Search this site

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

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

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

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

WTO MC14: A fragile outcome at a critical moment for global trade Laure Jacquier 1 Apr 2026 WTO MC14: A fragile outcome at a critical moment for global trade The conclusion of the WTO 14th Ministerial Conference in Yaoundé comes at a time when global trade is already under significant strain. Against a backdrop of geopolitical tension, economic fragmentation and shifting policy priorities, the expectation from business was clear: this Ministerial needed to deliver signals of stability, direction and renewed cooperation. Instead, the outcome leaves important questions unresolved. For internationally active businesses, the implications are immediate. Predictability, a cornerstone of cross-border trade and investment, remains under pressure. And while the multilateral system continues to function, the absence of concrete political agreement at MC14 reinforces a broader sense of uncertainty about its future trajectory. Why this matters now Trade policy is no longer a distant, technical domain. It is increasingly shaping day-to-day business decisions, from supply chain structuring and investment planning to digital operations and market access strategies. In this context, Ministerial Conferences play a critical role. They are moments where governments can provide clarity on rules, align on priorities and demonstrate that the multilateral system remains capable of responding to evolving economic realities. At MC14, that clarity did not fully materialise. As the International Chamber of Commerce Secretary General John W. H. Denton noted, the failure to reach a concrete political agreement is “particularly concerning at a time of real strain on the global economy.” For business, this translates into a more complex operating environment, where planning assumptions are harder to sustain and policy risks are more difficult to anticipate. Key outcomes: limited progress, growing fragmentation While MC14 did not result in a comprehensive package, several developments are worth noting, both for what they achieved and for what they signal about the direction of the system. No agreement on WTO reform Despite broad recognition that reform is necessary, Members were unable to agree on a concrete work programme. Discussions are expected to continue in Geneva ahead of the next General Council meeting, but the absence of a clear roadmap highlights the difficulty of reaching consensus among a diverse and increasingly divided membership. For business, this matters. A modernised WTO is essential to ensure that rules remain relevant, enforceable and aligned with current economic realities, including digitalisation, services trade and sustainability. E-commerce moratorium lapses One of the most consequential outcomes is the lapse of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. For over two decades, this moratorium has supported the growth of the digital economy by ensuring that digital services and transmissions are not subject to tariffs. Its expiration introduces the possibility of new trade barriers in one of the most dynamic areas of global trade . Positions among Members diverged significantly. While some advocated for a permanent solution, others supported shorter extensions or questioned the moratorium altogether. The inability to reach agreement reflects deeper tensions between different economic models and development priorities . From a business perspective, the risk is clear: increased fragmentation in digital trade rules at a time when digital services are a key driver of growth and innovation. Plurilateral progress on e-commerce In contrast to the multilateral stalemate, a group of 66 WTO Members moved forward with the E-Commerce Agreement through interim arrangements outside the WTO framework . This is a notable development. It demonstrates that, even in a challenging environment, progress remains possible among coalitions of willing partners. At the same time, it also signals a shift toward more flexible, plurilateral approaches, raising questions about the future coherence of the global trading system. This creates both opportunities and complexity. New rules can emerge more quickly, but their application may be uneven across markets. Investment facilitation remains outside the WTO framework The Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement, supported by over 120 Members, was not incorporated into the WTO rulebook due to continued objections from some Members. Participants have indicated that they will explore alternative pathways for implementation. While this keeps momentum alive, it also reinforces the trend toward parallel initiatives outside the multilateral framework. Other developments: incremental but insufficient Beyond these core issues, MC14 saw continued work in areas such as trade and environment, services, gender and dispute settlement alternatives. For example, additional countries joined interim arrangements designed to compensate for the non-functioning WTO Appellate Body. These initiatives reflect ongoing engagement and innovation within the system. However, they remain incremental and do not substitute for broader, systemic progress. Business engagement: strong signal, limited impact Business engagement at MC14 was both broad and coordinated. The International Chamber of Commerce, together with its global network, actively engaged with WTO Members throughout the conference. A Global Business Statement, supported by over 230 signatories representing business organisations (Including Dutch evofenedex) and chambers worldwide, called for meaningful progress on WTO reform and the e-commerce moratorium. This level of mobilisation underscores a clear message: business continues to see value in a rules-based multilateral trading system and is ready to support its modernisation. However, the outcome of MC14 also illustrates the limits of business influence in a context where political considerations and geopolitical dynamics increasingly shape trade negotiations. What comes next: a narrow window for action While MC14 did not deliver the outcomes many had hoped for, it does not mark the end of the process. Negotiations will continue in Geneva, with discussions on WTO reform and the e-commerce moratorium expected to resume ahead of the next General Council meeting. The coming months will be critical in determining whether Members can translate political recognition of the need for reform into concrete action. At the same time, plurilateral initiatives, such as the E-Commerce Agreement, are likely to play an increasingly important role. They may offer a pathway to progress, but also require careful management to ensure that the system remains as coherent and inclusive as possible. A system at a crossroads The outcome of MC14 ultimately raises a fundamental question: not whether reform of the multilateral trading system is necessary, but who is willing to lead it. For business, the stakes are high. A predictable, rules-based system remains essential for investment, innovation and sustainable growth. Without it, fragmentation risks becoming the default, with higher costs and greater uncertainty for internationally operating companies. At the same time, the continued engagement of a large group of Members, and the willingness to explore new approaches, suggests that the system is not at a standstill. The challenge now is to move from recognition to implementation. For ICC Netherlands and its members, this means continuing to ensure that business realities are clearly reflected in global trade discussions, and that the voice of internationally active companies remains part of shaping the next phase of the system.

Five working groups, one mission: ICC Netherlands puts business integrity into practice 17 Jun 2026 Five working groups, one mission: ICC Netherlands puts business integrity into practice Doing business with integrity has rarely been more complicated, or more important. Sanctions regimes shift from one week to the next, enforcement priorities are changing across the globe, due-diligence rules keep expanding, and boards are asked to make difficult calls under real pressure. At the same time, smaller companies and supply-chain partners often lack the resources of large multinationals to keep up. Bringing together compliance officers, in-house and external lawyers, bankers, auditors and corporates from across the Dutch business community, the Commission works through five focused working groups, each tackling a concrete challenge and producing practical, shareable guidance. At its meeting on 16 June 2026, all five reported real progress, with the first deliverables due to be published in the months ahead. The approach is deliberately collaborative. Rather than producing theory, the groups draw on the day-to-day experience of leading Dutch and international companies and advisers, and aim to deliver tools that any organization, from a multinational to an SME, can pick up and apply. What the working groups are building Sanctions: managing complexity, risk and responsibility This group is developing a set of minimum standards together with plain-language one-pagers that explain sanctions to non-specialists, supported by simple visual guides. Because sanctions law changes so rapidly, the materials are designed to build awareness, helping any employee recognise the warning signs and know when to involve a specialist, rather than to replace expert advice. The documents will be published under ICC Netherlands and shared with ICC's Global Commission, with a launch planned for the autumn. Anti-corruption, bribery and conflicts of interest As enforcement priorities shift in some parts of the world, this group is making the case that high standards should not. It is preparing “The Integrity Advantage”, an accessible toolkit for SMEs covering red flags, a script for handling pressure, gifts and hospitality, and dilemma navigation, alongside a business-integrity statement for larger corporates and their supply chains. The message is simple: whatever the political climate, the commitment to do business honestly stays firm. The deliverables are targeted for completion in October 2026. Integrated integrity & sustainability due diligence: “breaking silos” Many companies run separate checks for compliance, sustainability, cyber and data privacy, etc, often asking the same supplier to complete several questionnaires. This group is building a practical guide, including model contract clauses, to help organisations join these processes up into a single, more efficient approach to due diligence. The result combines the legal framework with real-world best practice and a clear business case. Boardroom ethics, governance and decision-making under pressure This group has nearly completed a comparative legal benchmark on the personal liability of board members across European jurisdictions, covering criminal, civil and administrative law. Building on that foundation, it is developing a board-level masterclass, using real-life crisis and pressure scenarios, to help directors navigate the grey-zone decisions that rules alone cannot resolve. The aim is to make ethics a practical, everyday part of how boards lead. Corporate benchmarking of compliance programmes How should a compliance function actually be organized? centralised, decentralised, and who should it report to? This group runs a candid, corporate-only forum under the Chatham House Rule, where companies compare how their programmes work and share best practices. Its first exchange looked at the governance of the compliance function, with the clear conclusion that there is no single blueprint, which is precisely why sharing and learning directly from peers is so valuable. Building towards the Week of Integrity The Commission's work feeds directly into the Week of Integrity 2026, which this year celebrates its 10th edition under the theme “Leading with Integrity in a Digital Age.” The main week runs from 26 to 30 October in The Hague, part of a year-round programme involving more than 110 partners, from a July webinar with Microsoft to the central seminar on 29 October and a closing event to follow. It is a trusted platform for the conversations that have no easy answers, and a chance for organisations to show that integrity is something they act on, not just talk about. Get involved The strength of the Commission comes from the people around the table. Whether your organisation can contribute expertise to a working group, share a good practice, host an event, or simply wants to stay close to the latest thinking on business integrity, there is a place for you. Interested in joining a working group or becoming a partner? Get in touch with the ICC Netherlands team via info@icc.nl , we would be glad to tell you more and help you find the right fit.

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

Towards humane use of AI Floris Mreijen 3 Jul 2026 Towards humane use of AI "AI power and human wisdom are complementary in generating accurate forecasts and mitigating extreme errors... Machine-learned patterns are useful only if they can be rationalized by economic intuition, something that is arrived at by human judgment." [1] DSI maps out in the CTRL SHFT dialogue paper how artificial intelligence is driving fundamental changes in the investment industry [2] . According to CBS figures from 2024, 37.4% of companies in financial services were already using AI technologies at that time, a sharp increase compared to the year before [3] . By now, this percentage is likely significantly higher. This development confronts professionals with a difficult dilemma. Who is responsible when an algorithm co-determines investment advice? And how does someone remain professionally competent when traditional knowledge is no longer sufficient? Responsibility remains with the professional, even with AI The principle of personal responsibility requires professionals to always stand behind the quality of their advice. The CTRL SHFT document emphasizes, however, that AI often functions as a so-called black box: outputs are available, but the underlying logic remains opaque. In practical terms, this means that investment professionals cannot rely blindly on algorithmic output. They must actively take control, ask critical questions, and assess outcomes against the client’s interest. For example, an AI tool recommends a specific portfolio allocation. The professional verifies whether this choice aligns with the individual client’s risk tolerance and objectives, rather than adopting the recommendation without question. Professional competence now also means being able to question AI Professional competence is taking on a new meaning. Where professionals previously mainly required substantive knowledge, they must now also understand how AI models operate and where potential risks or biases may arise. The adviser becomes a director as well. The analysis in the document shows that this is not an optional skill, but a core competency. Professionals who do not make this shift risk falling behind. In practice, this means: - Developing insight into how the algorithms used actually work; - Learning to recognize when data bias may distort outcomes; - Keeping up with technological developments through continuous education. The client’s interest remains paramount, including when technology increases efficiency. AI can accelerate processes but must not lead to advice that loses the human dimension or becomes opaque to the client. Transparency requires professionals to explain where and why AI has been used in the advisory process. Time for reflection and action The CTRL SHFT document is not an endpoint, but a starting point for discussion. It helps organizations and professionals to jointly reflect on the implications of AI for integrity and professional competence. This reflection is urgent: technology is developing rapidly, but judgment remains human work. Professionals ask themselves to what extent they currently rely on automated systems without verifying the underlying logic. And whether they are willing to step back when AI moves faster than their own judgment. Organizations that take these questions seriously can download the document via the DSI website or contact DSI for more information. Those who invest in knowledge and dialogue now will be better prepared for the changes AI brings. DSI and AI At DSI, we are actively engaging with this theme. The dialogue paper serves as input for discussions with the sector, but the question of what the adviser of the future looks like also directly affects our organization. Will we still be certifying advisers in the future? Or algorithms? Or will our organization become obsolete soon? We are not only investing in facilitating the dialogue but have also started applying AI ourselves. We developed an AI-powered content platform built on an agent-based architecture that combines a centralized knowledge base, configurable AI agents, and structured workflows to generate high quality content at scale [4] . The system helps us write articles based on our own disciplinary case law, unlocking our internal archive. In addition, we can read online news articles with our system and use them as a basis for new content for our certified professionals to learn from. A news report on investment fraud can thus be transformed into an article from which professionals in the industry can learn. Naturally, this is done with respect for copyright; one of our agents is programmed as a “guard agent” and legal adviser. This article is also partly AI-generated. As an exercise, I asked our bot to write a piece using content from our website, with the dialogue paper on AI as its foundation. From the subheading “DSI and AI” onward, I wrote the text myself, after checking the first part for content and consistency and adding just a few lines. This brings me to my main point: we are moving toward a world in which AI makes our lives easier in many areas. The distinction between human and machine is becoming less clear. The role of humans, however, is not. Transparency about where an algorithm is or has been used is crucial, as illustrated in the first part of this article. Integrity is, of course, also a central theme. As humans, we must remain alert to AI output. In my conversations with professionals in the investment industry, this is a consistent signal I receive. Where AI is being experimented with, less experienced or less well-trained professionals may assume that a sound recommendation has been generated. More experienced advisers, however, still regularly identify flaws in these automated recommendations. At the same time, it is a fact that AI will take over many tasks. Everyone must prepare for this and consider what the organization, the professional, and the client relationship will look like in the future. Human knowledge remains important for the time being. In addition, professionals must become more aware of their soft skills. Tools are helpful for calculations, but assessing a client’s personal situation and, for example, family dynamics in the case of long-term invested assets, remains a distinctly human responsibility. Perhaps that is a good thing. I wrote this piece in Dutch and AI translated it into English. Floris Mreijen is the director of DSI Foundation, an organization committed to upholding integrity and professionalism in the Dutch financial sector. The DSI Foundation certifies professionals in the investment sector. Since 2022, Mreijen has led DSI’s efforts to strengthen trust and promote responsible conduct among financial professionals. Previously Floris Mreijen was deputy general manager at the Dutch Banking Association. [1] https://cfasociety.nl/en/publications/the-current-state-of-ai-for-investment-management/2c52d6aa-ba06-11ee-9d27-005056b303d3 [2] https://www.dsi.nl/en/news/ctrl-shft-before-you-know-it-ai-will-change-the-investment-industry/ [3] https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2025/09/increasing-use-of-ai-by-business [4] DSI scales content creation and knowledge management with AI-driven platform and governed workflows

Mediation in Practice: Empowering Legal Professionals with Strategic Tools for Commercial Disputes 28 May 2025 On 28 May, ICC Netherlands joined forces with CMS and the Academy of Legal Mediation for a highly interactive and well-attended afternoon dedicated to exploring the strategic use of mediation in commercial disputes. Held at the CMS offices in Amsterdam, the session brought together legal practitioners, both in-house and external counsel, for a hands-on program of expert insights, practical tools, and a live demonstration of mediation in action. This session was part of ICC NL’s ongoing efforts to support effective dispute resolution across borders, empower professionals with practical tools, and promote the strategic inclusion of mediation in contract design and corporate policy. Setting the Scene: The Mediation Clause as a Strategic Tool The afternoon opened with an engaging presentation by Bart-Adriaan de Ruijter , Partner Corporate Litigation at CMS, Jeremy Mash , Partner at CMS UK, who provided in-depth guidance on how to draft effective dispute resolution clauses that include mediation. Drawing from Dutch case law, particularly the 2024 Supreme Court ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1078), he explained how mediation clauses can be interpreted as binding obligations and under what circumstances courts may suspend proceedings to enforce them. Bart-Adriaan highlighted common pitfalls in multi-tier clauses: the importance of clarity on whether mediation is a condition precedent, the mechanism for appointing a mediator, the timeframe for mediation, and the consequences of non-compliance. Model clauses from ICC and other organisations were presented as best-practice examples, with a call to legal professionals to embed these tools more systematically into commercial agreements. Meanwhile, Jeremy offered a UK perspective. He explained the shift in English jurisprudence toward enforcing mediation clauses and the impact of recent cases like Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil (2023). Mash made a strong case for the pre-emptive value of mediation, preventing disputes from escalating and preserving relationships. He warned, however, of the risk of token participation unless the process is well-structured and meaningful incentives are in place. Mediation Essentials: A Crash Course for Legal Counsel Next, internationally recognised business mediator Manon Schonewille delivered a dynamic crash course on core mediation techniques. She guided the audience through the mediation process step-by-step, focusing on the mediator’s role, party autonomy, and key techniques such as summarising, reframing, and facilitating communication. A central concept of the session was the shift from positions (what parties say they want) to underlying interests (what they really need), captured in the ICNM framework (Interests, Concerns, Needs, Motivations). As Manon explained, mediation is not about compromise, but about discovering mutual gains and building sustainable outcomes, especially valuable when emotions or long-term business relations are at stake. Key takeaways included: The importance of structured opening statements. The strategic value of separating people, problem, and process. The use of tools like the INNOVADR quadrant to choose the right mediation style (facilitative vs evaluative, directive vs non-directive). Seeing Mediation in Action Perhaps the most appreciated part of the afternoon was the live mediation demonstration featuring Jeremy Lack , an international mediator and thought leader in dispute resolution innovation. Through a role-play simulation, the audience was invited to observe, and actively comment on, a mediation scenario between two fictional business parties. The demonstration showcased different mediation styles, how parties navigate trust and power imbalances, and how mediators manage the process to bring clarity and de-escalation. This segment not only offered a behind-the-scenes look at real-time mediation tactics, but also sparked lively discussion among participants on the challenges and opportunities of applying mediation techniques in high-stakes commercial disputes. Reflections in Light of Recent Research The event also aligned closely with findings from the 2024 PBM (Platform Business Mediation) research report , which was presented during the session. Some key data points that resonated with the audience: 56.76% of companies and 41.76% of lawyers believe mediation is the most effective way to resolve business disputes, more than arbitration or litigation alone. The top reasons companies prefer mediation include preserving business relationships, faster resolution, and addressing root causes. However, many professionals still cite uncertainty around enforceability, unfamiliarity with mediation clauses, or lack of internal policy as reasons mediation is underused. These findings underscore the importance of continued capacity-building and cultural change within legal teams and organisations. A Call for Smarter Dispute Resolution ICC Netherlands is committed to promoting dispute resolution methods that are practical, flexible, and efficient, supporting businesses not only in managing risk but also in safeguarding relationships and reputations. With mediation now gaining stronger recognition, especially under the ICC Mediation, this session offered a timely reminder: well-drafted clauses and well-trained professionals are key to making mediation work. We thank all our speakers for their contributions, and CMS for hosting this session in Amsterdam. Top Tips for an Effective Mediation Clause 1. Be clear about intent → Is mediation voluntary , mandatory , or a precondition to arbitration/litigation? 2. Define the procedure → Specify the applicable rules (e.g. ICC)→ Clarify how and when the mediator is appointed 3. Timeframe matters → State when mediation should occur (e.g. within 30–45 days of dispute notice) 4. Avoid vague language → Phrases like “parties may consider mediation” lack enforceability→ Use firm language: “shall refer the dispute…” 5. Allow flexibility → Keep process design open where possible—many mediators use their own proven approach 6. Plan for what’s next → Mediation clause ≠ settlement clause. Spell out what happens if mediation fails 7. Reference known standards → ICC Mediation Rules or other reputable institutions give clarity and international consistency Bonus tip: Use ICC Clause D if you want a robust, staged process: mediation first, arbitration if needed. Interested in Learning More? If you missed the session or would like to go deeper: Download the ICC model clauses for mediation and arbitration: iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution Explore mediation advocacy training: Academy of Legal Mediation Try the InnovADR Diagnostic Tool : innovadr.com/diagnostic Read the PBM Research Report : platformbusinessmediation.nl Certificates of attendance and PO points are available for those who joined. For follow-up questions or guidance on implementing mediation in your practice, don’t hesitate to reach out to ICC Netherlands.

Data flows in supply chains: Practical realities and policy implications 11 Jun 2025 Why are cross-border data flows essential to modern supply chains? Cross-border data flows are essential for efficient, resilient, and interconnected global supply chains. They enable real-time coordination, including traceability, custom clearance and the deployment of digital tools such as IoT and AI-driven analytics. Restrictive data policies, however, can create significant barriers that disrupt these interconnected systems. Such restrictions slow down trade, increase operational costs, and disproportionately impact MSMEs – the backbone of global economies – who may be excluded from global markets due to complex, costly compliance requirements. What’s stopping data from moving freely? Despite their critical role, cross-border data flows face growing regulatory hurdles. The lack of multilateral coordination and a fragmented regulatory landscape create barriers to trade and disrupt supply chains. Key issues range from data localisation mandates – which require companies to store and process data within national borders – to conflicting privacy and cybersecurity rules which increase compliance burdens. These fragmented regulatory approaches create uncertainty and act as non-tariff barriers to trade. They create inefficiencies, limit business opportunities and undermine the ability of companies to optimize supply chain operations, international scalability and competitiveness. ICC recommendations: what can policymakers do to fix it? Pursue new rules at the WTO to enable trusted, secure, and predictable cross-border data flows. Promote risk-based approaches that differentiate between personal and non-personal data. Ensure interoperable data standards and avoid blanket localisation requirements that require all data, regardless of type, to be stored locally. Protect Confidential Business Information (CBI) in trade and data policies. Invest in MSME-friendly digital trade ecosystems, including trusted trader programmes. Download

Reimagining WTO Dispute Settlement: a business case for mediation 14 May 2025 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.

Dissecting the trade war: The response, new data and cautious optimism Chris Southworth 1 May 2025 Chris Southworth The current uncertainties facing global trade are well known. We wanted to look further, to find out how global business should respond to President Trump’s trade war. So we contacted Chris Southworth, Secretary General of ICC United Kingdom . Here below are our main takeaways from this conversation. The current situation “At the macro level, this is an acceleration of a change in the world order on an epic scale. Looking at the US from a business point of view, it’s completely chaotic. You don’t know what’s happening from one day to the next. It’s almost an impossible business environment.” It’s bad, but not that bad.... “Don’t forget that the US only represents 13% of global trade. We need to focus on the remaining 87% of the global trade system, which does not want a trade war. We want to continue and support the multilateral system and support the flow of trade. And then if you look at shipping, it’s even more stark. The US only has 0.6% of flagged global ships: they’re a tiny fraction of the global system. While the US does have the ability to disrupt everybody, they do not have the ability to dismantle trade. The most important thing right now is how the rest of the world reacts.” The required response “We need to pull together as a global community. All the regional blocks – the B-20, the EU, Africa, the CPTPP, the Commonwealth. Shifting from a reactive to a proactive response, I think we are going to see quite a dramatic change in the way we trade. While Europe and China can stand on their own two feet, this will be about the role of the ‘mid-powers’ – countries like Japan, Singapore, UK, Australia and Canada – to work with emerging markets to minimise the damage as much as possible. This is when multilateral dialogue is so important in trade reform.” And the response is already happening “The latest data from CIPS [the global procurement managers organisation] shows what we’re already seeing on a company level. 35% of procurement managers are already sourcing products outside of the US. This is a huge number of companies that are rerouting their trade. The big loser is the US, not everybody else.” Brexit déjà vu “Here in the UK, we have déjà vu. For us, it was Brexit; what you’re seeing in the market is exactly the same. Procurement managers excluded mainland UK and went straight to Europe directly – it’s just how business adapts. The difference is that the current situation is on steroids: it’s on a whole different scale.” The importance of agility (something that digitalisation provides) “In this hugely unpredictable trade environment in which tariffs are coming and going, companies need to be agile. And those companies that are transacting digitally are more agile. They can respond to changes, move goods and cash faster, with the transparency they need in the supply chain. From our perspective, the current situation is the catalyst for the digitalisation of trade. Companies need to reduce costs and risks while boosting agility and resilience. Digitalisation is the toolbox that companies need in order to do those things.” Ending on a (cautiously) optimistic note “This is obviously a very challenging situation. However, it’s just another aspect of shifting global politics and world order. It’s sad to see the US doing what they’re doing, but the world moves on, business will adapt. But it is also a massive opportunity for the rest of us to really get our act together and rethink the way we are trading. We need to step up and strengthen our international relations, broadening our export markets, and start digitalising trade at real speed. Let’s take the opportunities that are in front of us and capitalise on them. In the long run, we’ll be stronger.”