Search Results

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

< Back < Previous | Next > The Silent Drain on Enterprise: The Economic Impact of Unresolved Commercial Disputes 4 Nov 2025 A new ICC–Oxera report reveals the staggering global cost of unresolved commercial disputes, which drain liquidity, suppress investment, and weaken trust in markets. The study highlights how affordable, digital dispute resolution can unlock growth, especially for SMEs, and strengthen justice as essential economic infrastructure. The Silent Drain on Enterprise: The Economic Impact of Unresolved Commercial Disputes Every day, countless business-to-business transactions end in disagreement, over payments, delivery, quality, or performance. For large companies, such disputes are often an inconvenience. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), they can be existential. A new Oxera study commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) exposes the staggering economic toll of low-value commercial disputes that remain unresolved, often because the cost of pursuing justice exceeds the value of the claim itself. The result is a hidden but systemic drag on productivity, investment, and growth: a “missing market” for justice that distorts economies worldwide. Globally, SMEs are estimated to write off more than US$1 trillion every year in bad debts and disputed invoices . In many developing economies, the average cost of court proceedings is higher than the claim value, making enforcement economically irrational. The rational choice, repeated millions of times, is to walk away, eroding trust across markets and suppressing the appetite to invest. From Business Losses to Macro-Economic Harm The ICC–Oxera report, published in October 2025, traces how unresolved disputes ripple outward from individual firms to entire economies. At the firm level , unpaid claims drain liquidity, tie up working capital, and consume valuable management time, time that could fuel innovation or new sales. At the market level , the lack of predictable contract enforcement increases uncertainty, discouraging long-term partnerships and limiting participation in global value chains. At the systemic level , these losses accumulate into a macroeconomic brake on growth: weak enforcement reduces investment, tightens credit, and lowers productivity. The impact is particularly severe for SMEs in emerging markets, which account for 95% of firms and over half of employment but face prohibitively high legal costs and lengthy proceedings. In Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, and Timor-Leste, the average cost of enforcing a contract exceeds 100% of the claim value. Globally, the SME financing gap, already estimated at US$5.2 trillion annually , widens further as lenders hesitate to finance firms that cannot reliably enforce contracts. Justice as Economic Infrastructure The message from ICC and Oxera is clear: efficient, accessible dispute resolution is not only a legal necessity, it is an economic imperative. Just as ports, energy grids, and digital networks enable trade, a functioning justice system allows firms to enforce agreements quickly and fairly. Improving access to justice for SMEs unlocks multiple growth dividends: Frees capital locked in unpaid invoices and reduces costly litigation; Strengthens trust between buyers and suppliers; Deepens credit markets by giving lenders confidence that contracts will be honoured; Encourages innovation by reducing risk and promoting fair competition. Accessible dispute resolution is, in short, a form of economic infrastructure , vital for productivity, inclusion, and sustainable growth. A Digital Pathway Forward Digital innovation now offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to democratise access to justice. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms, using digital workflows, secure document exchange, and virtual mediation, can resolve many commercial disputes at a fraction of the time and cost of court proceedings. Building on its century-long leadership in commercial standard-setting and access to justice, ICC is developing a global ODR platform designed for micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises. By integrating ODR into national legal systems and trade frameworks, governments can create a low-cost, high-trust layer of justice infrastructure, particularly valuable for cross-border transactions and digital trade. For Europe and the Netherlands, home to strong digital trade ecosystems and forward-looking legal institutions, this presents an opportunity to lead by example, making dispute resolution more efficient, inclusive, and future-proof. Read further Full report: The Economic Impact of Unresolved Low-Value Commercial Disputes (ICC & Oxera, 2025) Read the Summary

< Back < Previous | Next > Dispute Resolution New 2024 Preliminary Figures on Dispute Resolution Released 21 Feb 2025 The role of mediation in dispute resolution Wanting to learn more about the role of mediation in dispute resolution, we spoke to dispute resolution expert Jeremy Lack. We quickly discovered that this was a subject that was as complex as it was interesting. That’s why we decided to divide our interview over two editions of the newsletter. You can read part one here . And below is part two, which looks closer at how the three main aspects of mediation – “there’s a social component, an emotional, and a rational component,” says Jeremy – relate to issues such as confidentiality, trust building, and the psychological tools and barriers to mediation. Let’s continue by talking about confidentiality in mediation; how should that be handled? It is important to understand the level of confidentiality required by the parties in each case, as this can vary depending on the nature of the dispute and the individuals involved. In general, there are two levels of confidentiality in mediation to consider. There’s confidentiality vis-à-vis the outside world, which relates to the existence of the dispute, the existence of the process itself and what was said during the process. The principle is that whatever happens in mediation should not be admissible in any other proceedings. And then there’s the confidentiality of what happens within the mediation itself to ensure what is disclosed by one participant in a private session is not repeated to another participant without prior consent. This can include questions relating to the need for confidentiality as between those who attend the mediation and those who do not, even if they are involved. As for mediators themselves, depending on which organisation they are affiliated to or the country they may be regulated by, confidentiality may vary, it being a professional obligation in most countries, but not everywhere. There can also be confusion in some high-profile cases between the desire for transparency regarding the final outcome, and the need for the confidentiality of the negotiations that led to that outcome. By belonging to the International Mediation Institute, for example, a mediator is automatically bound by a code of conduct that automatically entails strict confidentiality worldwide. Besides professional affiliations, in your opinion, what character traits does a good mediator possess? Inquisitiveness, curiosity and the ability to ask open-ended questions are important attributes for a good mediator, along with the ability to leave your ego at the door and truly listen with an open mind. There is also a social component: one of the most difficult things can be getting meaningful conversations going between people who haven’t spoken much or who greatly distrust or are angry with one-another, to help them get through the process together. This is particularly important if the disputants may need to continue working together in the future, or if they work in a close-knit ecosystem where they are likely to meet again. A mediator must also know when to follow and when to lead. A good mediator is analogous to a good bus driver: they need to make sure they know where the travellers are headed, that all the passengers are on board, and that everyone reaches their intended destination. And what methods do you use to create an environment of trust and collaboration? In a mediation, you want to come with open questions and have all of the participants feel equally seen and heard. You want to find out as much as you can about the needs, interests, concerns, and motivations of everybody involved. This is because, the more you understand their underlying goals, beyond the positions they may have taken, the more room there is for a solution. Exchanging information on such subjective factors often helps promote a sense of trust and collaboration. There’s an arsenal of tools you can use; the more you know when and how to use all the tools, the better off you are, adjusting to whatever is needed, which calls for flexibility. Is mediation almost a psychological exercise? Yes. I am not a psychologist, but for me, there are three different aspects to mediation that could be described as psychological. There’s a social component, an emotional component, and a rational component. The mediator has to build on all three of these aspects, which can require different psychological approaches. Mediation is not a form of therapy, however. We don’t try to change people or their behaviour. We try and help focus their attentions in situations of conflict on what truly matters now, what their alternatives are, and what options are available and most likely to better resolve the conflict more holistically, keeping an eye on the future. Is mediation suited to everyone? Are there any psychological barriers to overcome? It is rare that mediation is ill-suited to a dispute. It is an excellent complement to litigation and arbitration in almost all cases. There are all sorts of psychological barriers to mediation, however. First, people tend to think they are good negotiators, and if they could not reach a settlement, a mediator is unlikely to add any value. The statistics, however, are that over 70% of mediations (which almost always involve failed past negotiations) settle. Another of these is the fear of looking weak, the concern that: “If I say I want to mediate, it looks like I want to settle”. There can also be the belief that the other party will act in bad faith; or that mediation simply entails replacing one already-breached agreement with another. Mediated settlement agreements are rarely not complied with, however, and there is growing interest in being able to have them recognised and enforced internationally under the Singapore Convention or under the New York Convention. There may also be a general feeling of distrust of the mediation process from lawyers and judges who are not used to it, and a preference for more traditional procedures, but the reality is that most lawyers and judges agree that traditional access to justice on its own tends to take too long, be too expensive or destructive. Where does conciliation fit into the dispute resolution mix? How does it differ from mediation? Conciliation and mediation both involve negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party, yet they differ significantly in role, structure, impact, and focus. They are ‘first cousins’ rather than ‘siblings’,each suited to distinct contexts and objectives. Conciliation is typically a structured, evaluative process, often mandated by courts, particularly in civil-law jurisdictions, aimed primarily at financial settlements without ongoing relationships. The conciliator assesses legal merits, reality-tests positions, and frequently proposes settlements. This formal structure tends to activate competitive dynamics (‘out-of-group’ heuristics), prompting parties to position themselves strategically, anticipating and trying to influence the conciliator's recommendations. Conciliation usually yields lower settlement rates (50–60% in court-mandated settings). In contrast, mediation is facilitative, flexible, and less formal, emphasising dialogue and self-determination. Mediators typically refrain from proposing settlements, instead activating ‘in-group’ heuristics that encourage empathy, collaborative behaviour, and greater mutual understanding. Mediation effectively addresses emotional and relational elements, making it ideal for commercial, family, or complex cross-border disputes where ongoing relationships matter, often achieving higher settlement rates (70–90%). In summary, conciliation assesses positions and is mainly appropriate for resolving purely financial disputes without future relationship considerations, while mediation fosters collaboration, empathy, and durable agreements, particularly when relationships and subjective interests are important. When combined using two separate ADR neutrals, they provide almost 100% settlement rates. We understand that you have participated in research into the neuroscience of mediation. Can you tell us more about that? I am fortunate to have collaborated with a group of neuroscientists at the University of Geneva's Centre for Interdisciplinary Affective Sciences (CISA) to help them design and implement experiments related to neuroscience and mediation. Although the neuroscience of mediation is very much in its early days, the more we look at the human brain, we are discovering a whole new understanding of human behaviour, in particular social, emotional and rational heuristics, particularly in the context of conflict, negotiation and mediation. As an example: the results of experiments where couples with recurring conflicts were asked to negotiate with each other or with a mediator present showed measurable differences in social and brain behaviour. This demonstrated that mediation, compared to negotiation, leads to higher satisfaction rates, settlement rates, and a greater sense of inclusion. How can findings from neuroscience help mediators and the mediation process? This increased understanding definitely has the potential to change the dynamics of mediation. I believe that as we learn more from neuroscience, mediators should be made aware of the concepts of social, emotional and cognitive plasticity, to better understand and help parties to understand and manage their emotions, social behaviour and cognitive biases in situations of conflict. For mediators working today, understanding these systems and techniques may facilitate more skilful interventions, allowing what seemed impossible before to become possible now.

< 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 > WISE Understanding leadership: a series of interviews from ICC Netherlands 6 May 2026 Interview with Fabia Tetteroo-Bueno Understanding leadership: a series of interviews from ICC Netherlands Every successful career has a story worth sharing. To mark the launch of this year’s WISE (Women in Strategic Engagement) programme, this new series of articles spotlights inspiring senior professionals and business leaders. Through candid conversations, we aim to share practical insights on leadership: the decisions that shaped their careers, the lessons learned through setbacks and change, and the advice they would give to younger generations navigating today’s complex business environment. We also explore the challenges and opportunities these leaders see ahead – and how they believe companies and individuals can respond with resilience, purpose and impact. To kick off the series, we spoke to Fabia Tetteroo-Bueno, a business leader whose career has taken her across Europe, Asia and Latin America. Today, after 28 years at Philips, Brazil-born Fabia has risen from trainee to Senior Vice President. Now based in the Netherlands, she is entering a new phase of her career: one that is defined by creating impact beyond her corporate role. Fabia’s career began with a setback. In 2000 – two years into a traineeship with Philips in Brazil – she applied for another position: a three-month programme in Germany, but she didn’t get selected. When she asked the hiring manager why, she was given an answer that reflected the reality many women faced at the time in Brazil. “The message was: ‘I don’t like to put women in this kind of role, because if you get pregnant, we lose money’,” she recalls. She was disappointed, but a week before the assignment started, the man who had been selected withdrew; his girlfriend was pregnant and he didn’t want to leave her behind in Brazil. Fabia immediately stepped forward. “Someone got pregnant and it was not me. You need someone that speaks Portuguese and English; you need someone next week. And that’s me,” she told the manager. The assignment was meant to last three months. Instead, it became the start of a global career lasting half of her life so far. Fabia’s career can be defined by international leadership roles and constant change. After Germany, her job took her to the Netherlands, China, the Philippines, Panama and, two years ago, back to the Netherlands. Along the way, she shifted across industries and functions, moving from consumer business, lighting, into healthcare and rising steadily into senior leadership. Giving more women a board-level voice Fabia is now preparing for a transition away from her current executive role with a focus on leadership transformation, particularly connected to gender equality in healthcare and Artificial Intelligence (AI). A major driver of this is what she sees as a lack of women’s voices at the highest levels of corporate management. “I believe that women bring a different style and strength to a company’s board. The healthy company boards are the ones that have real diversity of thought. At senior levels in general, we need to have different voices, different backgrounds and different opinions. That’s how you make governance and strategy stronger.” Turning her attention to the first topic where she believes the lack of women’s voices has serious consequences – healthcare – Fabia points out how often women are dismissed. “A woman at a doctor’s office hears the words ‘what you’re feeling is normal’ so often. ‘Normal’ is not necessarily ‘good’.” She believes this happens because women’s health has historically been under-researched. “There is not enough research being done on women’s medical care,” she says. “Actually the only research on women that’s well developed is around pregnancy.” AI is her second major concern. “In AI, you also see bias,” she says, “because most models are based on past standards and past standards are mainly white male dominated, in most industries” To Fabia, the risk is clear: without change, inequality will deepen. “Otherwise, for the next generation, things are not going to change,” she warns. “We’re going to keep having gaps in medical research; the bias in AI is going to increase exponentially.” Fabia connects this mission to her own leadership journey. Early in her career, she was labelled ‘pitbull’ at work because of her directness. She didn’t like the label, and asked a coach why people saw her that way. His answer stayed with her: “You don’t have enough female role models. You are mimicking a man in your style of working.” The lesson was clear: she didn’t need to copy a leadership model that didn’t fit her. “How can you be an authentic leader if you’re copying someone else? I had to learn to be myself but also, I made a commitment to myself. I thought back then ‘if we miss female role models now, I want to make sure I can become a female role model for next generations, so they don’t struggle with the same issues I struggled with’.” Connecting continents Linking these goals is a parallel mission: strengthening collaboration between regions. Having spent one-third of her career in Europe, one-third in Asia, and one-third in Latin America, Fabia believes she can help close the gap. “There is a lot of knowledge in Latin America and Europe that is not being exchanged; so many companies there would love to expand to Europe and vice versa. Especially in today’s current geopolitical climate, Fabia believes she can serve as a “bridge for businesses expanding across continents, particularly in healthcare and AI”. A practical approach In working on leadership transformation, Fabia’s approach is practical, drawing on the many lessons learned during a long international career. “One of the biggest things I have learned is that life consists of phases,” she says. At the beginning of a career, she believes curiosity is everything. “You are building your network and knowledge toolbox so you need to be curious for everything that comes your way,” she says. “You also need to be open to feedback. Feedback is a gift: it’s a way for you to get better.” Later, the focus shifts to sharpening skills and building deeper capability. Even then, learning remains constant. “Now even more, you need to keep learning, keep evolving,” she notes. For Fabia, successful people share three traits: “Commitment, curiosity and capability: these are really the things that you need to strive towards.” Redefining resilience How to deal with setbacks and discrimination is another area where Fabia provides some valuable advice. “I’ve heard so many stupid comments, so many microaggressions during my career,” she says. “In the beginning, when I was younger, I would get so upset. But I have learned not to take things personally. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge; if the person lacks knowledge, the best thing you can do is to give them knowledge by proving them wrong.” This line of conversation causes Fabia to dive deeper into the concept of resilience. “I believe there are three levels of reaction when something bad happens to you. The first is a fragile reaction: you break down. Then there is resilience: holding yourself together. And then there is antifragile: the ability to become stronger when something bad happens.” She uses two examples to illustrate her point. The first is from her time in the Philippines, when a major typhoon devastated the country. “You’re walking on the street, you see debris, you smell bodies. It was horrible,” she says. Her response was to focus on building strength within her team, “building such a bond despite the adversity”. The second example comes from when she was leading a 6,000-strong team in Latin America during the COVID pandemic, the financial consequences of which were dire: 25% of personnel were at risk of losing their jobs. One way to prevent this was for the entire team to give up part of their holiday pay. “I didn’t take the decision unilaterally. We voted as a team – some of us would suffer a lot or all of us would suffer a little. Everybody voted for sharing the pain – and we became so much stronger as a team because of that.” Optimism for the future? Considering the current imbalance in gender representation on corporate boards of directors, is Fabia optimistic about her ambition to level the playing field of corporate decision-makers? “I was super optimistic until COVID,” she says. “That was a very negative moment; I saw so many good women leaving the workforce. Then you realise that women have so much pressure from the ‘invisible’ tasks related to motherhood and care.” To that end, her answer to women asking her about career advice is direct: “Be picky about your partner: you need someone who shares the load and really supports your career choices. Someone who doesn’t hold you back.” Despite setbacks, she remains hopeful. “Gen-Z, for example, is more equalitarian and more willing to fight for equal obligations and equal rights.” She also sees potential in technology. “I’m very optimistic about what artificial intelligence can do, if we do it right,” she says. “In theory, everybody could create their own AI tool. This empowers so many people to innovate – to solve a problem in their community – that’s the beauty of this technology.” But Fabia is clear that progress is not automatic. “It’s not a battle that’s won yet,” she says. “It is still a journey.” For her, that journey now defines the next chapter of her career – one where success is measured not only by personal achievement, but by the impact she helps create for others.

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

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Join the ICC Global Digital Trade Sandbox Laure Jacquier 3 Feb 2026 Digital trade is moving from ambition to execution. The ICC Global Digital Trade Sandbox offers companies a unique, vendor-neutral environment to test real digital trade processes, contribute to global pilots, and help shape the future of cross-border trade. 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

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC Netherlands roept Tweede Kamer op: versnel adoptie van digitale handelsdocumenten (MLETR) 1 Sept 2025 ICC Nederland heeft samen met een brede coalitie van bedrijven, banken en brancheorganisaties een whitepaper aangeboden aan de Tweede Kamer om snelle invoering van de UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) te bevorderen – een stap die kosten bespaart, doorlooptijden verkort en de concurrentiepositie van Nederland versterkt. Op 1 September heeft ICC Netherlands, samen met een brede coalitie van bedrijven, banken en brancheorganisaties, een whitepaper aangeboden aan de Tweede Kamer over de adoptie van de UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) . Wat op papier een technische wetswijziging lijkt, heeft in de praktijk enorme impact: het kan honderden miljoenen euro’s aan onnodige kosten besparen voor het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven , doorlooptijden verkorten met 6–10 dagen per exportproject , bureaucratie verminderen en onze concurrentiepositie als handelsland versterken . Handel als levensader van Nederland Internationale handel is cruciaal voor de Nederlandse economie: import en export samen vertegenwoordigen ruim €1,6 biljoen per jaar – bijna vier keer het BNP . Toch zijn veel cruciale documenten in de exportketen alleen rechtsgeldig op papier. Dit leidt tot vertragingen, hogere kosten en verlies aan efficiëntie. Concrete voordelen van MLETR Ons whitepaper laat zien dat digitalisering tastbare voordelen oplevert: ✅ Doorlooptijd verkort van 6–10 dagen naar <24 uur (succesvol getest door Havenbedrijf Rotterdam en Singapore in 2021). ✅ MKB-voordeel : tot 35% minder administratieve lasten. ✅ Internationale aansluiting : landen als het VK, Frankrijk, Duitsland en Singapore hebben hun wetgeving al aangepast – Nederland loopt achter. Sterker nog: het Verenigd Koninkrijk wil graag met Nederland digitale samenwerking versnellen, maar dat kan nu niet omdat 8 cruciale documenten wettelijk nog niet digitaal mogen worden verzonden . Oproep aan de politiek De oproep van ICC Netherlands en haar partners aan de Tweede Kamer is helder: Maak snel werk van de goedkeuring van wetgeving voor het elektronisch cognossement . Start direct het traject voor de overige 7 MLETR-documenten . Met dit whitepaper onderstreept ICC Netherlands, samen met haar partners, dat de digitale toekomst van onze handel nú begint. De Tweede Kamer kan dit in wezen met één wetswijziging regelen – en het bedrijfsleven staat klaar om te helpen. 👉 Lees hier het volledige whitepaper: Over dit initiatief Het whitepaper is opgesteld door vertegenwoordigers van ICC Netherlands, ICISA, ING Bank, Port of Rotterdam en andere betrokken experts , met steun van een brede coalitie van bedrijven, banken en brancheorganisaties. De adoptie van de UNCITRAL‘Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records’ in NL (6) .pdf Download PDF • 3.28MB

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

< 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.