Search Results

< 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.

< Back < Previous | Next > Global Response Pronounced spike in low-level crimes in Singapore Straits 15 Apr 2025 The ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) has revealed a rise in global piracy and armed robbery incidents in the first quarter of 2025 – driven by a spike of incidents in the Singapore Straits. A total of 45 cases of piracy and armed robbery against ships were recorded in the first three months of 2025 – an almost 35 percent increase compared to the same period in 2024. Of the incidents reported, 37 vessels were boarded, four were hijacked and four had attempted attacks. The threat to crew safety remains high with 37 crew members taken hostage, 13 kidnapped, two threatened and one injured. Rise of incidents in Singapore Straits The Q1 report highlights a spike in recorded incidents in the Singapore Straits as 27 incidents were reported from vessels transiting these waters compared to seven for the same period in 2024. While most incidents were considered low-level opportunistic crimes, crew members were at great risk with guns reported in 14 incidents. For the whole of 2024, guns were reported in 26 incidents globally. Ten crew members were taken hostage in six separate incidents, two were threatened and one was reported injured. Ninety-two percent of all vessels targeted in the Singapore Straits were successfully boarded, including nine bulk carriers and tankers over 100,000 deadweight tonnage in size. IMB Director Michael Howlett said: “The reported rise of incidents in the Singapore Straits is concerning, highlighting the urgent need to protect the safety of seafarers navigating these waters. Ensuring the security of these vital routes is essential and all necessary measures must be taken to safeguard crew members.” Caution advised in the Gulf of Guinea Although the number of reported incidents within the Gulf of Guinea waters and adjoining littoral states continues to be at its lowest in nearly two decades, the IMB urges continued caution as crew members remain at risk. All 13 kidnapped crew were reported in these waters in two separate attacks – with a total of six incidents reported in the first quarter of the year. In March, pirates hijacked a bitumen tanker southeast of Santo Antonio, in Sao Tome and Principe, kidnapping 10 crew members – while a fishing vessel south of Accra, Ghana, was boarded by armed pirates who kidnapped three crew members. “While we welcome the reduction of incidents, the safety of crew members in the Gulf of Guinea remains at greater risk. It is essential to maintain a strong regional and international naval presence to address these incidents and ensure the protection of seafarers,” Mr Howlett said. Somali piracy threat remains Between 7 February and 16 March 2025, two fishing vessels and a dhow were hijacked off the coast of Somalia. In these incidents, 26 crew members were taken hostage, demonstrating the continued capabilities of Somali pirates. Reports indicate all crew have been released along with the vessels. The IMB advises ships navigating these waters to exercise caution and to strictly follow the latest version of the Industry Best Management Practice (BMP). Download your copy of the 2025 Jan – Mar Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships report here . About the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre Since its founding in 1991, IMB’s Piracy Reporting Centre has served as a crucial, 24-hour point of contact to report crimes of piracy and lend support to ships under threat. Quick reactions and a focus on coordinating with response agencies, sending out warning broadcasts and email alerts to ships have all helped bolster security on the high seas. The data gathered by the Centre also provides key insights on the nature and state of modern piracy. IMB encourages all shipmasters and owners to report all actual, attempted and suspected global piracy and armed robbery incidents to the Piracy Reporting Centre as a vital first step to ensuring adequate resources are allocated by authorities to tackle maritime piracy.

< Back < Previous | Next > Event Advance Integrity in Business – Join the Business Integrity Accelerator 5 May 2025 The UN Global Compact Network Netherlands and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) are launching the Business Integrity Accelerator (BIA)—a global program designed to help companies move beyond compliance and embed integrity into their core strategy and operations. UN Global Compact Network Netherlands and the ICC are excited to launch the Business Integrity Accelerator (BIA) — a global programme empowering companies to go beyond compliance and embed integrity at the core of their strategy, operations, and decision-making. Running from October 2025 to May 2026, this accelerator will guide companies in developing a concrete Action Plan to strengthen anti-corruption efforts across internal, external, and collective dimensions. Registration opens June 26 and runs through September 2025. The programme is open to companies of all sizes that participate in the UN Global Compact Network Netherlands. 👉 Not a participant yet? Explore how to join UN Global Compact NL 👉Already a member? Contact Jamie Holton to stay informed about registration: holton@unglobalcompact.nl

< Back < Previous | Next > From Ambition to Economic Delivery: ICC’s Call to Action Ahead of COP30 2 Nov 2025 As world leaders prepare to meet in Belém for COP30, ICC calls on governments to turn climate ambition into economic delivery. Representing over 45 million companies, ICC urges concrete action on finance, adaptation and market integrity to unlock private investment and make the transition to net zero a driver of growth and resilience. From Ambition to Economic Delivery: ICC’s Call to Action Ahead of COP30 As world leaders prepare to gather in Belém for COP30 , the message from business is clear: climate ambition must now translate into economic delivery . In an open letter to Climate Ministers, ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO conveyed the views of more than 45 million companies across 170 countries , calling on governments to make COP30 the turning point where commitment becomes implementation . Business urges governments to make COP30 about delivery The global business community sees the transition to a net-zero, climate-resilient world not only as a moral imperative, but as an economic necessity . Businesses are already investing, innovating, and adapting to growing physical and transition risks. Yet progress is being held back by fragmented regulations and uncertainty around the enabling conditions needed to unlock private capital at scale. To deliver on the Paris Agreement, ICC calls on governments to anchor COP30 outcomes around three priority pillars: Investment-ready national climate action plans. Governments must co-design updated and ambitious NDCs with business, aligning climate goals with growth, energy security and industrial competitiveness. Predictable frameworks and clear market signals are essential to drive long-term investment. A Global Goal on Adaptation that mobilises private finance. Adaptation receives less than 10% of total climate finance today. ICC calls for robust metrics, risk-reporting standards, and smart incentives to make resilience investable, turning adaptation into a scalable economic opportunity. A finance implementation plan that operationalises the new collective quantified goal. The next step in the Baku-to-Belém process must be a concrete roadmap to channel funding into emerging and developing economies. That means addressing structural barriers, including reforms to prudential rules such as Basel III and more effective use of development bank balance sheets, to unlock private capital at scale. Scaling finance and integrity at the heart of ICC’s agenda ICC’s COP30 strategy sets out practical policy actions to turbocharge climate finance, strengthen carbon markets and embed adaptation into business models .Key ICC proposals include: Reforms to global financial regulations to enable greater green investment; New frameworks for Article 6 implementation and voluntary carbon markets; Development of investable adaptation pipelines supported by clear data, incentives and risk-transfer mechanisms such as resilience bonds; Recognition of trade finance as a key enabler of climate-aligned growth. At COP30, ICC will also highlight the role of small and medium-sized enterprises , presenting new data and insights on how SMEs can be empowered to take climate action. A partnership for delivery The private sector has proven its capacity to innovate, from clean energy systems to new low-carbon technologies, but cannot act alone. ICC is urging governments to work hand-in-hand with business to turn high-level ambition into real-world impact through policy coherence, transparent carbon markets and credible financing mechanisms. “COP30 can and should mark the point where climate ambition becomes economic strategy — anchored in growth, resilience and opportunity,” said ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO. How businesses can engage ICC Netherlands invites all members and partners to join this call to action: Use ICC’s key messages in your own communications and bilateral engagements with government representatives in the run-up to and during COP30; Share ICC’s Open Letter and Strategy across your business networks to amplify the voice of the real economy; Highlight concrete business actions that show how Dutch companies are driving sustainable growth and climate innovation. Join the ICC Netherlands Sustainability Commission meeting – 11 December : we will discuss how Dutch businesses can engage with the COP30 outcomes and shape our ICC Netherlands sustainability agenda for 2026 and beyond. The decisions made in Belém will shape global competitiveness, capital flows and resilience for years to come. Business is ready, and willing, to partner with governments to deliver the opportunity of a lifetime . Read further ICC and UNFCCC Business Group call on climate ministers ahead of COP30 (15 October 2025) Ahead of COP30 in Belém, ICC and the UNFCCC Business Group urge governments to make climate ambition a driver of economic transformation, calling for coherent policies that unlock private investment at scale. COP30 Open Letter to Climate Ministers (29 October 2025, ICC) ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO outlines the business priorities for COP30: investment-ready climate plans, a global goal on adaptation, and a finance implementation plan to deliver growth and resilience. COP30 Key ICC Messages and Strategy (October 2025, ICC) ICC’s roadmap for Belém sets out how to scale climate finance, drive private investment in adaptation, and strengthen carbon market integrity — turning the “opportunity of a lifetime” into tangible action. The opportunity to align Basel’s global banking rules with climate needs Basel III made the financial system sturdier after the 2008 crisis. But rules built to prevent a repeat of the last financial crisis now risk slowing the climate transition. Emerging markets need hundreds of billions annually for the world to meet climate targets and stay on a net-zero path. With rule clarifications, targeted adjustments and smart reforms, a unique opportunity presents itself to align financial stability with climate needs and unlock vital private capital.

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture 2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum and ICC side event on business and government as partners for integrity to the OECD 6 Apr 2025 At the 2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum, ICC hosted a side event to boost business-government collaboration on integrity, highlighting tools like updated anti-corruption clauses. Forum discussions focused on bribery solicitation, tech-driven anti-corruption efforts, integrity in the green transition, and public-private cooperation for fairer global markets. On the sidelines of the OECD -OCDE Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum on March 24 in Paris, the ICC Global Commission on Business Integrity connected government and business leaders in encourage strong ethical standards that drive trust, investment, and strong-success for all. Key Takeaways • Companies need to sharpen their capacity to detect and assess geopolitical dynamics to do global business. • Harnessing trade facilitation to bolster integrity at border crossings. There are key risks at borders. Public and private partnerships are recommended to mitigate the risks. • Tools to drive integrity through contracts-update of ICC Anti-Corruption Clause. • ICC Guidance on Responsible Business for Challenging Contexts is an essential tool to support companies in anticipating crisis situations • Stronger together. Businesses and governments unite to drive integrity forward. The OECD Forum on Wednesday 26th started after the opening remarks by Mathias Cormann, Secretary-General, OECD, with launching the global dialogue; insights form leaders. The OECD forum was attended by representatives of the Public and Private sector, Universities and Civil Society. Key Topics • Galvanising the private sector for integrity: from policy to practice. Concrete solutions emerging from public-private cooperation such as peer-to-peer learning and the use of technology for integrity were topic of conversation. • Tackling the demand side: Innovative approaches to combat foreign solicitation. Bribery solicitation remains a pervasive challenge in global markets, undermining fair competition and public trust. The 2021OECDAnti-Bribery Recommendation introduced new provisions to address bribery solicitation, to move a step forward. Participants discussed how to enhance cross-border collaboration and enforcement can help disrupt solicitation schemes while fostering greater accountability and fairness in international business. The proactive role of companies in resisting solicitation, strengthening compliance programmes, and reporting corrupt practices were also highlighted. Tackling both the demand and supply sides of bribery is crucial to building a balance and effective approach, ensuring systemic change and promoting integrity in global markets. • Harnessing cutting-edge technologies and collaboration for a holistic fight against corruption. Cutting-edge technologies – such as data analytics, digital forensics, and artificial intelligenceare driving transformation in enforcement, compliance and oversight efforts. The collaboration between enforcements authorities , the private sector, and civil society, multistakeholder approaches and data-sharing framework, can strengthen the global response to corruption. • Addressing de-risking and illicit financial flows to unlock sustainable development financing. Panellists examined how cooperation, public-private partnerships, and strong political commitments can help mitigate de-risking and mobilise finance for sustainable development. • On Thursday March 27th focused a session on the OECD Public Integrity Indicators (Plls): From evidence to reform. The panellists, including Gonzalo Guzman, Chair of the ICC Global Commission on Business Integrity, shared insights on how the Plls can drive action, build resilience to risks, and support innovation. The Plls can help to a structured approach. The session also awarded the winners of the OECD Anti-Corruption Research Challenge, researchers who used the OECD Public Integrity Indicators to propose novel insights for anticorruption policies across OECD member and non-member countries. The winners didn’t really find significant results referring to the indicators. However transparency is quite important. The mentioned the Netherlands as one of the countries which can set more goals. • Greening with integrity: Tackling corruption in the green transition. The green transition offers immense opportunities for sustainable development but also presents significant corruption risks that could undermine its potential. How we can make sure that the green transition is with integrity. A panellist from the World Bank stated that corruption is everywhere. Insights were shared into how anti-corruption measures can strengthen trust and transparency, ensuring that the race toward a greener future remains both sustainable and equitable. Make the data available, use a multistakeholder approach and invest in transparency to make the difference. Not only the technical solutions are important, but also the political will. A challenge is how to show that a fair green transition is not slower, will cost no more. • Addressing strategic corruption: How to leverage the anti-corruption toolbox. • Bridging the data gap: Leveraging technology to strengthen the fight against corruption. In addition there were a lot of side events during the conference and the rest of the week.

< Back < Previous | Next > What ICC Members Can Expect from ICC Netherlands in 2026 6 Jan 2026 In this New Year edition, ICC Netherlands outlines its strategic priorities for the year ahead, focusing on trade, integrity, dispute resolution, sustainability, leadership and digitalisation. Discover how we will work with our members, partners and global ICC network to strengthen Dutch business resilience in a rapidly changing world. What ICC Members Can Expect from ICC Netherlands in 2026 A message from the Director General of ICC Netherlands Laure Jacquier As we step into 2026, I want to begin with a simple but important message: ICC Netherlands will continue to work with our partners in the spirit of close cooperation. Nothing we do happens in isolation. ICC, at every level, is a platform for collaboration – both globally and locally – and our strength lies precisely in that collective network . We work closely with partners such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, ICC Global and UN Global Compact while at the same time building strong local partnerships here in the Netherlands. Our philosophy is clear: progress only happens when we work together . That belief will guide everything ICC Netherlands does in 2026. In a world marked by geopolitical tension, economic fragmentation and regulatory uncertainty, my optimism comes from one place: when businesses engage, participate and work together, they can still create stability, predictability and progress . Guided by this conviction, ICC Netherlands will focus on five strategic priorities in 2026, each designed to help our members strengthen trust, resilience and cooperation in international business . 1. Defending multilateralism and international trade In today’s geopolitical context, the defence of multilateralism and rules-based international trade is not an abstract principle: it is a business necessity . The competitiveness of the Netherlands and the European Union depends on open, predictable trade rules. For Dutch companies operating globally, predictability versus volatility is no longer a theoretical debate – it directly affects day-to-day activities, from supply chain management to growth and investment. Geopolitical developments are not ‘emerging risks’ anymore: they’re the new reality. If you want to gain a deeper insight into the importance of embedding resilience into your company's operating methods , then our interview with Tim Bosch (co-founder of the Birdwatcher Group) is a must-read. The WTO system is under pressure, but there is no viable alternative. Rather than walking away from multilateralism, ICC is calling for a coordinated effort by all ICC national committees to modernise and reform the WTO so that it reflects today’s trade realities . This must also include a stronger reflection of the role of emerging economies. A key priority for ICC Netherlands in 2026 is ensuring that the voice of business is heard ahead of the next WTO Ministerial Conference. In the Netherlands, we contribute to this through public-private dialogue . At the end of January, ICC Netherlands will host a WTO roundtable open to all ICC NL members. This is not a closed-door exercise; it is a structured, safe space for companies to openly share concerns, best practices and real-life experiences, and to feed that input into international discussions. My message is simple: if businesses do not show up, multilateralism will not defend itself. If you want reform to happen, you have to participate. This same logic applies to the development of international trade tools. In 2026, the Incoterms® reform process will officially start, aiming towards Incoterms® 2030. It is essential that these globally used rules reflect real business needs. ICC Netherlands will actively encourage members to contribute. The same is true for potential revisions of UCP 600 and ISBP, where ICC is currently gathering feedback from practitioners. ICC Netherlands encourages its members to participate in the live surveys and consultations. If businesses do not engage, these standards risk being shaped by an unbalanced set of voices . 2. Business integrity as a foundation for trade Trade cannot function without trust. That is why business integrity remains a core priority for ICC Netherlands in 2026. This year marks an important milestone: 10 years of the Week of Integrity, an initiative founded by ICC Netherlands to raise awareness and create a trusted space for dialogue between the private and public sectors. The Week of Integrity is open not only to ICC members, but also to non-members. Why? Because integrity is not exclusive . Everyone should be working on it. This year’s overarching theme is Leading with Integrity in a Digital World . It’s a crucial subject: while digitalisation increases efficiency, it also brings new risks. Corruption, misconduct and integrity failures have real economic and reputational consequences: for companies and society as a whole. The Week of Integrity takes place each year in the last week of October. The first partner meeting and workshops will take place on 6 February, focusing on embedding integrity into leadership and decision-making. Besides the Week of Integrity, ICC Netherlands will also continue facilitating cross-sector exchanges between businesses, banks and legal professionals. The most significant point here is the cross-sector perspective: this is one of the biggest strengths of ICC Netherlands . We bring together a diverse array of sectors to communicate and share their ideas. Building on the roundtables initiated last year, an upcoming session will focus on indirect sanctions – how sanctions imposed by third countries affect Dutch trade in practice, and how businesses experience this on the ground. Through the Business Integrity Commission, ICC Netherlands will define its 2026 agenda during its first members-only meeting at the end of January. This ensures that our priorities remain aligned with the concrete challenges Dutch companies face. 3. Dispute resolution: bridging business and legal practice Effective dispute resolution is necessary to build trust, continuity and resilience in international business. In 2026, ICC Netherlands will continue to focus on building bridges between business and legal professionals. Too often, disputes are approached from parallel perspectives. In-house counsel deal with commercial realities; external lawyers focus on legal frameworks. There is room for better alignment ; I think the communication between these two disciplines can really be improved. This is where ICC can add value. We are organising a number of targeted roundtable sessions on topics selected jointly with our legal and business members. In addition, ICC Netherlands will host the Joint Arbitration Day in Amsterdam, bringing together professionals from the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany to exchange best practices . Our Dispute Resolution Forum, hosted this year by Houthoff, will remain a key moment for dialogue, while we continue to promote alternative dispute resolution and its practical benefits for Dutch businesses. We are also committed to engaging young professionals. Giving the next generation a voice within our arbitration work is not optional. New perspectives bring new ideas, and they strengthen the future of dispute resolution in the Netherlands. 4. Sustainability, finance and inclusive leadership Sustainability, inclusion and economic resilience go hand in hand. ICC Netherlands works closely with ICC Global on the ICC Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance (PSTF), which have already been adopted by two major Dutch banks. Through the Sustainability Commission, we will identify which topics matter most to Dutch businesses in 2026, with circularity playing a central role. One issue I care deeply about is green-hushing. We all know about the dangers of greenwashing, but the phenomenon of green-hushing deserves equal attention . If companies become afraid to communicate about their sustainability efforts, we risk creating the impression that sustainability no longer matters. That silence also travels down the supply chain. If suppliers do not hear about sustainability efforts, they may stop their own. Those who are intrinsically motivated must speak up. Participation matters here too. If we want sustainability to remain central to business, we must talk about it. Inclusive leadership remains equally important. Despite progress, a significant gender gap persists in Dutch business leadership. On this subject, I am particularly proud of the WISE – Women in Strategic Engagement programme. WISE is a leadership development programme offered by ICC Netherlands that focuses on impact, relationships and real-world leadership challenges. WISE is designed to complement (not compete with) high-end executive programmes, offering practical tools and networks . After a very successful first cohort last year, we will launch a new cohort on 12 March this year. On the finance side, ICC Netherlands continues to work with Banking and Sustainability Commissions. The fact is that the countries that need investment the most often face the greatest barriers due to risk ratings and regulatory constraints. The goal is simple: to create the biggest possible impact at a global scale. 5. Digitalisation of trade documents Finally, digitalisation of trade documentation remains a priority – and a frustration. Digital trade is a critical enabler of modern trade, yet the Netherlands is still lagging behind . Legal barriers continue to slow progress, even as other countries move faster and see immediate benefits. The Netherlands is not fully legally aligned with international requirements for digital trade documents, leading to higher costs, delays and risk s such as loss or fraud. ICC Netherlands will continue to push for legal reform, while also taking practical steps. In 2026, we will reactivate the Digitalisation Working Group, make the topic more accessible through clear communication, and actively involve businesses in sharing real-life experiences. A key project will be ICC Netherlands’ participation in the ICC Digital Standards Initiative (DSI) – Global Digital Trade Sandbox. This initiative provides a safe environment for companies to test digital trade solutions through pilots and proof-of-concept transactions, bringing together companies, banks, platforms, regulators and national committees. For ICC Netherlands, this is a concrete way to help Dutch companies move from ambition to implementation . For countries like France and the UK, the impact of digitalisation has been immediate and visible: fewer errors, less fraud, faster processing . But progress requires businesses to speak up – to share real-life problems with paper documents, customs delays and inefficiencies. We have a strong working group on digitalisation, but we need more business voices. Once again, participation is the key. Looking ahead Am I optimistic about 2026? Absolutely. Not because the world is simple – but because I believe deeply in what happens when businesses engage, collaborate and take responsibility. ICC Netherlands will continue to be a platform where those voices come together, locally and globally, to strengthen trade, integrity, sustainability and innovation. And we will do it the only way it truly works: by showing up, by participating, and by doing it together. Want to get involved? ICC Netherlands is driven by its members. If your organisation is working on topics that connect with ICC’s priorities – from international trade and dispute resolution to integrity, sustainability, digitalisation or geopolitics – we would love to hear from you. We regularly feature member voices through interviews, articles and events, and we are always keen to share practical experiences from the business community. Get in touch if you would like to contribute or be part of the conversation.

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

< Back < Previous | Next > “Geopolitics is back in the boardroom”: a conversation with Marhijn Visser Tom Scott 3 Mar 2026 Ahead of WTO MC14, shifting trade dynamics and geopolitical pressures are directly affecting supply chain resilience, digital trade continuity and long-term planning; we discuss what Dutch business should anticipate and how engagement can strengthen predictability. “Geopolitics is back in the boardroom”: a conversation with Marhijn Visser As the World Trade Organization prepares for the next Ministerial Conference (MC14) later this month, questions about the future of multilateral trade have never been more pressing. Marhijn Visser, Deputy Director of International Affairs at VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland and Board Member of ICC Netherlands, will once again join the Dutch delegation. With experience from both inside government and at the WTO, he shares his perspective on reform, geopolitics and what Dutch business should prepare for next. Ahead of MC14, the WTO has been described as being ‘at a crossroads.’ Is that correct? And is it still fit for purpose? To put it diplomatically, people say this at every ministerial conference. For example, two years ago in Abu Dhabi, everyone was saying it was the ‘make or break summit’. However, the reality is more nuanced. On the one hand, the WTO is still very relevant. Around 75% of global trade still takes place under WTO rules, not under free trade agreements. Trade continues to flow, and the rulebook still provides the foundation for the global trading system. On the other hand, reform is clearly needed. One major issue is that the dispute settlement system is no longer fully functioning, because the United States has blocked the appointment of judges to the Appellate Body. It’s good to keep in mind that while President Trump started this in his first term, it was already underway during President Obama’s administration, then continued by President Biden. So this is not only a Republican issue. The second problem is that the rulebook itself is outdated. It has not been updated for over 30 years. Since then, we have seen the rise of e-commerce, the Internet, artificial intelligence – none of which are reflected in the current framework. Industrial subsidies are another major issue. China, but also the United States and Europe, have significant subsidy programmes. And finally, there is the issue of consensus. Formal WTO decisions require agreement from all 160-plus members. In today’s geopolitical climate, that is increasingly difficult to achieve. In representing Dutch business at MC14, what are your key priorities for the Ministerial Conference? Reform of the WTO is the first priority. Without reform, the system risks becoming less relevant over time. Second is maintaining the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. This is extremely important. The moratorium ensures that countries do not impose customs duties on electronic transactions. If customs duties were applied to electronic transmissions, it would seriously disrupt digital trade. Third, there needs to be a broader discussion on industrial policy. We are currently seeing something of a global subsidy rat race, with major programmes in the United States, Europe and China. This has significant implications for competitiveness, making it more difficult for developing countries to keep up. The WTO remains the natural platform to discuss these issues. Trade policy is increasingly shaped by geopolitics. How should Dutch businesses adapt? The most important message is simple: geopolitics is back in the boardroom. This is something we hear not only from multinationals, but also from SMEs. As a result, long-term planning has become more difficult. The key response is resilience. One of the most effective tools companies have is due diligence. By mapping their supply chains and understanding their dependencies, companies can reduce risks and become more resilient. Interestingly, this overlaps with ESG requirements. If you are already conducting supply chain due diligence for ESG purposes, you are also strengthening your geopolitical resilience. This is not just a compliance exercise – it can become a competitive advantage. We are also seeing the emergence of new roles within companies, such as geopolitical risk specialists. That reflects how fundamentally the business environment has changed. What are the key trade policy priorities of the new Dutch government? We are very pleased that trade policy has been given a more central place by the new government. Around 35% of our national income comes from trade so it is essential that trade policy reflects that reality. We also see a change regarding the importance of free trade agreements. For example, the political debate around the EU-Mercosur agreement shifted significantly; there is increasing awareness that trade agreements are essential for supply chain diversification and economic security. Another positive development is that trade will again have a dedicated minister, rather than a state secretary. Budget cuts for embassies have also been reversed, which is important for supporting Dutch businesses abroad. Overall, I think politics in the Netherlands is moving in the right direction. Are you optimistic about the future of multilateral trade? Or are we entering a more transactional, power-driven era? We are clearly entering a new era. After the Cold War, we experienced what you could call both a peace dividend and a globalisation dividend. Companies and societies benefited from stability and open markets. We are now finally waking up to the fact that era is over. We are entering a more unstable and uncertain global environment; we cannot simply go back to business as usual. At the same time, change is possible. For example, the EU recently concluded a trade agreement with India after more than 20 years of negotiations. This shows you that, once the political will was there, progress was made quickly. Change is possible, if we want it to happen. The same could happen at the WTO – but it will require leadership and engagement. What role should business play in shaping the future of the trading system? Business needs to be more vocal and more engaged. At the last Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, there was an enormous business presence; hundreds, perhaps thousands of representatives. That shows how much is at stake. The International Chamber of Commerce has a particularly important role to play as a bridge between business communities around the world. In many countries, especially in the Global South, government positions do not always fully reflect the interests of their own business communities. By strengthening dialogue and cooperation between businesses globally, ICC can help ensure that the voice of business is heard more clearly. That's the main priority – and we’re happy to contribute to that.

< Back < Previous | Next > Sustainability The Omnibus Initiative: What it means for International Business 7 Mar 2025 The European Commission’s Omnibus Proposal marks a significant shift in the sustainability reporting landscape, with sweeping changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and the EU Taxonomy Regulation. While positioned as a simplification effort to ease the administrative burden on companies, the proposal raises important questions about competitiveness, regulatory certainty, and the EU’s commitment to sustainability goals. For international businesses, these changes could mean reduced compliance obligations, but they also introduce uncertainty and potential fragmentation in sustainability reporting. CSRD: Shrinking Scope and Fewer Reporting Obligations • The CSRD threshold has been raised, meaning only companies with 1,000+ employees and €450M turnover will be required to report (previously 250 employees, €40M turnover). • This drastically reduces the number of covered companies by 80%, removing tens of thousands of businesses from formal reporting obligations. • Sector-specific sustainability reporting standards may be scrapped entirely, affecting how businesses benchmark sustainability efforts across industries. • The shift towards voluntary reporting could lead to reduced transparency and comparability, potentially creating a competitive advantage for companies that continue disclosing voluntarily. What this means for international businesses: • Multinational companies with EU operations will have a reduced regulatory burden if they are no longer required to report. • Non-EU businesses operating in the EU (previously covered under CSRD’s turnover-based threshold) may now fall out of scope. • However, large international businesses may still face reporting pressures from investors, suppliers, and consumers who expect ESG disclosures, even if no longer legally required. CSDDD: Weakening Due Diligence and Liability Risks • Due diligence obligations are now limited to direct suppliers (Tier 1) instead of the full supply chain. • The removal of civil liability provisions means companies will not face legal consequences for failing to meet sustainability obligations. • National governments will have limited flexibility to impose stricter due diligence laws, effectively setting a ceiling on ESG regulations across the EU. What this means for international businesses: • Supply chain compliance will become less complex, as businesses will only need to monitor direct suppliers. • Downstream ESG risks (e.g., human rights violations or environmental harm deeper in the supply chain) may still be a concern, particularly for companies with strong voluntary sustainability commitments. • Companies already investing in comprehensive ESG due diligence may face reputational risks if they scale back efforts in response to regulatory rollbacks. EU Taxonomy: Optional Compliance and Delayed Application • Sustainability reporting under the EU Taxonomy may become voluntary, removing mandatory alignment for companies outside the revised CSRD scope. • Climate transition plans may be reduced to a “tick-box” exercise, limiting enforcement mechanisms. • The reporting deadline for many companies has been delayed by two years, creating uncertainty for businesses that have already prepared for compliance. What this means for international businesses: • Investors and financial markets may still expect climate risk disclosures, even if regulatory requirements are loosened. • Companies doing business in both the EU and stricter jurisdictions (e.g., the U.S., UK, or parts of Asia) may face conflicting reporting expectations. • Businesses that have already invested in CSRD/CSDDD compliance may now question whether to continue these efforts or wait for further regulatory clarity. Regulatory Certainty vs. Sustainability Leadership: What’s at Stake? The Omnibus Proposal raises key questions about the balance between competitiveness and sustainability: • Does simplification equal deregulation, or does it simply shift responsibility from mandatory reporting to market-driven ESG efforts? • Will companies that have invested heavily in sustainability reporting now face a competitive disadvantage against those no longer required to report? • How will international businesses navigate fragmented sustainability regulations, especially if other jurisdictions maintain stricter ESG disclosure laws? While the EU remains committed to its Green Deal, the Omnibus Proposal signals a shift in how sustainability regulations will be enforced—from strict legal obligations to a more voluntary, business-driven approach. What’s Next? The proposal now moves to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, where further changes may still be made. Businesses should monitor the discussions closely, as final regulations will shape the future of corporate sustainability compliance in Europe and beyond. In the meantime, companies should assess their long-term ESG strategy: Should they continue voluntary reporting to maintain transparency and investor confidence? How will supply chain due diligence evolve without regulatory enforcement? Will aligning with international sustainability frameworks (such as ISSB or GRI) become a better alternative to EU-specific regulations? As the Omnibus debate unfolds, the international business community needs to focus on why they started their sustainability journey.

< Back < Previous | Next > Marketing & Advertising European Commission Withdraws Green Claims Directive — ICC Welcomes Opportunity for Constructive Recalibration 30 Jun 2025 The European Commission has withdrawn the Green Claims Directive after concerns over burdens on SMEs, marking a key advocacy win for ICC and its members. ICC now invites businesses to help shape future sustainability marketing policies that are credible, practical, and innovation-friendly. After months of uncertainty, the European Commission has formally withdrawn the Green Claims Directive. ICC invites members to shape the next phase of environmental marketing policy. Brussels, June 2025 – In a significant development for sustainability regulation and business communication, the European Commission has announced the withdrawal of its proposal for a Green Claims Directive. The decision, shared during the Commission’s midday press briefing, comes amid growing concern over the administrative burden the legislation would have imposed—particularly on Europe’s 30 million micro-enterprises. The Directive, originally introduced in 2023, aimed to tackle greenwashing by requiring businesses to substantiate environmental claims—such as “climate neutral” or “100% recycled”—through detailed criteria and mandatory third-party verification. While widely supported in principle, the approach raised major concerns across the business community for its potential to hinder innovation, create disproportionate compliance costs, and undermine existing good practices. A milestone for business engagement ICC has consistently supported the goal of credible, science-based sustainability communication, while also advocating for a more balanced, proportionate approach. As ICC noted in its response to the proposal, mandatory ex-ante verification risked penalising responsible companies and disincentivising voluntary leadership, particularly among SMEs. Thanks to continued feedback and coordinated outreach from ICC members across Europe, these concerns were heard. Today’s withdrawal marks a milestone in collaborative advocacy—and opens the door for a more workable path forward. What comes next? While the Commission has withdrawn the Green Claims Directive, existing EU consumer protection legislation remains in place: · The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) already prohibits misleading environmental claims and will remain a key enforcement tool. · The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, adopted earlier this year, will also enter into force in 2026 with new requirements around environmental marketing. These frameworks continue to provide a baseline for action against greenwashing, and ICC will work to support their consistent and practical implementation. More importantly, this moment provides an opportunity to co-design better solutions. As the Commission considers future steps, ICC encourages a renewed focus on: Supporting self-regulatory mechanisms , such as the ICC Marketing Code and Environmental Claims Checklist Promoting clear, scalable guidance that builds trust without excessive red tape Ensuring that frameworks are workable for all business sizes , especially SMEs ICC’s call to members This is not just a regulatory win—it’s a call to action. ICC is inviting members to help shape the next phase of policy by sharing real-world examples, common challenges, and practical alternatives. Constructive engagement now can ensure the next iteration of EU policy supports credible sustainability claims—while enabling business innovation and competitiveness. Once again, ICC thanks its network for the active engagement that helped deliver this outcome. The work ahead is equally important—and we look forward to continuing the conversation with you. 📄 Read ICC’s response to the Green Claims Directive

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