Search Results

< 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.

< Back < Previous | Next > Whistleblowing Whistleblowing Management Webinar Geert Vermeulen 6 May 2026 Insights from a webinar on Whistleblowing Management Systems during ICC Integrity Week Whistleblowing Management Webinar A part of ICC Integrity Week we broadcasted a webinar on Whistleblowing Management Systems. The discussion was moderated by Lucianne Verweij , a specialist in Business & Integrity. Geert Vermeulen of The Integrity Coordinator kicked off the webinar. He explained that there are good reasons for setting up proper whistleblowing management systems. For starters, each legal entity with 50 employees or more in the EU is legally obliged to do so, as well all entities in financial services and/or subject to anti-money laundering legislation. But more importantly, there are also good business reasons to do this. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners for example consistently reported that around 5% of the revenue of organizations is lost due to fraud, while most of the frauds are discovered through whistleblowers. Other research demonstrates that companies with more reports actually perform better. This may seem counterintuitive, but it appears that when you have a good speak-up culture, problems can be identified and addressed at an earlier stage, leading to fewer investigation and litigation costs, fewer lawsuits and a better reputation. This will increase the trust in the organization and create a better, more creative work environment. At the same time, there are also quite a few challenges and misconceptions. The legal definition of what constitutes a whistleblower report is quite complex and also varies from country to country. In The Netherlands, reports on unwanted behaviour can for example also be whistleblower reports, if certain conditions are met. An easy way to solve this issue would be to invite everybody to raise any concerns and promise not to retaliate, as long as the report is submitted based on reasonable grounds. Another challenge is who should be nominated to receive and follow up on whistleblower reports. According to Dutch law this person should be independent. According to EU legislation, this person should be impartial. In The Netherlands many companies appointed the confidential counselor as the recipient of the reports. However, this person should support the reporter and is therefore not impartial. Still, they should be properly trained on the legislation so they can inform potential reporters correctly. Many employees would first raise their concerns with their manager. Or with the HR department. Or the HSEQ manager. It would not make sense to prohibit them from doing so. However, it is important that a manager recognizes a whistleblower report and has been trained on what to do when they receive one. For starters, they should ensure that it is registered in the central reporting register to ensure appropriate follow up on the report. While managers can be one of the reporting channels, they are not impartial or independent. So somebody else should be appointed to receive reports as well. Managers also should not follow up on whistleblower reports. Not only do they often lack the knowledge and experience to do that, whistleblower legislation prescribes that the identity of the reporter should be kept confidential, unless agreed otherwise, so the management often should not know the identity of the reporter and therefore cannot provide the feedback to them. While organizations can have multiple reporting channels, it is important that at least one of them is independent and that everything ends up with a central coordinator and in the central register, which should be properly secured so that non-authorized staff, including the IT manager, does not have access to it. The best candidate to receive and follow up on whistleblower reports is an independent and authorized Ethics & Compliance Officer or Integrity Manager with an independence charter and a dual reporting line. And if you don’t have such a person, one can outsource this to an experienced third party. Professor Wim Vandekerckhove of the EDHEC business school indicated that the EU Directive and national legislation on the protection of whistleblowers provide minimum standards. Good practices can be found in the 2022 ICC Guidelines on Whistleblowing or in the ISO 37002 standard on Whistleblowing Management Systems. This standard promotes continuous improvement via the Plan Do Check Act cycle. Wim developed a free tool called SUSA : Speak Up Self Assessment, allowing professionals to self-assess how well their system aligns with the EU Directive and with best practices. The tool will provide suggestions on where one can improve things. Some conclusions can be derived from what people have filled in so far. It is surprising to see that many of them do not manage to always confirm the receipt of a report within 7 days, which is a relatively simple legal requirement, neither do they provide the mandatory feedback to the reporter within three months. On other aspects there is a lot of room for improvement as well. Often there is no plan on how to protect and support whistleblowers. And the functioning of the system is not evaluated. Geert indicated that this is remarkable, because in The Netherlands the management should report annually to the Works Council on developments regarding the whistleblowing procedure. Following up on a question of an attendee, Wim added that is important to discuss the outcome of the self-assessment with various stakeholders and it may be useful to include outsiders in that discussion. It is also important to explain how the process works. Marijntje Zweegers of the Dutch Whistleblowing Authority used the opportunity to launch the English language version of a free online tool, the Integrity Guide , where one can self-assess the Integrity System of your organization. It contains important elements like leadership, strategy, culture, values, procedures, communication, reporting, enforcement and accountability. Completing the self-assessment will provide a good view on where the organization stands. The Integrity Guide has been used hundreds of times already and the statistics show that there is still a lot of room for improvement here as well. Marijntje also referred to a Dutch employers survey that indicated that 60% of Dutch organizations had not adapted their whistleblower procedure to comply with the current legislation. Also, over 80% of the hundreds of people who reach out to the Authority mention that they have experienced retaliation. Geert responded that it is a common misunderstanding that people think it always ends badly for the whistleblower. Every year millions of whistleblower reports are submitted and only a small percentage of whistleblowers face retaliation. However, these are the stories that we read about in the press. And these are the people who reach out to the Whistleblowing Authority. He is convinced that the majority of the reports are handled without too many problems. This does not take away the fact that retaliation does occur sometimes and measures should be taken to prevent it. There is an important role here for the coordinator of the whistleblowing procedure. Other companies have also appointed specific people who protect reporters from retaliation. Another good practice would be to launch anonymous channels. You can’t retaliate against somebody if you don’t know who it is. Marijntje added that it is important that employees feel free to raise concerns and that employers handle these properly. It would also help if the Whistleblowing Authority would get oversight and sanctioning authority. Wim agrees that the authorities should get more teeth to get a higher percentage of companies to comply with the guidelines. Lucianne took a moment to stress the role of the leadership. Do they really mean what they are saying when they promise not to retaliate? According to Wim the system should not stiffen the discussion. Leaders should promote psychological safety and discussability. Geert added that it would help if management shows some appreciation for whistleblowers from time to time. Please send an email to info@deintegriteitscoordinator.nl if you would like to watch the recording of the webinar.

< Back < Previous | Next > Navigating Geopolitical Risk in a Fractured World Tom Scott 1 Dec 2025 In a global landscape marked by geopolitical tension, regulatory fragmentation and increasingly fragile supply chains, businesses face risks that are more complex – and more consequential – than ever. To explore how organisations can navigate this uncertainty, we spoke with Tobias Wellner, a Senior Analyst at global specialist risk consultancy Control Risks. Navigating Geopolitical Risk in a Fractured World An interview with Tobias Wellner, Senior Analyst, Control Risks In a global landscape marked by geopolitical tension, regulatory fragmentation and increasingly fragile supply chains, businesses face risks that are more complex – and more consequential – than ever. To explore how organisations can navigate this uncertainty, we spoke with Tobias Wellner , a Senior Analyst at global specialist risk consultancy Control Risks . Based in Berlin, Tobias focuses on geopolitics, sanctions, and trade restrictions, drawing on insights from Control Risks’ network of more than 90 analysts worldwide. His perspective is shaped not only by years advising multinational companies, but also by his earlier work in humanitarian aid and peacebuilding – including time spent on the frontlines of the South Sudan conflict – experience that continues to inform his approach to understanding and managing risk today. When we speak of geopolitical risk, which issues should business leaders pay most attention to in today’s environment? Tobias: I see two overarching trends that will shape global business more than anything else. The first is the growth in regulatory complexity. We’re seeing a revival of industrial policy and growing interventionism by governments, particularly in strategic sectors such as tech, defence and renewables. The competition between the US and China is the biggest driver of this: sanctions, tariffs, export controls are being implemented more and more by both sides. Just recently, China expanded export controls on rare earth technologies, and the US expanded its export restriction toolkit. A trade war truce agreed in October will remain fragile, with both sides remaining committed to longer term strategic competition. Their trade restriction measures (often masked as protective actions) will ripple through global supply chains, creating enormous challenges for compliance teams. Companies will need stronger internal capabilities in sanctions, trade controls and regulatory analysis. And this isn’t just about the US and China. As a result of increasing global complexities, we are seeing the rise of the so-called Middle Powers: countries like Mexico, Brazil, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, South Africa, Vietnam and Indonesia. These countries are really stepping up their own regulatory regimes to bolster the growth of their economies. The second trend is the rising disregard for territorial integrity. We are going to see even more regional conflicts. This will have obvious impacts for companies going forward, increasing particularly operational and security risks. Companies will have to make sure their people are safe during war incidents, or how to travel safely, and manage security incidents. Not only will supply chains be impacted, but there will also be greater reputational risks. Employees, investors and the wider society will expect businesses to take clearer stances on conflicts and political issues. How should companies balance the tension between needing to take bold strategic bets in uncertain times and the urge to be overly cautious? Tobias: There’s no clear-cut answer to this formula, but there are a few aspects to consider. First, business decision-makers need a really good inflow of geopolitical risk analysis, rather than today’s newspaper headlines. We often work with companies to develop geopolitical scenarios – each with clear assumptions, indicators and triggers. We are transitioning towards a much more fragmented and flexible trade system, one that’s defined by the diversification of global supply chains. The companies that are going to survive are the ones that can operate across diverging regulatory frameworks and remain agile amidst a growing number of conflicts and regulatory pressures – while finding a balance between cautious and strategic decision-making. Second, companies must move from reactive crisis management to embedded resilience. In practice, this means accepting that volatility is normal rather than exceptional. The shift from ‘just in time’ to ‘just in case’ is real. However, this brings its own risks: if volatility is normalised, then everything is a potential crisis. This, in turn, makes a company’s ability to prioritise, plan and innovate much more difficult. Geopolitical risks and the supply chain – how effective or sustainable are strategies like near-shoring, friend-shoring, and supply chain decoupling? Tobias: Few companies have the ability or willingness to completely decouple for certain markets, such as China. What we see instead is diversification; a mix of near-shoring and friend-shoring combined with multi-route, multi-supplier strategies. After years of disruptions – the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the Gaza conflict, tariff wars – companies and governments are now pricing in volatility. Supply chain disruptions, extreme weather events, or new tariffs are no longer surprises. They are part of the new operating reality. How can companies sift out the important information in all the noise of this unpredictable world? Tobias: There are a lot of headlines, a lot of noise. Everyone is bombarded with this. You need to listen to the noise, but you also need to learn how to identify the underlying music – the patterns and drivers that matter for your business. Scenario analysis helps. Strong internal compliance teams help. Partnerships with local stakeholders help. But above all, you need a disciplined process for connecting geopolitical developments to business decisions. What shifts in the geopolitical order will most shape global business over the next 5–10 years? Tobias: Three stand out. The first is a more complex, loosely multipolar system. The US is retreating in some areas; China is recalibrating its global engagement; and many regional powers are becoming more assertive. International organisations like the UN will still matter, but mostly as diplomatic forums – not as strong rule-setters. Expect more bilateral deals and regional blocs. The second is a key defining threat, one that we've been talking about for a very long time: climate change. The world in general is just not ready for the fast-paced changes that will come our way from a climate change perspective. I think everyone – companies and societies – should expect much more supply chain disruptions and supply chain shifting because of climate-induced disruptions. Especially, but not exclusively, in emerging markets. And third – on a personal level, I am quite worried about democratic backsliding. This is not just for my own love of democracy, but also from a business point of view. Democratic processes such as elections, institutions, regulatory processes: if these are not transparent anymore, this will disrupt the equal playing field. And that will be harmful for the economy at large. But there is good news too: countries in the Global South are really accelerating the diversification of their trade and foreign relations. This is a response to geopolitical volatility; these countries want to move away from dependence on just the US market, just the EU or China. We will see many more trade links such as the new trade deals between Mexico and Brazil, Vietnam’s outreach to the Global South, or the Gulf States’ massive investments in Africa. This will create opportunities for companies to benefit from these increasing south-south trade corridors. How does your experience in humanitarian aid, conflict analysis and peacebuilding connect with business-focused geopolitical risk? Tobias: I think there are two lessons from the humanitarian world that matter enormously for business. First: local conflict analysis. When you operate in a war zone, understanding your environment is a matter of survival. That same principle applies to global companies. If you don’t truly understand the political, social and security dynamics in the places you operate, you expose your business, your people, and your reputation to unnecessary risk. Second: humanitarian organisations understand that risk can’t be avoided; it can only be managed. For example, my current employer is called Control Risks, not Avoid Risks. The humanitarian sector takes calculated risks based on in-depth situational knowledge. That’s a skill businesses increasingly need. There’s also a deeper connection: peacebuilding strengthens the security environment on which all economic activity depends. And practically, humanitarians often have the best local networks – government, civil society and community leaders. Companies planning new operations can benefit enormously from these local perspectives. If you could offer CEOs one piece of geopolitical advice, what would it be? Tobias: The global operating environment is going to remain unstable and geopolitics won’t become simpler. We are in a transition to a more fragmented, flexible and conflict-prone world. Invest in understanding your operating environment, building strategies for agility, not stability. Control Risks | Global Risk Consultancy

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC launches global policy paper on preventing online and ICT-enabled fraud ICC’s new policy paper highlights the growing scale of online and ICT-enabled fraud and calls for stronger international cooperation, aligned regulation and operational public–private partnerships to protect trust in the digital economy. 17 Mar 2026 ICC launches global policy paper on preventing online and ICT-enabled fraud The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published a new global policy paper on preventing online and ICT-enabled fraud, highlighting the growing scale of the threat and the urgent need for coordinated international action. As digital technologies continue to transform economies and business models, fraud has evolved in parallel. What were once isolated scams have developed into highly organised, industrial-scale operations run by transnational criminal networks. These groups exploit global connectivity, regulatory fragmentation and increasingly sophisticated technologies, including artificial intelligence, to operate across borders at speed and scale. The consequences extend far beyond financial losses. Online fraud undermines trust in digital services, disrupts legitimate business activity and weakens confidence in cross-border trade and innovation. A systemic and cross-sector challenge The policy paper highlights that online and ICT-enabled fraud is no longer confined to a single sector or type of activity. It spans financial services, telecommunications, digital platforms, e-commerce and cybersecurity, often combining elements of cybercrime, financial fraud and social engineering. At the same time, legitimate businesses are investing heavily in prevention, detection and disruption measures, including advanced authentication tools, AI-driven fraud detection and cross-sector intelligence sharing. However, the report makes clear that no single company, sector or government can address the challenge alone . Structural constraints continue to limit effective action. These include fragmented regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions, operational barriers to cross-border enforcement, unclear or misaligned accountability structures, and the rapid pace of technological change, which is outpacing existing policy approaches. From fragmented responses to coordinated action A central message of the ICC paper is the need to move from fragmented, reactive responses to a more coordinated and proactive global approach. Encouragingly, the paper identifies a growing number of successful initiatives, including cross-industry intelligence-sharing platforms, anti-scam taskforces and technical solutions enabling companies to share fraud indicators such as malicious domains, phone numbers or digital identities. These examples demonstrate the value of collaboration in improving detection and disruption capabilities. However, scaling these efforts requires stronger alignment between governments, industry and law enforcement. Key recommendations for governments and industry The policy paper sets out four priority areas to strengthen the global response: Strengthen cross-border cooperation : Fraud is inherently transnational, requiring more effective international legal frameworks, streamlined data access and joint enforcement efforts targeting organised criminal networks. Invest in prevention : Governments should elevate fraud prevention as a strategic priority, supported by dedicated resources, improved data capabilities and specialised expertise. Reduce regulatory fragmentation : Greater alignment and interoperability across legal frameworks, including consumer protection, cybersecurity and data governance, are essential to enable effective cooperation and reduce uncertainty. Operationalise public–private partnerships : Moving beyond dialogue towards real-time collaboration, including shared intelligence platforms, coordinated operations and joint awareness campaigns. Protecting trust in the digital economy The launch of this policy paper comes at a time when digitalisation is accelerating across all sectors of the economy. Ensuring that digital markets remain secure and trustworthy is therefore not only a matter of enforcement, but also a prerequisite for sustainable economic growth. For businesses, the implications are clear: fraud is no longer a peripheral risk, but a strategic challenge that directly affects operations, reputation and customer trust. ICC’s work in this area aims to ensure that business perspectives are reflected in global policy discussions and that solutions remain practical, scalable and internationally aligned. Ultimately, tackling online and ICT-enabled fraud will require sustained cooperation across borders and sectors, with a shared focus on preventing fraud at its source and strengthening trust in the digital economy.

< Back < Previous | Next > How to scale private finance for adaptation and unlock new business opportunities 28 Jul 2025 As the frequency and severity of climate-related events escalate, there is a growing consensus that mitigation alone is insufficient. Adaptation must play a central role in securing resilience. To support this shift, the new ICC-commissioned Oxera report assesses how the private sector’s role in climate adaptation can be strengthened and scaled. The report is intended to inform ICC’s advocacy as the official UNFCCC Focal Point for Business and Industry in the lead-up to COP30 in Belém. Adaptation cannot wait: why the private sector matters Climate change is already causing severe economic damage globally. A 2024 Oxera study for the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the world’s business organisation, found that extreme weather events resulted in US$2 trillion in economic losses between 2014-2023 , directly affecting 1.6 billion people . Annual damages are rising rapidly, reaching US$451 billion in 2022-2023 alone. Adaptation must match mitigation in urgency – and investing today is critical to reducing escalating future losses. While global mitigation finance hit US$1.3 trillion in 2022 , adaptation finance totalled just US$76 billion – only 8% of which came from the private sector, compared to 54% for mitigation. While no country is spared from climate-related disasters, developing countries are hardest hit – and least equipped to respond. In 2022, small island and least developed states paid over twice as much in debt service (US$59 billion) as they received in climate finance (US$28 billion). Public finance remains far below what is needed. The Glasgow Climate Pact urged developed countries to double adaptation finance to developing countries from 2019 levels by 2025 – but even if met, this would cover only a small amount of the estimated US$203-388 billion required annually in those countries. Public resources alone cannot meet the scale of the challenge – and this opens an opportunity for the private sector to step up and work with governments to drive the innovation and investment needed to build resilience at speed and scale. The private sector has both the determination and capacity to deliver scalable, locally rooted adaptation – particularly where it owns or depends on vulnerable assets and infrastructure. Key barriers blocking private sector investment Information barriers: Uncertainty about where, when and how climate risks will materialise hampers investment planning and risk pricing. Limited disclosure of climate risk exposure – only 35% of companies globally have disclosed an adaptation plan – restricts information sharing across markets. Lack of shared metrics and taxonomies for adaptation makes it difficult to compare costs and benefits, assess returns or standardise financial instruments. Institutional and regulatory barriers: Unclear policy signals – including National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) that often lack clarity on private sector roles and incentives – deter long-term investment. Limited public-private collaboration and rigid regulations delay project design, approval and implementation. Constrained access to capital and lack of technical capacity block investment, especially in developing economies. Financial barriers: Low or indirect return and unpredictable cash flows limit investment appetite. High political and regulatory risks, long time horizons and limited exit options, deter financing – especially under current prudential frameworks that do not adequately reflect the benefits of climate resilience. Fragmented and highly-localised projects limit scalability and complicate collaboration across actors. What is working: turning opportunity into scalable solutions Insurance innovations: concessional insurance premia and public-private collaboration – such as the Climate Insurance Linked Resilient Infrastructure Financing (CILRIF) initiative or Flood Re in the UK – create incentives for resilient investments while pooling risk to attract private capital. Parametric insurance offers fast payouts and crucial post-disaster liquidity, reducing financing costs and unlocking investment. Blended finance: structures combining concessional finance, risk sharing and technical assistance can unlock private investment, like the Africa Rural Climate Adaptation Finance Mechanism (ARCAFIM) – a Green Climate Fund (GCF) backed mechanism in East Africa that blends public and private capital to scale smallholder adaptation finance. Adaptation and resilience bonds: aggregated bond structures – such as European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Resilience Bonds – pool multiple adaptation projects into a single investment vehicle to attract institutional investors. By increasing scale and improving risk-return profiles, they can help overcome common financing barriers for smaller, localised adaptation initiatives. Digital platforms and open data : tools like Oasis Hub and geospatial risk models help reduce uncertainty and guide investment. In addition to supporting these efforts, ICC will collect and share success stories and business experiences in scaling adaptation and mobilising finance for it through its Global Climate Opportunity Campaign , helping to amplify what works and inspire broader replication. Policy recommendations for governments and regulators At COP30 in Belém, ICC calls on governments to forge a robust and coordinated policy agenda that brings together all relevant stakeholders – including multilateral development banks, financial regulators, business, financial and insurance actors – to scale private finance for adaptation and support the implementation of the Global Goal on Adaptation. This agenda should prioritise the following three key action areas: Strengthen climate risk information and transparency Build access to high-quality, open, climate risk data. Mandate disclosure of physical climate risk exposures proportionate to firm size and risk in both operations and supply chains. Providing sector-specific templates to guide reporting will be key in this regard. Support convergence and standardisation of adaptation metrics and taxonomies (building on UNFCCC and standard bodies’ work). Establish enabling institutions and regulatory incentives Include businesses explicitly in National Adaptation Plan (NAP) design and implementation – including through procurement frameworks, public-private partnerships and regulatory sandboxes. Clarify antitrust exemptions to enable pre-competitive collaboration on adaptation solutions. Adjust capital requirements and credit ratings to reward climate-resilient investments and reflect physical risk reductions. Scale adaptation finance with innovative instruments Support multilateral development banks and development finance institutions, working hand in hand with financial and insurance actors to expand the use of blended finance, resilience bonds and insurance-linked instruments to de-risk private investment in adaptation. Promote the design and deployment of structured financial vehicles, such as adaptation bonds, underpinned by robust metrics and repayment models linked to avoided losses or service delivery outcomes. Recognise the critical role of insurers and financial actors in climate adaptation by leveraging their unique data, expertise and risk-modelling capabilities. Establishing formal frameworks for public–private partnerships with insurers to prevent coverage retreat in high-risk areas and ensure continued financial protection for vulnerable communities is also important. This report and summary are part of ICC’s Opportunity of a Lifetime climate campaign, in the lead up to COP30 in Belém, Brazil. Learn more about our call for policy change and how to get involved.

< Back < Previous | Next > Anti-corruption / Corporate governance ICC and WCO release trade facilitation recommendations for enhanced integrity at borders 10 Jul 2025 Integrity at borders is fundamental to sustainable trade and economic growth. A new joint International Chamber of Commerce-World Customs Organization paper highlights how trade facilitation – by digitalising processes, reducing complexities and increasing transparency – can be a powerful tool for fighting corruption. Download US$1.2 to US$1.5 trillion. That’s the staggering annual cost of bribery alone – equal to roughly 2% of annual global GDP. But bribery represents just one facet of corruption’s devastating impact. The true cost runs far deeper, undermining the very foundations of fair trade and economic growth by eroding institutional trust, distorting competition, and creating artificial barriers that stifle opportunity for businesses worldwide. Corruption thrives precisely where trade facilitation is most needed: in complex, opaque environments where procedures span multiple government agencies and discretionary decision-making creates opportunities for abuse. Micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and women-owned businesses are particularly vulnerable in these settings, as they often lack the resources to navigate burdensome procedures or absorb the added costs of informal payments. However, trade facilitation – the simplification and harmonisation of international trade procedures – can be a powerful lever for combatting corruption, according to a new joint paper from the World Customs Organization (WCO) and International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). How does trade facilitation limit corrupt practices? By reducing complexity and increasing transparency, trade facilitation limits opportunities for illicit practices. When properly implemented, these measures create an environment where corruption becomes both harder to carry out and easier to detect. Digitalising border processes to reduce human intervention and establishing clear and transparent regulatory frameworks that limit discretionary decision-making are concrete trade facilitation measures that strengthen integrity. Public-private partnerships play an essential role by promoting collective action and reinforcing the implementation of integrity-focused reforms. These efforts must be grounded in the World Trade Organiztion (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement and the WCO Revised Kyoto Convention, which provide a critical foundation for strengthening integrity, promoting transparency, limiting discretion, and supporting more predictable and rules-based border procedures. However, border practices in many countries remain in urgent need of trade facilitation reforms . Take export licensing, for example: in some cases, companies must visit multiple government offices to have paper documents stamped – a time-consuming and costly process. When officials arbitrarily demand additional documentation, it creates fertile ground for corruption, where officials can demand facilitation payments while businesses feel pressured to comply simply to expedite processes. While trade facilitation serves as a powerful anti-corruption tool, it is not without risks and limitations. These measures can face challenges including data manipulation in digitalised systems, cybersecurity threats, internal corruption risks, and resistance to technological adoption. To address these vulnerabilities, both Customs authorities and businesses must implement comprehensive approaches that include robust governance structures, regular audits, cybersecurity protections, and training programs. Public-private partnerships through National Trade Facilitation Committees and chambers of commerce are essential for building trust and creating effective enforcement strategies that address both the supply and demand sides of corruption. Trade facilitation in action Forward-thinking companies are adopting practices aligned with tra principles as anti-corruption tools. Some firms require their business units to take practical steps to reduce the risk of solicitation, including through digitalising sensitive transactions and engaging legal support when attending meetings with parties that present a higher risk of solicitation. Other businesses mandate the use of electronic communications or e-government solutions in areas such as licensing, procurement and taxes to reduce face-to-face interactions with public officials and minimise connected risks of bribe solicitation. Similarly, some countries that embrace digitalisation have seen remarkable outcomes. For example, in Guatemala a project supported by the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation digitalised ship arrival and departures procedures through the National Single Window (VUMAR), reducing processing times by 85% and eliminating the need for multiple in-person visits. This reform made all these transactions traceable and verifiable, demonstrating how digital trade facilitation can reduce opportunities for corruption by replacing paper-based processes with more transparent and accountable procedures. Actionable recommendations for Customs and business Customs Digitalise Enhance legal safeguards Raise awareness Address small facilitation payments Publish on a publicly available website Foster a transparent zero-tolerance culture Establish robust feedback mechanisms Increase cross-border collaboration Monitor and evaluate Business Advocate Participate in integrity awareness Apply a risk-based approach Automate processes Develop compliance programmes and controls Prohibit and discourage the use of small facilitation payments Monitor and evaluate Foster a transparent zero tolerance for corruption culture

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

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment Incoterms® 2020: Navigating Risk, Responsibility & Reality in Global Trade 3 May 2025 Incoterms® 2020 help businesses manage tariff and compliance risks in global trade by clearly defining who is responsible for transport, insurance, and customs duties. Strategic use can reduce seller exposure to tariffs, making these terms crucial tools in navigating today’s volatile trade environment. New Insight: Managing Tariff Risk with Incoterms® As outlined in our April 2025 guidance note “Using the Incoterms® 2020 Rules to Manage Tariff Risk in International Trade,” businesses can use Incoterms strategically to reduce exposure to unpredictable tariff changes. While Incoterms do not affect tariff schedules directly, they clearly allocate responsibility for customs duties and import formalities. This clarity becomes critical in volatile trade environments. Key Takeaways: • Only DDP (Delivered Duty Paid) places full tariff risk and cost on the seller. • All other rules (EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, etc) shift import tariffs to the buyer. • Smart selection between DAP and DDP can make a difference when negotiating long-term contracts under changing trade regimes. Use cases: • Avoid seller exposure to future tariffs by shifting from DDP to DAP. • Use FCA or EXW to pass compliance burdens to better-prepared buyers. • Define roles clearly to reduce friction between logistics, legal, and finance. Understanding Incoterms® 2020: More Than Just Shipping Terms Incoterms® 2020 — shorthand for “International Commercial Terms” — are globally recognized rules to standardize obligations in international sales contracts. Incoterms clarify the responsibilities of sellers and buyers regarding transport costs, risk allocation, and logistics obligations at each point in the supply chain. While Incoterms do not govern ownership transfer or payment mechanisms, they serve as a common legal and commercial language that reduces ambiguity and friction in cross-border trade. • Who arranges and pays for transport and insurance? • Who handles customs clearance? • At what point does the risk transfer from seller to buyer? These are not trivial distinctions. Choosing the wrong Incoterm can lead to costly disputes, unpaid claims, or disrupted deliveries. The 2020 revision introduced updated insurance requirements, clearer allocation of security obligations, and a stronger recommendation to match Incoterms with the realities of modern logistics (like containerization). There are 11 terms, grouped as follows: Multimodal terms: EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAP, DPU, DDP Sea/inland waterway-only terms: FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF Understanding the practical application of these rules is where professionals gain the most value — and where costly misconceptions often arise. Incoterms Gone Wrong: 5 Real Mistakes to Learn From Choosing the wrong Incoterm might seem like a small slip — until it leads to costly delays, damaged goods, legal disputes, or unexpected tax bills. Below are five real-world examples, often used in trade compliance training, that show just how easy it is to get it wrong — and how to avoid the same fate. Misapplying Incoterms® can create costly confusion over responsibility, risk, and compliance — even in otherwise well-structured contracts. While the examples above are fictional, they reflect common pitfalls seen in international trade and logistics. Understanding Incoterms® isn’t just a legal formality — it’s a frontline tool for avoiding preventable disputes in global commerce. Incoterms® in Action: Would You Get It Right? Test yourself! Incorrect use of Incoterms isn’t just academic — it leads to costly errors, disputes, and legal risk. Think you’re covered? Take this quick quiz and test your instincts on three real-world scenarios. You’ll find the correct answers and explanations at the end of this newsletter!

< Back < Previous | Next > Digital Trade Data flows in supply chains: Practical realities and policy implications 11 Jun 2025 Cross-border data flows are essential for efficient global supply chains, enabling real-time coordination and logistics across borders. ICC provides concrete recommendations to align policies with operational realities and keep trade flowing. 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

< Back < Previous | Next > EU AI Omnibus - ICC’s position Sara Galvagni 24 Feb 2026 How will the EU’s AI and Digital Omnibus adjustments affect compliance costs, cross-border data flows and AI deployment strategies? We examine the practical implications for Dutch and internationally active companies as negotiations move forward. EU AI Omnibus - ICC’s position On 19 November, the European Commission presented its proposal for a Digital Omnibus, a package intended to simplify and streamline the EU’s complex digital rulebook. The initiative is structured around two parallel components: an AI Omnibus focused on targeted adjustments to the AI Act, and a broader Digital Rulebook Omnibus, elements of the EU’s wider digital rulebook. Over the past few years, the European Union has developed an ambitious and far- reaching digital regulatory framework. Various instruments, including the Artificial Intelligence Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act, and the Data Governance Act, have reshaped the legal landscape, aiming to increase transparency and accountability while fostering trust in digital technologies. At the same time, the cumulative effect of this legislation has been a dense, and at times fragmented, compliance environment. Complexity, overlap, and growing implementation challenges are faced by businesses operating across the Single Market. Navigating overlapping compliance timelines, delegated acts, guidance, and technical standards has proven particularly demanding for companies of all sizes. The Digital Omnibus is presented as a response to these concerns. The goal is not to reopen political compromises, but to deliver targeted, practical corrections that make existing rules workable and predictable. From ICC’s perspective, this is both necessary and timely. The stakes for businesses are high. The Omnibus affects compliance costs, legal certainty, cross-border data flows, and innovation. Even technical amendments can influence operational planning, product design, investment choices, and global deployment strategies. The key question for globally operating companies is whether the proposed adjustments will genuinely reduce fragmentation and administrative burden, or whether they risk creating new forms of regulatory divergence that complicate cross-border operations. The problem today is no longer the absence of regulation, but rather gaps, distortions, and inconsistencies in implementation. One of the main concerns is the rollout of the AI Act. Many essential guidelines and harmonised standards are still pending, with some expected only shortly before obligations take effect. This leaves companies in the difficult position of preparing for compliance without the technical clarity or operational tools they need. At the same time, rapid policy reactions to the rise of large language models have introduced adjustments that risk moving the Act away from its original technology- neutral and risk-based design. Maintaining this foundational structure is critical to preserving legal certainty across sectors and along the AI value chain. More broadly, implementation challenges across the EU digital framework highlight the need for corrections. Under the GDPR, enforcement has become increasingly expansive and uneven, with over 40 data protection authorities interpreting obligations differently. Key concepts are sometimes applied so broadly that compliance extends beyond the regulation’s intended scope. Without clearer limits, there is a risk that almost all data is treated as sensitive by default, which undermines proportionality and complicates legitimate uses like bias detection or AI system improvement.Structural inconsistencies also complicate compliance. The split between GDPR and ePrivacy has created parallel rules for cookies and device access, while traffic data is treated differently under the ePrivacy Directive and the Data Act, particularly in IoT contexts. This again creates a fragmented approach with operational gaps, conflicting obligations, and duplicative requirements, driving legal uncertainty and higher costs, in particular for SMEs and mid-sized companies operating across borders. In today’s fast-evolving digital landscape, ICC sees the Digital Omnibus as a golden opportunity to bring coherence and proportionality back to European digital regulation, to make life simpler for businesses. When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, timing matters. High-risk AI rules should only be rolled out once harmonized standards, clear guidance, and practical compliance tools are ready. A temporary pause on some obligations would give companies legal certainty and prevent fragmented application across Member States. Realistic transition period, especially for one-stop-shop provisions, will help businesses implement new rules smoothly without unnecessary hurdles. ICC also calls for stronger, coordinated oversight under the AI Act. A central role for the EU AI Office, paired with simplified interfaces with national authorities, would reduce regulatory fragmentation and ensure consistent, predictable enforcement, which would benefit both businesses and consumers. Proportionality in GDPR enforcement is equally crucial. Clear definitions of “personal data” and a focus on intentional rather than hypothetical risks for sensitive data will reduce administrative burdens without compromising protection, making compliance more practical for companies of all sizes. Finally, ICC supports a unified approach to cookies and device access, aligned with the GDPR, eliminating the current patchwork with ePrivacy rules, to ensure one singular, consistent framework for handling traffic and IoT data, thereby reducing complexity and enhancing predictability for businesses operating across Europe. The guiding principle behind ICC’s position is clear: EU digital regulation must align with global standards and support seamless cross-border data flows. AI innovation and deployment rely on trusted international data transfers, so any adjustments under the Digital Omnibus should preserve the free flow of data, build trust, and avoid EU-specific technical divergences or localization requirements that fragment markets and drive up costs. ICC emphasizes that the Omnibus should focus on practical solutions to real-world implementation challenges, ensuring that existing rules are workable, coherent, and enforceable. Done right, this approach will support innovation, enhance competitiveness, and accelerate the adoption of digital technologies across Europe, while delivering tangible benefits for businesses.