honest: dialogue alone is not leadership. True leadership is turning words into action. We need to move faster from pilot to practice, and especially in reusable packaging, we must catch up to our neighbours. If Dutch companies unite behind a shared vision, supported by clear policy incentives, we can position the Netherlands as a global hub for circular plastics expertise – attracting investment, talent and international partnerships. We have the knowledge, the infrastructure and the innovative culture. Now we need the courage to act. Closing Thoughts? The Netherlands stands at a crossroads. The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities. If we embrace circularity at scale, we can future-proof our economy, strengthen our resilience, and prove that sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand. That is the future I believe in – and the future we at Searious Business are working every day to achieve. Want to discuss the opportunities for your business? Drop me a line at connect@seariousbusiness.com

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment Reimagining WTO Dispute Settlement: a business case for mediation 14 May 2025 Mediation under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding can help governments resolve trade frictions faster, cheaper and more constructively – if they’re willing to use it. ICC is making the case. Most trade frictions never reach WTO dispute settlement. Many business concerns – licensing delays, technical barriers or opaque procedures – disrupt trade but are too small, sensitive or costly to escalate to formal dispute settlement. That’s where alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and more specifically mediation, comes in. WTO rules already allow for it, but the tool has not been used, among other things, due to a lack of clear procedures. That’s changing. As part of the WTO reform process, WTO Members are discussing procedural rules to make mediation a workable option – and we can help accelerate this process by supporting governments willing to pilot mediation in practice. Why it matters For business Companies face real costs from unresolved trade frictions. Mediation offers a practical and quicker way to resolve issues – and businesses can help identify where it’s needed. For governments Mediation gives WTO Members a lower-risk, lower-cost path to resolve trade issues early. It is especially important for developing countries that may lack resources for litigation. The benefits of WTO mediation Enables early, informal resolution of trade concerns Reduces time, cost, and legal burden Promotes cooperation—not confrontation Offers a flexible and confidential process No imposed ruling —outcomes are mutually agreed What we are doing ICC is advocating for the use of ADR, and in particular mediation within the WTO dispute settlement system as part of broader reform efforts. Drawing on ICC’s extensive experience as the world’s leading institution in cross-border dispute resolution, we’re supporting efforts to make mediation a practical option for resolving trade frictions more effectively. How you can get involved We are actively seeking companies with unresolved trade concerns who are willing to engage their governments in pilot mediation cases. These cases can help demonstrate how WTO mediation can deliver fast, practical outcomes and strengthen trust in the rules-based system. Contact Valerie Picard, Head of Trade, ICC, Valerie.Picard@iccwbo.org to learn more or explore a pilot case.

< Back < Previous | Next > Digitalisation Get your business ready for digital trade: meet the ICC Digital Trade Navigator 11 May 2026 With the Netherlands’ new electronic bill of lading law in force, this exclusive ICC member benefit could not be more timely. Join one of the onboarding sessions on 28 May. Get your business ready for digital trade: meet the ICC Digital Trade Navigator With the Netherlands’ new electronic bill of lading law in force, this exclusive ICC member benefit could not be more timely. Join one of the onboarding sessions on 28 May. Digital trade is reshaping how goods, documents and data move across borders. Electronic bills of lading, digital trust frameworks, interoperable standards, evolving legal regimes — the building blocks are coming together quickly. For most businesses, the question is no longer whether digital trade matters, but how to get ready for it without taking a wrong turn. That is exactly what the ICC Digital Trade Navigator is built for. Developed by the ICC Digital Standards Initiative (DSI) together with our national committees, the Industry Advisory Board and the Legal Reform Advisory Board, the Navigator brings the entire landscape of digital trade into one structured, easy-to-use space. Think of it as a Wikipedia for digital trade, ICC style, and it is reserved exclusively for ICC members. Following our recent national committee briefings, we are inviting you to one of two onboarding sessions on 28 May, where we will walk through the platform live and show you how to put it to work in practice. A Dutch milestone for digital trade On 22 April 2026, the Netherlands took a defining step into the digital trade era. The Act amending Book 8 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek to introduce the electronic bill of lading (elektronisch cognossement) was published in Staatsblad 2026, no. 86, placing the eBL on equal legal footing with its paper counterpart under Dutch law. It is a foundational change that opens the door to fully digital sea-freight transactions involving Dutch parties. For Dutch exporters, importers, banks, freight forwarders and in-house legal teams, the question shifts from “is this allowed?” to “how do we actually do it?”. That is precisely where the Navigator comes in. The legal foundation is necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own: companies still need to understand the standards that make eBLs interoperable across counterparties, the trust frameworks that prove a document is authentic, the data behind the documents, and how all of this connects to trade finance. The Navigator brings those pieces together so Dutch businesses can move from legal possibility to operational reality with confidence. Read the law: Staatsblad 2026, 86. A single home for digital trade knowledge The Navigator (previously referred to as the “Sandbox”) has evolved into something far more useful for the membership. It pulls together the best of DSI’s guidance, ICC standards and the practical tools developed with our partners, organising them into a clear A-to-Z pathway. Whether you are stepping into digital trade for the first time or have been following developments for years, the Navigator helps them see how the concepts, legal frameworks, standards, documents, data, trust and interoperability, and trade finance fit together. At its core, it is a learning and preparation platform. It is designed to help organisations assess their readiness, master the building blocks and ask questions in a safe environment before attempting implementation. Three pillars that work together The learner journey is a self-paced curriculum covering the foundations of digital trade, legal and compliance frameworks, standards, documents and data, trust and interoperability, and trade finance. Each topic includes curated reading, a glossary of unfamiliar terms and an embedded AI assistant that can point a learner to the right module when they have a specific question. Users decide what to skip, what to revisit and how quickly to move; HR teams can track progress and use the platform as a structured capability-building tool for their people. The resource library is the single source of truth — every relevant document, standard, white paper and tool, both from DSI and from trusted partners, made fully searchable by topic and keyword. Practical instruments such as data-mapping tools, interoperability enablement utilities and implementation support all live here. The mentor forum is where members engage directly with the experts who shaped this work. Questions are posted to topic-based threads, and assigned mentors are notified when new questions appear. Because the forum is open and threaded, members benefit from each other’s questions as well as their own as the body of guidance grows over time. Mentors are there to help your people make sense of the harder questions as they arise. Why should you care? The Navigator concentrates years of work, knowledge that you might otherwise pay seasoned consultants to assemble, into a single, structured platform. It is free to ICC members, accessible by company domain name, and designed to scale across teams: trade, legal, compliance, finance, procurement, supply chain, IT and HR. It is crucial to know that this serves as preparation, not theory. Later this year we will activate the matching functionality so member companies can find counterparties, importers with exporters, manufacturers with freight forwarders, banks with corporates, to run real digital trade pilots together. Companies whose teams have completed the learner journey will be ready to engage mentors with the right questions, choose the right pilot platforms and avoid costly missteps. In short, the Navigator gives you a way to build internal capability now, so that when they step into a live pilot, they take that step with confidence. Who is it for? The Navigator is designed for any organisation involved in cross-border trade: large multinationals running global supply chains, mid-sized exporters, SMEs participating in those supply chains, and the financial institutions that support them. Within those organisations, it speaks to a wide audience: operational teams who need to understand standards and documents, finance teams thinking about reconciliation and trade finance, legal teams tracking reform, and senior leaders who want to understand what is coming. Although it is not a certification, member companies who want one should check out the ICC Academy's Certified Digital Trade Specialist course. However, for many learners, completing the Navigator will make passing that test much easier. Join us on 28 May The Navigator goes live this month, and we are running two live onboarding sessions on 28 May to walk you through the platform, explain how registration and member verification work, and answer any questions you have about deploying it inside your member organisations. 28 May, 09:00 CET — register here 28 May, 16:00 CET — register here Both sessions cover the same material, so pick whichever time suits you best. Sessions will be recorded for anyone unable to attend live. We look forward to seeing you there.

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

< 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 > Integrity & Culture Integrity & Culture: Understanding How Culture Shapes Ethical Behaviour Inspired by Lee Cronk’s research on culture & behaviour 14 Feb 2025 Culture is often cited as a driving force behind human behaviour, influencing everything from social norms to business ethics. However, as anthropologist Lee Cronk points out, “Although behavioural scientists often use culture as an explanation of behaviour, we have little understanding of why culture sometimes powerfully shapes behaviour and at other times seems to have no effect on it.” This raises an important question in the realm of integrity: how does culture influence ethical behaviour, and why do individuals sometimes act against cultural norms? Culture as a Social Coordination Tool Cronk’s research suggests that culture plays a significant role in shaping behaviour through social coordination conventions. These conventions create shared expectations and provide individuals with a framework for decision-making. Ethical norms, which form the foundation of integrity, can be seen as a type of social coordination mechanism. For example, widely accepted ethical principles—such as honesty in business transactions—help facilitate trust and cooperation within societies. A critical insight from Cronk’s work is that people are more likely to conform to cultural norms when those norms provide a clear structure for coordination. Ethical standards function similarly, establishing a shared understanding of acceptable behaviour. However, when ethical norms are ambiguous or in conflict with other cultural influences (such as economic pressures), individuals may deviate from them. As Cronk states, “people may claim that they value a certain trait or behaviour but fail to act accordingly when other factors, such as economic incentives or social pressures, come into play. When Culture and Behaviour Diverge One of Cronk’s key observations is that people do not always follow cultural norms, especially when those norms are not tied to social coordination. He provides an example from the Maasai culture, where traditional gender preferences expressed by parents did not align with their actual behaviour. Maasai parents often state a preference for sons over daughters due to traditional societal values that emphasize the role of men as providers and warriors. However, when researchers observed their real-life actions, they found that parents often invested just as much—if not more—into their daughters’ well-being and education. Cronk explains this discrepancy by highlighting the difference between stated cultural values and actual decision-making behaviours. While Maasai parents verbally uphold traditional gender norms, their practical decisions are guided by evolving social and economic realities, such as the increasing importance of education for all children. This illustrates a broader issue in ethics: individuals and organizations may publicly support ethical norms but act differently when competing incentives come into play. In corporate settings, this explains why some organizations publicly endorse ethical standards yet engage in questionable business practices. The mere presence of an integrity policy does not guarantee ethical behaviour. Instead, ethical norms must be integrated into an organization’s coordination mechanisms, ensuring they guide everyday decision-making. Integrity as a Cultural Construct From a cultural perspective, integrity is not just about individual moral choices—it is about shared beliefs and practices that shape behaviour. Ethical cultures within organizations are most effective when they function as social coordination conventions. For example, when companies make ethical behaviour a fundamental part of their corporate culture—embedded in training, performance evaluations, and leadership expectations—employees are more likely to follow ethical guidelines. Conversely, when ethical policies are seen as mere formalities without meaningful reinforcement, they are likely to be ignored or overridden by other influences, such as financial incentives or peer pressure. This aligns with Cronk’s argument that culture’s influence on behaviour is strongest when it provides clear guidance on how to act in specific situations. “Cultural rules that are clearly tied to tangible benefits are more likely to be followed than those that exist primarily as abstract ideals,” he explains. Lessons for Businesses and Organizations Cronk’s insights offer valuable lessons for organizations aiming to foster a culture of integrity: • Make Ethical Norms Actionable : Ethical guidelines should not be abstract ideals but practical rules integrated into daily business operations. • Ensure Common Knowledge : Ethical standards must be widely known and understood within an organization. Transparency and communication are essential in reinforcing these norms. • Align Incentives with Integrity : When employees perceive ethical behaviour as a requirement for success, rather than an optional guideline, they are more likely to adhere to ethical standards. • Create Accountability Mechanisms : Social coordination relies on mutual expectations. Establishing clear accountability structures ensures that ethical breaches are addressed effectively. Conclusion Culture is a powerful force in shaping behaviour, but its influence depends on how norms are embedded in social structures. Ethical behaviour thrives when integrity is not just an individual choice but a collective expectation reinforced through cultural coordination. As organizations and societies continue to navigate ethical challenges, understanding the relationship between culture and behaviour is crucial for fostering a sustainable and integrity-driven future. AU - Cronk, Lee T1 - Culture’s Influence on Behaviour: Steps Toward a Theory JO - Evolutionary Behavioural Sciences

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment Major banks set industry milestone with endorsement of ICC’s Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance 13 Jun 2025 A group of leading Trade Finance banks have announced their endorsement of the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance (ICC PSTF). This group, and further supporting banks, collectively represent as much as 25% of the global trade finance market by volume. A group of leading Trade Finance banks have today announced their endorsement of the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance ( ICC PSTF ). This group, and further supporting banks, collectively represent as much as 25% of the global trade finance market by volume. The work, led by ICC, with support from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and newly announced endorsement by Commerzbank, ING, Santander, and Standard Chartered aims to provide clear, transparent, and consistent guidelines to enable banks, corporates and investors to effectively channel capital towards sustainable and inclusive trade finance facilities. Unlike for many other financial products, trade finance practitioners have historically not had a clear, consistent and consensus definition on what constitutes sustainable trade finance, limiting its application. The principles, launched in October 2024, therefore provide a robust methodology for evaluating sustainable trade finance transactions, including a globally acceptable approach for assessing use-of-proceeds in trade finance transactions, proposed due diligence protocols for sustainability verification and unified reporting standards to ensure consistency across financial institutions. As a next step, with support of these banks, ICC plans to further build on the principles including defining legal terms and extending its coverage to social sustainability, while also working with the broader trade ecosystem – including banks, corporates and regulators – to expand further endorsement. ICC welcomes any users who also wish to endorse the PSTF to an additional endorsement announcement in circa Q3 2025. “We welcome the endorsement of the ICC Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance by four leading banks. This is a strong signal of market alignment behind a common framework to scale sustainable trade finance in a practical, credible and commercially viable way. We look forward to more banks endorsing the ICC principles ahead of COP30 in November – sending a clear signal that trade is a core part of the solution to climate change.” Philippe Varin, ICC Chair Raelene Martin, Head of Sustainability at ICC, added: “We are thrilled to welcome the banks’ endorsement of ICC’s Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance, which marks an important step in aligning the industry around common methodology for the assessment of sustainable trade finance. We are thankful for their tremendous support in providing thought leadership and guidance that is fit for purpose for industry globally. We believe that the ICC Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance present an important milestone in embedding sustainability at the heart of global trade in a practical and robust way.” The first ICC member banks to endorse the ICC principles shared their initial thoughts: “At Santander CIB, we are committed to empowering our clients with innovative trade and working capital solutions aligned to their sustainability goals that promote resilience across global supply chains. To that end, we are happy to endorse the ICC principles, a landmark initiative in sustainable trade finance, and to continue to pave the way for more original solutions that deliver positive financial and sustainable impacts to businesses everywhere.” — Pablo Ballesteros, Head of GTB Cross Solutions at Santander CIB “Standard Chartered introduced its sustainable trade finance proposition in 2021 and as a pioneering advocate for sustainable trade finance standards across the industry, we are pleased to adopt ICC’s principles. We are committed to offering our clients innovative solutions that empower them to achieve their sustainability goals while effectively managing associated risks. We applaud ICC for leading the way in setting the international guidelines for the industry and we look forward to continuing our partnership with them to shape the future of sustainable trade finance globally.” — Sofia Hammoucha, Global Head of Trade & Working Capital at Standard Chartered. “Commerzbank, as a leading bank for foreign trade particularly for Germany and Europe, welcomes the publication of ICC’s Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance and actively contributed to them. They are suitable for establishing a consistent approach among international market participants and are referenced in our ESG framework.” — Sven O. Schmidt, Head of International Trade Finance Operations, Commerzbank AG “ING is proud to have contributed to ICC’s new Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance, which set a clear and actionable framework specifically tailored for the unique nature of trade finance transactions. These principles align with ING’s commitment to supporting clients in their transition to a more sustainable and resilient ecosystem. We will actively support further development of the framework into Social Trade Principles and further guidance for Sustainability Linked Supply Chain Finance.” — Anthony van Vliet, Head of Product Management Trade – Transaction Services – ING Wholesale Banking “Accelerating sustainable trade is a critical enabler in decarbonising some of the world’s most complex supply chains. Unlike for many other financial products, trade finance practitioners have not historically had a clear, consistent, and consensus definition on what constitutes sustainable trade finance, limiting its application. The formal recognition and endorsement of ICC’s Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance by leading global financial institutions is a huge step forward on this journey.” — Ravi Hanspal, Partner, Boston Consulting Group Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a long-term strategic partner of ICC, co-leading ICC’s Sustainable Trade programme since its inception, including the working group that developed the most recent Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance. Read more about the ICC Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance, and ICC’s broader work on sustainable trade.

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Building common ground in a fragmented world Laure Jacquier 7 Oct 2025 From trade digitalisation to sustainability and WTO reform, one message keeps returning: ambition is high, but the system must move faster. A reflection on clarity, trust, and cooperation, and why bringing people together still matters most. Building common ground in a fragmented world If there is one thing these past two years have confirmed, it is that progress happens when the right people sit around the same table. That is where ICC adds value. Our work connects businesses, law firms, financial institutions, and policymakers , creating space for practical cooperation. Whether on trade law, digital standards, sustainability, or dispute resolution, we act as a bridge, turning technical issues into collective solutions. The Netherlands has everything it needs to lead in international trade: strong infrastructure, expertise, credibility, and a global outlook. What we must ensure is that regulation and policy do not become barriers but enablers. Two years in It has now been two years since I joined ICC Netherlands, two years that went by fast, with a steep learning curve. Working every day at the crossroads of business, policy, and international cooperation gives perspective. I see how much is happening around, and how often the same message comes back from Dutch companies: we want to move forward, but the system is not moving with us in the same speed; or worse, it is holding us back. Across our commissions and round tables, whether on digitalisation , AI , sustainability , or integrity , the same frustration echoes: the Netherlands risks falling behind. Regulations take too long, pilots stall, and businesses willing to innovate often face uncertainty instead of support. In a country built on trade and ingenuity, we should be leading the way. A touch more confidence in our own ’Made in Holland’ , a bit of healthy chauvinism , would not be misplaced. And the message from Europe is anything but clear. Digital trade: limited progress One area where progress is increasingly urgent is digital trade . In 2025, relying on paper documents that take five to twenty days to circulate globally is no longer sustainable. The Dutch government’s proposal to recognise electronic bills of lading (eBLs) with the same legal value as their paper counterparts is a positive and welcome step, and ICC Netherlands has been actively support it. Still, to fully realise the potential of digital trade, we need legal certainty for all types of transferable electronic records, not just eBLs, and full interoperability between systems. Digitalisation is not only about efficiency; it also enhances transparency, strengthens security, and helps reduce opportunities for corruption. Above all, it supports Dutch competitiveness in a world where trade partners, from Singapore to the UK, are already advancing rapidly. A shifting international landscape The international context reinforces this urgency. The WTO Director-General recently warned that escalating tariffs are causing “unprecedented disruption” to the global trading system. The re-emergence of trade barriers and the fragmentation of markets are symptoms of a deeper problem: a multilateral system under strain. Yet even in this environment, progress is still possible. The WTO’s long-negotiated Fisheries Subsidies Agreement entered into force last month, a modest but real example of cooperation on trade and sustainability. At last week’s meeting of ICC’s Global Trade and Investment Commission , one point stood out clearly: instead of focusing on blame, the discussion centred on the structural causes of the WTO’s difficulties. The actions of individual countries, including the United States, are only manifestations of an underlying, long-term breakdown in the system. Years of under-investment in reform and a lack of political momentum have weakened the multilateral framework that global business depends on. Business representatives also called for a stronger and more consistent business voice within WTO processes , so that the private sector is not merely invited, but genuinely involved. One encouraging sign is that business engagement at the WTO Public Forum in Geneva has surged . Companies from Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia came together to discuss digital trade and the risks of letting the e-commerce moratorium lapse. As my colleague Jasper van Schaik notes in his article “ ICC Netherlands at the WTO Public Forum 2025 ” , this renewed participation demonstrates that companies seek greater engagement, not withdrawal, and that the business community is prepared to contribute constructively to reform. In the lead-up to the next WTO Ministerial Conference (MC14) , ICC is preparing a global “Save the System” letter , to be signed by chambers and associations worldwide, along with a campaign to safeguard the moratorium on digital trade , highlighting its importance for SMEs. These efforts reflect ICC’s broader mission: ensuring that global trade rules remain fair, predictable, and inclusive, and that Dutch businesses are actively represented. Sustainability and competitiveness The Dutch debate on sustainability also reflects the same tension between ambition and execution. In September 2025 , Tata Steel Nederland signed a non-binding pact with the Dutch government to pursue a low-carbon transition at its IJmuiden plant, with potential public support of up to €2 billion . It is a positive signal, but also a reminder of how complex, and costly, the transition will be, both technically and socially. As Willemijn Peeters , founding director of Searious Business , recently underlined in her interview for ICC , the Netherlands has “all the right ingredients” to lead in circular innovation, advanced infrastructure, strong consumer awareness, and a collaborative culture, yet it risks losing ground to neighbors who move faster from pilot to practice. Her call for courage and scale applies well beyond plastics: across industries, the same challenge persists. Meanwhile, experts warn that the Netherlands is unlikely to meet its 2030 climate goals. For businesses, this raises a real concern: how to invest with confidence when the policy environment remains uncertain. With COP30 approaching, the focus will increasingly turn to connecting climate and trade objectives rather than treating them separately. Companies are ready to contribute, but they need predictable frameworks and clear incentives. That is precisely where ICC’s strength lies, bridging global ambition with practical business reality. Along these two years at ICC Netherlands, one conviction has only grown stronger: clarity, trust, and cooperation are not abstract values, they are the foundations of competitiveness. In a world where both trade and trust are under pressure, creating that common ground is not optional. It is essential. As emphasized at the start, real progress always begins when the right people sit around the same table.

< Back < Previous | Next > OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum 2026 Françoise Rost Van Tonningen 23 Mar 2026 At the 2026 OECD Integrity Forum, integrity and responsible business conduct emerged as strategic, data-driven drivers of competitiveness, requiring stronger integration with ESG, risk management and governance. OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum 2026 The 2026 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum in Paris brought together representatives from governments, businesses, international organisations, academia and civil society to exchange insights across a wide range of sessions on the role of integrity and responsible business conduct in today’s global economy. The central theme of the Forum, “The Integrity Advantage: Powering Competitiveness and Prosperity,” clearly reflected a shift in thinking: integrity and responsible business conduct (RBC) are no longer viewed solely as compliance requirements, but increasingly as drivers of economic performance, resilience and trust. Throughout the Forum, it became clear that strong integrity frameworks and responsible business conduct practices are essential for well-functioning markets and sustainable growth. Companies with robust systems in place are better positioned to manage risk, prevent and detect corruption, attract investment and operate successfully in complex global environments. At the same time, expectations are increasing, with stronger enforcement, more cross-border cooperation and a growing use of sanctions and anti-corruption regulatory tools. A recurring theme in the discussions was the need to move away from siloed approaches. Integrity, anti-corruption, responsible business conduct, sustainability (ESG), due diligence and risk management can no longer be treated as separate domains. Instead, organisations are expected to move towards more integrated approaches, where these elements are aligned across governance structures, embedded in decision-making and applied consistently throughout supply chains. The launch of the OECD Anti-Corruption & Integrity Outlook 2026 (“Harnessing the Integrity Advantage”) reinforced this direction. The report provides a comprehensive overview of integrity and anti-corruption systems and highlights both progress and persistent implementation gaps. 2026 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum A central component of the Outlook is the further development of the OECD Public Integrity Indicators, which offer a data-driven framework to assess the strength of public integrity systems. They provide practical value for businesses, for example in country risk assessment, supply-chain due diligence and benchmarking of compliance programmes. OECD Public Integrity Indicators In addition to the OECD work, the World Bank contributed to the discussions at both the Forum and the ICC Global Business Integrity Commission side event, bringing a broader perspective on business environments and regulatory frameworks. In this context, the World Bank’s B-READY programme is particularly relevant, as it provides a comprehensive assessment of the conditions for doing business across the full business lifecycle. Another important topic was the growing role of technology. Digital tools, including data analytics and artificial intelligence, are increasingly used to detect and prevent corruption and strengthen integrity systems. A particularly strong and recurring theme across sessions was the increasing impact of organised crime, reinforcing the need for stronger due diligence and supply-chain monitoring. A dedicated session (based on the multi-year Project since 2019 in Latin America and the Caribbean) on due diligence as the backbone of supply chain management, organised by the OECD Centre for Responsible Business Conduct, the UN Global Compact Network Brazil and ICC Brazil, provided further practical insights. The discussions highlighted the move from traditional anti-corruption compliance approaches towards risk-based responsible business conduct due diligence, which focuses on continuous identification and mitigation of risks across the supply chain. This requires a more holistic approach, whereby internal collaboration across compliance, procurement, legal and sustainability functions was emphasised as essential. On the sidelines of the Forum, the ICC Global Business Integrity Commission meeting provided a complementary business perspective. The discussions focused on translating global integrity and anti-corruption frameworks into practical and operational solutions, emphasising data, benchmarking, integration of ESG and compliance, and the importance of leadership and culture. Overall, the Forum and ICC discussions confirm that integrity and responsible business conduct are evolving into strategic, data-driven and integrated functions within organisations, requiring alignment between governance, sustainability and risk management. Compared to 2025, there is a noticeable shift towards geopolitical risks, organised crime and the integration of integrity into broader business frameworks. Concise report based on the information above Overall Theme The 2026 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum was centred on: “The Integrity Advantage: Powering Competitiveness and Prosperity.” Integrity and responsible business conduct are increasingly strategic drivers of economic performance, resilience and trust, supporting competitive markets, investment and sustainable growth. Key Messages & Takeaways (OECD Forum) Integrity and responsible business conduct as strategic assets: shift from compliance to value creation. Increasing enforcement: stronger cross-border cooperation and higher expectations for compliance. Integration with sustainability: convergence of anti-corruption, ESG and due diligence. Data & benchmarking: OECD Integrity Outlook 2026 and Public Integrity Indicators.• Public-Private cooperation: whole-of-society approach. Digitalisation: AI and data analytics create opportunities and risks. Organised crime: growing systemic risk requiring risk-based responsible business conduct due diligence. ICC Global Business Integrity Commission (Side Event) As a side event of the OECD Forum, the ICC Global Business Integrity Commission provided a business-focused perspective. Key takeaways: Use of OECD indicators for benchmarking Integration of anti-corruption, ESG and responsible business due diligence Impact of geopolitical risks and sanctions Importance of leadership and culture Value of peer exchange and best practices Relevance for Dutch ICC Business Integrity Commission focus topics Sanctions : increased complexity and need for risk management Anti-corruption : stronger compliance and reporting mechanisms Integrated integrity : move to integrated ESG and compliance systems Governance : importance of board-level ethics and leadership Benchmarking : growing importance of measurable integrity systems Combined Insight Integrity and responsible business conduct are evolving into a strategic, data-driven and integrated business function aligned with governance, sustainability and risk management. Suggested Follow-Up Integration of anti-corruption and ESG Development of benchmarking approaches Addressing sanctions and geopolitical risks Strengthening supply-chain due diligence Continuity with 2025 Stronger focus on geopolitical risks, organised crime and integration of integrity with sustainability and digitalisation.

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