Search Results

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Taxes Shaping the Future of Global Tax: ICC Commission Charts a Course Amid Rising Fragmentation 4 Apr 2025 At its March 2025 meeting, the ICC Taxation Commission tackled global tax challenges, including UN reforms, digital economy rules, and OECD compliance amid rising geopolitical tensions. The Commission stressed inclusive dialogue and business input to help shape a clear, practical international tax framework. UN-led tax reforms, digital economy protocols, and OECD challenges headline a pivotal Commission meeting. The ICC Taxation Commission’s March 2025 meeting convened at a critical moment for global tax policy. Against the backdrop of growing geopolitical instability and fragmentation in international trade, ICC members gathered to address urgent developments in global taxation frameworks, digital economy protocols, and regional policy shifts. Trade Turbulence and Strategic Advocacy Opening the session, Andrew Wilson (ICC Vice-Secretary General) and Valerie Picard (ICC Head of Trade) addressed a key concern: the erosion of multilateralism driven by unilateral trade measures, particularly from the U.S. While the core trade stance hasn’t dramatically changed, the implementation is now more aggressive and less internally contested. This “louder, more coordinated” approach risks hardening global divides and undermining established multilateral institutions. In response, the ICC is stepping up its advocacy efforts, producing foundational papers—such as on VAT—that provide clarity and are being actively used by member states in their policy dialogues. UN Tax Convention: Inclusive, But Complex Michael Braun (Germany UN Mission) shared an update on the UN process to establish a framework convention for international tax cooperation. Spurred by growing calls from developing nations, the convention aims to rebalance rule-making power and build a more inclusive and equitable tax framework. The process now moves into a drafting phase following the adoption of the Terms of Reference in 2024, which laid out three pillars: a framework convention, a protocol on digital services taxation, and another on dispute prevention. The structure includes three workstreams, co-led by representatives from the Global South. While the Terms of Reference do not formally embed stakeholder engagement, ICC is pushing for structured business input, emphasizing that private sector expertise is crucial to ensuring practical, implementable rules. The OECD Debate: Pillar Two and Compliance Burdens In parallel, the OECD’s Pillar Two implementation sparked intense debate. Business representatives flagged compliance costs, especially for low-risk jurisdictions, and questioned the added value of full model rules in such cases. ICC presented a proposal for permanent safe harbors based on country-level data and simplified reporting, aimed at lowering compliance costs while maintaining tax integrity. Although the idea gained some support, concerns about erosion of tax bases persist among certain jurisdictions. ICC called for urgent high-level government engagement to maintain momentum and promote a practical, stable system. Regional Insights and Diverging Trajectories Regional sessions showcased both alignment and divergence. In the Asia-Pacific, the Belt and Road Initiative tax platform highlighted progress in digitalization and capacity building. Meanwhile, the EU is focusing on simplification and competitiveness, with the European Commission reviewing directives for redundancy in light of Pillar Two’s global uptake. Africa, represented by Thulani Shongwe (ATAF), spotlighted VAT collection challenges and a growing push for regional cohesion on core tax policy positions, backed by the African Union. The U.S. position remains a wildcard. With the administration opposing some OECD rules and broader concerns about extraterritoriality, participants expressed concern over the stability of the current multilateral tax order. Beyond Structure: Substance in Focus As the UN tax convention process advances, the spotlight is shifting from structure to substance. Key issues include the scope of Article 12 on digital services, the potential for simplified allocation systems, and whether the dispute protocol will embrace binding arbitration or remain limited to prevention mechanisms. The ICC emphasized the need for clarity to avoid conflicting obligations and ensure smooth integration with existing treaties. Ongoing Projects and What’s Next The Commission’s working groups reported on ongoing initiatives including: • Foreign subsidy regulations • VAT treatment for cross-border telework • Sustainability-linked tax policies • The interaction between investment treaties and tax rules All underscored the same themes: simplicity, coherence, and coordination. Fragmented rules risk undermining both taxpayer certainty and government revenue collection. Looking ahead, ICC will play a key role in the UN’s Financing for Development Forum (FfD4) in Seville, where business engagement will address the impact of tax on development, investment, and sustainability. A new economic impact study on digital service taxation is also in the works, and ICC continues to push for inclusive dialogue as UN protocols are developed. “The global tax landscape is being redefined,” one participant noted, “and ICC must be both a stabilizer and a shaper of that future.”

< Back < Previous | Next > General Assembly Trading Blows or Building Bridges? Navigating Global Trade in a Multipolar World 20 May 2025 As global trade becomes increasingly politicised, polarised, and unpredictable, how should businesses respond? On 20 May, ICC Netherlands gathered leading voices from business, policy, and finance to explore the realities—and responsibilities—of trading in a multipolar world. What emerged was a clear message: navigating complexity isn’t optional, it’s strategic. On May 20, ICC Netherlands brought together members, partners, and experts for its 2025 General Assembly and a high-level discussion on the future of trade in an increasingly fragmented world. Hosted by Rabobank in Utrecht, the event gathered perspectives from leading voices across business, government, finance, and international institutions, reflecting the urgency, complexity, and strategic opportunities facing global trade today. Setting the Stage: From Strategic Priorities to Strategic Action The afternoon opened with the ICC Netherlands General Assembly, where Director Laure Jacquier presented the organisation's achievements in 2024 and outlined strategic priorities for the years ahead. Key themes included digitalisation, sustainability, dispute resolution, and business integrity. Importantly, the General Assembly also marked the formal welcome of three new board members: Shashank Jhawar (ING), Marhijn Visser (VNO-NCW), and Rogier Schellaars (Van Doorne). Their addition reflects ICC's commitment to broad-based expertise and diverse sectoral representation. Following the formal session, attention turned to the broader landscape of international trade through two expert panel discussions moderated by Jasper van Schaik, ICC Board member and an Agricultural Program Expert, with Rabobank Partnerships. The core question at the heart of the event: Are we trading blows in a fractured world—or still intend on building bridges? Panel 1: Global Trade in Transition The first panel, "Global Trade in Transition," offered a macroeconomic view of the shifts redefining trade. Otto Raspe, Chief Economist at Rabobank, opened the session by posing a critical question: “Are we resilient enough?” Drawing from 8 trade war scenarios, Raspe emphasised a fundamental shift from prioritising growth to ensuring risk resilience, particularly in the face of increasing protectionism and geopolitical tensions. Daan Vriens, CEO of Cefetra Group, illustrated how these dynamics are already affecting agri-trade. Using soy as a case study, he highlighted how sourcing decisions are being reshaped by geopolitics. “Every trade has its own dynamics—especially in agriculture,” he noted, urging companies to proactively reassess their supply chains, especially SMEs. Andrew Wilson, Deputy Secretary General for Policy at ICC Global, delivered a powerful reminder that many of the rules underpinning today’s global trade regime were written in the mid-20th century. “Most of the rules we still rely on were written in the 1950s,” he said, referring to the outdated nature of WTO regulations and the growing disconnect between markets and the real economy. Wilson warned of systemic risks and stressed the urgency of reforming multilateral frameworks, a key agenda item of ICC. Energy markets added another layer to the discussion. Coby van der Linde, Senior Fellow at CIEP, challenged prevailing optimism around energy transitions. “Europe thinks it’s already in 2050,” she remarked, cautioning against overreliance on LNG and the need for cost competitiveness in alternative energy sources. Dirk Klaassen of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs added a pragmatic policy view, noting that the Dutch and EU approach remains rooted in dialogue and negotiated solutions. “Let’s keep talking—that’s still our strength,” he concluded. Panel 2: Navigating Complexity: A Business View If the first panel focused on systemic shifts, the second panel—"Navigating Complexity"—zoomed in on the day-to-day realities facing businesses operating in this uncertain landscape. Rico Luman, Senior Economist at ING, dubbed 2024 “the year of uncertainty for supply chains,” referencing geopolitical flashpoints and a likely uptick in tariffs. He called on businesses to prepare for a prolonged period of disruption and to invest in resilience. Esther Berkelaar, Head of Trade & Commodity Finance at Rabobank, echoed this concern, describing the current moment as “a bit paralysed.” With fewer trades being recorded and shifting market dynamics, she stressed the importance of scenario planning and legal clarity in cross-border transactions. Rogier Schellaars, Partner at Van Doorne, offered a legal perspective on governance challenges. He warned that many boardrooms still lack a realistic view of today’s trade risks, saying, “Realism is not what I always see in the Dutch boardroom.” He stressed the importance of aligning contracts with new realities. Marhijn Visser of VNO-NCW concluded the session with a strategic policy lens. Representing over 90% of Dutch businesses, he called for stronger internal alignment between public affairs and executive leadership. His standout message: "Every company should be asking: how does geopolitics affect our business?", taking geopolitics into consideration in your strategy is good business while mayny corporate see this as a cost post. He even suggested appointing a "Chief Geopolitical Officer" to ensure this question is no longer overlooked. A Shared Sense of Urgency Across both panels, one theme resonated clearly: we are entering a new era of trade. One where adaptability, geopolitical awareness, and collaboration are no longer optional, but essential. Whether facing outdated regulatory frameworks or navigating supply chain disruption, companies and institutions must think ahead, act together, and communicate across borders. The event closed with informal networking, but the conversations are set to continue—at upcoming ICC Netherlands working groups, international forums, and future events aimed at turning insights into impact. As one participant aptly summarised: "The system may be strained, but it's not broken. There is still time to build the bridges we need." ICC Netherlands would like to thank Rabobank for hosting the event and all speakers, participants, and partners for contributing to an insightful afternoon of dialogue and action. Read more about ICC Netherlands here

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC Netherlands welcomes adoption of eBL legislation 1 Apr 2026 Electronic bills of lading now legally recognised under Dutch law, supporting faster and safer trade flows ICC Netherlands welcomes adoption of eBL legislation Electronic bills of lading now legally recognised under Dutch law, supporting faster and safer trade flows ICC Netherlands welcomes yesterday’s adoption of legislation recognizing the legal validity of electronic bills of lading (eBLs), marking a milestone toward the digitalization of international trade. The reform ensures that eBLs attain functional equivalence with conventional paper bills of lading under Dutch law, providing businesses with legal certainty in domestic and international freight transport. A bill of lading plays a central role in global trade, serving as a document of title, a contract of carriage, and a receipt for the goods. Historically, the physical transfer of paper bills among multiple parties has slowed transactions and increased exposure to errors, loss and fraud. The shift to eBLs has the potential to transform trade operations by overcoming the limitations of paper-based documentation. “With eBLs, documents can be transferred instantly, accelerating trade flows and reducing transaction times from days to hours,” says ICC Netherlands Director General Laure Jacquier. “At the same time, eBLs improve security by minimising the risks of fraud, duplication and loss. They also support sustainability by cutting paper use and energy consumption.” Until now, Dutch trade had largely centred on paper-based documentation, while several leading economies have already incorporated electronic transferable records into domestic law. By formally recognizing eBLs, the reform brings Dutch trade law closer to international digital trade standards, aligning with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR). ICC Netherlands has long advocated for the digitalization of trade and views today’s reform as a critical first step. While the legislation is limited in scope, addressing bills of lading only, further legal recognition will be needed to cover other transferable trade documents. Achieving this will also require interoperability across digital platforms and jurisdictions, alignment of standards, and active adoption among key stakeholders. Jacquier concludes: “ICC Netherlands will continue to work closely with government and industry to accelerate this transition toward secure, interoperable and fully digital trade that will strengthen the Netherlands’ position in the global economy.” About MLETR The UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR), adopted in 2017, is the leading international framework for enabling the legal use of electronic transferable documents in trade, such as electronic bills of lading. It establishes that electronic records can have the same legal effect as paper-based documents, based on the principles of functional equivalence, technology neutrality, and the use of exclusive control over a digital record as a substitute for physical possession. MLETR supports the development of secure, interoperable digital trade systems across jurisdictions. De adoptie van de UNCITRAL‘Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records’ in NL (6) .pdf Download PDF • 3.28MB EN- Executive summary - Electronic transferable records (1) .pdf Download PDF • 1.84MB

< Back < Previous | Next > WTO reform at a critical juncture: business, policymakers and institutions in dialogue Laure Jacquier 29 Jan 2026 Keeping the multilateral trading system alive Ahead of the WTO Ministerial Conference, ICC Netherlands and VNO-NCW convened a timely round table on 29 January with business, policymakers and international institutions. The discussion confirmed one clear message: the system is under pressure, but indispensable — and reform is the only viable path forward. WTO reform at a critical juncture: business, policymakers and institutions in dialogue The global trading system is under unprecedented pressure. Rising geopolitical tensions, increasing unilateral trade measures and growing fragmentation are challenging the foundations of the multilateral system. Yet, as highlighted during a round table hosted on 29 January , abandoning the system would come at a far greater cost than maintaining and reforming it. Read: The impact on developing economies of WTO dissolution Against the backdrop of the upcoming 14th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC14) in March, ICC Netherlands and VNO-NCW convened a closed-door dialogue bringing together Dutch businesses, policymakers and international institutions. The discussion formed part of ICC’s global initiative to revitalise the multilateral trading system ahead of MC14. A timely exchange ahead of MC14 The round table brought together representatives from Dutch companies active in technology, maritime, agrofood, legal, healthcare and banking, alongside key institutional voices: Andrew Wilson , Deputy Secretary General (Policy), ICC Global, on ICC’s global initiative to revitalise the trading system Mark Jacobs , Director International Trade Policy & Market Regulation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, on national policy priorities and the MC14 framework Audrey Goosen , Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the WTO, on perspectives from the Dutch Permanent Mission in Geneva Bernard Kuiten , Head of External Relations, World Trade Organization, on the latest developments within the WTO The exchange was moderated by Jasper van Schaik , board member of ICC Netherlands. Notably, the Dutch government’s MC14 Framework Instructions were published less than 30 minutes before the start of the round table , adding immediacy to the discussion. This allowed participants to reflect in real time on the Netherlands’ official positioning ahead of the Ministerial Conference and to exchange views on how these priorities translate into practice for businesses operating across global value chains. (Link to the MC14 Kaderinstructies) The system is under strain — but indispensable A key message emerged clearly from the discussion: the multilateral trading system is under strain, but it remains indispensable. For the Netherlands — one of the world’s most trade-dependent economies — an open, predictable and rules-based system is not optional. A weakened WTO would directly affect Dutch competitiveness, supply chains and long-term growth. Participants underlined that reform does not mean abandoning multilateralism. Rather, it means adapting the system to today’s economic and geopolitical realities while preserving its core principles. In the current context, keeping the system functioning already counts as success. Trade, geopolitics and fragmentation The discussion highlighted how trade policy is increasingly inseparable from geopolitics, security considerations and industrial policy. Export controls, subsidies and strategic dependencies now shape trade decisions in ways that go far beyond economics alone. While bilateral and plurilateral agreements may appear faster and easier to conclude, participants cautioned against the risks of fragmentation. A move away from common rules risks creating parallel trade regimes, leaving smaller and developing countries behind and undermining predictability for business. A rules-based multilateral framework remains essential for economic security. Reform challenges and open questions Participants acknowledged that WTO reform is necessary but politically difficult, particularly given consensus-based decision-making among 164 members. Discussions touched on possible avenues such as coalition-based approaches, plurilateral initiatives and standstill arrangements during reform phases. Key open questions remain: what does success look like? How far can reform go without losing legitimacy? And can the WTO adapt quickly enough in response to geopolitical realities? The role of business A recurring theme was the crucial role of business. Without private-sector engagement, political support for reform will weaken. Business has a responsibility to bring evidence, realism and real-world impact into policy debates, and to support reform efforts that preserve openness while addressing legitimate concerns. Dutch businesses clearly demonstrated that they are engaged and support the need to keep the multilateral trading system. A clear takeaway The takeaway from the round table was clear: keeping the multilateral trading system alive matters, and reforming it together is the only viable path forward . Inaction risks erosion by default — a scenario that would be particularly damaging for open economies and internationally operating businesses. Read ICC call to action: Revitalising the multilateral trading system: Call for action | ICC WBO Netherlands

< Back < Previous | Next > Marketing & Advertising ICC Global Marketing and Advertising Commission 5 May 2025 At the 2025 ICC meeting, key updates were shared on advancing ethical advertising practices, including new policies on responsible AI use, environmental claims, and marketing to children—emphasizing the importance of transparency, inclusivity, and public trust. ICC reaffirmed its commitment to global collaboration, working with partners like EASA, ISO, and ESOMAR to align standards and promote responsible business conduct in advertising and communication. Some key highlights David Bates, Vice Chair, Europe, Public & Government Affairs, Edelman presented an overview of the 2025 Trust Barometer , providing key insights into the evolving landscape for businesses and societal sentiment. Despite businesses being more trusted than government, media and NGOs, there is a call for them to address more topical issues. This reinforces the recent ICC Advertising and Marketing Communication Code updates, including Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI), ensuring it guides businesses in tackling these critical concerns responsibly and ethically. All institutions must collaborate to rebuild trust. There was an update on the revision on the revision process/ new policy papers , all derived from the ICC Code, from leads of each of the workstreams and dialogue with the members: New policy product on the responsible use of AI in advertising (Alice Himsworth / Alexander Montgomery). A policy paper on the responsible use of AI in advertising, highlighting its pivotal role in the industry. There is still time to get involved, give feedback and help shape these important guidelines. Key concerns: transparency, labelling, privacy, bias, creation & delivery of ads and copyright. Updates on the ICC Framework for Responsible Environmental Marketing Communications, including a checklist as a starting point for practitioners (Sheila Miller) Revisions to the ICC / European Society for Opinion and Market Research (ESOMAR) International Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics: the public is an important stakeholder (Anders Stenlund / Judith Passingham) Revisions to the ICC Framework for Responsible Alcohol Marketing Communications (Laura Brodie / Gabrielle Robitaille). A milestone bringing all the platforms together and publish transparency reports. Revisions to the ICC Framework for Responsible Food and Beverage Marketing Communications (Gabrielle Robitaille) Revision of the ICC Toolkit: Marketing and Advertising to Children along with a new policy paper related to responsible advertising/marketing to children and teens (Adam Ingle / Sheila Millar More general was stated that ICC is not a single topic association, but addresses broad current topics. Topics effecting everybody in the ecosystem every day. Having an informal dialogue about these topics helps to deal with them. ICC aims to contribute to trust in the marketplace, so the business community is trusted and can perform. Ludovic Basset, new Director at the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA), and Tudor Manda, Self-Regulation (SR) Development Manager, presented an overview of EASA’s network and efforts in promoting responsible advertising through Self-Regulation-Organizations (SROs) enforcement of ad standards inspired by the ICC Code. They also shared insights on how ICC and EASA can strengthen collaboration. Then the latest European and International regulatory developments related to marketing and advertising were briefly discussed. Finally, Noela Garcia, Head of Sustainability and Partnerships, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), provided an introduction to ISO and collaboration prospects. Opportunities for ICC: participate in international Standards development or other deliverables and create coherence /alignment on existing standards, participate in/co-create flagship programmes, e.g., climate and sustainability and capacity building initiatives. Facilitating collaboration between national chambers of commerce and national standards bodies to convey national trade interests in international standardization and jointly design and implement advocacy/promotional activities to advance shared vision and mission. International collaboration for responsible leadership: a shoutout to the international partners and stakeholders – EASA, as well as all national Self-Regulatory Organisations, ESOMAR, International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD), and ISO for their valuable contributions and collaboration. ICC remains committed to building trust and leading the way in ethical marketing and advertising through the ICC Advertising and Marketing Communications Code. This Code is now available in many languages, including Dutch →

< Back < Previous | Next > Intelligence-driven responses to geopolitical risk, espionage threats and cyber-attacks Tom Scott 6 Jan 2026 Geopolitical shocks, cyber-physical attacks and insider threats aren’t “emerging risks” anymore – they’re hitting companies now, and faster than leaders can update their plans. For our latest ICC Netherlands newsletter, we interviewed Tim Bosch (co-founder of the Birdwatcher Group) on why traditional scenario planning is collapsing, why every company is already a target, and why resilience can no longer be a project – it must embedded into your operating system. If your organisation isn’t preparing to pivot in days rather than quarters, it’s already behind Intelligence-driven responses to geopolitical risk, espionage threats and cyber-attacks An interview with Tim Bosch , CEO of the Birdwatcher Group After more than two decades with the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Tim Bosch co-founded the Birdwatcher Group, an intelligence-driven security firm supporting governments and companies in addressing geopolitical risk, espionage threats and cyber-physical vulnerabilities. We spoke with him about what keeps CEOs awake, how businesses should adapt to the ‘weaponised’ world of trade, and why resilience has become the new operating system for business. What keeps business leaders awake at night? Have these fears changed since a few years ago? Something has definitely changed. There are currently three dominant issues. The first is what we call the geopolitical whiplash. Sanctions, export restrictions, supply chain disruptions: it’s coming from all sides. Geopolitically, the world is on fire. The second is the cyber-physical convergence. Attacks start with IT, Information Technology, but end with the OT, Operational Technology that is at the heart of many systems such as factories, ports and networks. This is a very new model whereby the threat is substantially increased. A well-known example is the incident at the Bremanger dam in Norway in April this year; Russian hackers opened a flood gate that discharged 500 litres of water a second for four hours before the attack was detected. The third point is about talent and trust, in particular the insider threat that comes from within companies. This involves leaks of company secrets, or simply hostile states that are deliberately trying to access people inside the company. What has changed compared to five years ago is the sheer speed and volatility of events. In 2020 we had well-established scenario thinking. But in 2025, it’s more a question of positioning options in advance. In fact, I dare to say that ‘scenario thinking’ is almost no longer possible. Things are moving so fast that your scenario is almost no longer valid before you start. If the scenario thinking is no longer possible, can businesses anticipate shifts before they become crises? In the past, supply chains were busy lobbying tariffs. At the moment, however, where trade is being used as a weapon, you won’t out-lobby geopolitics; you can only out-prepare for it. So how do you do that? Here are a few pointers. 1. Map your exposure to risks every quarter. This includes markets, regimes, sanctions, export controls. 2. Identify what is strategically irreplaceable. Components, logistical routes, cloud regions, routing channels: you have to assume that at least part of your operating model will fail. 3. Build licensing muscle. Have dossiers pre-prepared for export-control or sanctions-related applications. Treat licensing as a continuous process. 4. Establish external intelligence loops. Look beyond newspaper headlines, create an intelligence loop of everything that happens in the outside world. This is an iterative process of structured monitoring of policy signals, data handling, regulatory calendars and draft rules that you can constantly act on. Cybersecurity: how big a threat is it? Are Dutch businesses well protected? Cybersecurity is now – after liquidity – the biggest operational risk category for companies. This has shifted away from just the prevention of incidents to ensure continuity under an attack. Everyone is under attack – all the time. With cybersecurity, there are also cross-border implications. This is very important for the cloud: where is your data? Which jurisdiction has the keys? Companies also have to look at extraterritorial requirements and inspections. Minimum-necessary data per jurisdiction is crucial; you shouldn’t replicate everything everywhere. And crisis interoperability: systems and people must be able to work together internationally during an incident. This requires cross-border practices and rehearsals – not only focusing on the national crisis – to keep on testing the international incident response with partners and insurers. Are Dutch businesses doing enough? Most are still catching up, but I don’t blame them – this is a new phenomenon. What is the one blind spot most organisations underestimate? There are many blind spots, I’m afraid. But the one I want to highlight is the insider and the near-insider risk. Think of contractors with excessive privileges, or the joint-venture partner system administrator. System admins in particular are an excellent insider threat because they have the ability to manipulate, to harm the company. There are ways to mitigate the risk: awareness programs, ‘least-privileged-by-design’, constant reviews of access rights, focused screening for sensitive roles, and continuous monitoring of security events and credentials. ICC works to keep trade open and predictable through the WTO, standard-setting and digitalisation. With declining trust in global institutions, is there still a role for ICC? I firmly believe in strong public-private cooperation. In this period of hybrid warfare, companies are on the front line. They may not wear uniforms, but they are under attack every day. The ICC certainly has a role, not only for the practical predictability, but by creating effective soft-law frameworks and depoliticization. The ICC can align sectors on baselines, like cyber due diligence for trade finance or supply chain integrity attestations. ICC is uniquely placed to align sectors globally: it keeps markets functioning while politics recalibrates. If you could give one piece of advice to business leaders in 2026, what would it be? Institutionalise the option value. Design your company so it can pivot in days and not in quarters – whether changing suppliers, cloud regions, banks or legal options. And remember: resilience is no longer a project. It is an operating system. Make somebody at the highest level responsible for not only risk but also the geopolitical thinking throughout your organisation. Looking back at the recent Dutch elections – and the upcoming coalition formation – does the Dutch political system give enough attention to the challenges facing businesses nowadays, specifically on these issues? Sadly, my answer would be no. I think it’s safe to say that there’s not a single political party that really goes into great depth on Ukraine, the hybrid attacks on Europe, supply chain risks, China’s ambitions as a world power. In general, my goal is to help companies with these dilemmas – and to be a constructive, realistic sparring partner in an unpredictable world.

< Back < Previous | Next > International Arbitration: from a neutral’s perspective Tom Scott 1 Dec 2025 Continuing our series of interviews with arbitration experts, we spoke with Marieke Witkamp, a retired Dutch commercial judge now based in Houston, where she serves full-time as an international arbitrator. [...] In this interview, she reflects on the moment she truly understood the power of arbitration, the advantages it offers over litigation, and how dispute resolution continues to evolve across different sectors. International Arbitration: from a neutral’s perspective Continuing our series of interviews with arbitration experts, we spoke with Marieke Witkamp , a retired Dutch commercial judge now based in Houston, where she serves full-time as an international arbitrator. With a career spanning roles as in-house counsel, arbitration attorney, and judge, and with licences in both the Netherlands and Texas, Marieke brings a valuable dual civil-law/common-law perspective to her work. She is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a member of ICC Netherlands. As she puts it: “Over the years I've had different roles. That helps you to see things from different perspectives.” In this interview, she reflects on the moment she truly understood the power of arbitration, the advantages it offers over litigation, and how dispute resolution continues to evolve across different sectors. When did you first realise that arbitration was such a powerful tool for dispute resolution? I started my career in the Dutch courts. I was trained among very qualified lawyers and senior judges, and I really believed that litigation was the natural path for resolving disputes. Arbitration only crossed my desk when there was a jurisdiction challenge because a contract included an arbitration clause. Things changed when I worked in Qatar and later in the United States. Confronting so many different court systems – each with its own language, procedural expectations and cultural habits – made me realise how complex cross-border litigation truly is. Watching foreign parties try to find local counsel, navigate local courts, translate everything, and learn unfamiliar procedures made a deep impression on me. Looking at the process of litigation from the client’s perspective, I realised: this is why you need arbitration. It was a long time in the making, but that experience made me a believer. Is arbitration typically between two parties, or can it involve more? You can absolutely have multiparty disputes. This can only complicate matters because arbitration always relies on an arbitration agreement, so you need all relevant parties bound by such an agreement. If you don’t have that, there are still ways to get the so-called non-signatory parties involved in arbitration, but that is less straight-forward than in a court proceeding with multiple parties. What matters is understanding the underlying agreements and ensuring the arbitration clause(s) actually cover(s) all the parties involved. Many people assume arbitration happens in one of the parties’ home countries. Is it common to select a neutral venue? Yes, and that’s one of arbitration’s strengths. An American and Dutch company can agree to arbitrate in France, the UK, Singapore – anywhere. In litigation you often end up in the court of the defendant, whether you like it or not, unless you agreed to the jurisdiction of a specific court. But in arbitration you can choose the forum, the procedural rules, the hearing venue and the law that applies. It’s all about party autonomy. What do think are the main advantages of arbitration over litigation? I often refer to five main advantages: Neutrality : in an international context, no party wants to appear before the other party’s national courts. Arbitration offers a neutral forum. The ability to choose your arbitrators : parties can appoint arbitrators with specific legal backgrounds or nationalities. In a US–Dutch dispute, for example, you often see one Dutch and one US arbitrator, balanced by a chair with experience in both civil and common law. Another aspect is that arbitrators do not have to be lawyers. It is not uncommon to appoint expert arbitrators in e.g. construction or maritime cases. That is something courts usually cannot offer. Confidentiality : arbitration protects sensitive business information. Finality : there is no appeal, which gives parties closure. Last but not least: the New York Convention 1958 ensures the global recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards. This Convention is signed by 172 countries and really is the foundation for international arbitration. How common is it to include non-lawyers on an arbitral tribunal? More common than people think: especially in technical sectors. In construction, maritime, or other ‘engineering-heavy’ disputes, you might have one, and sometimes even, more arbitrators with specialised knowledge. Also in general commercial disputes, parties might choose someone with for example financial expertise. The key is that arbitration gives you that option. Besides legal expertise, arbitration experience or specialist knowledge, how important is an arbitrator’s personality in guiding parties towards a resolution? Personality does matter. By the time parties reach litigation or arbitration, they have already tried and failed to resolve their dispute themselves. A good arbitrator is open to what parties need and listens carefully. What’s more, there’s room for creativity in guiding parties through the process, helping them see common ground, and managing the procedure so it remains constructive. If arbitration has so many advantages, why is litigation still more common in many places? It’s helpful to distinguish between domestic and international disputes. For domestic parties, litigation often makes perfect sense: the courts are local, the language is familiar, and the legal culture is known. For international parties, the situation changes. Neutrality, enforceability under the New York Convention, and procedural flexibility become crucial. Sectors also differ. Construction and maritime industries frequently choose arbitration because disputes require specific expertise. Maritime arbitration is often associated with London. Why is that? The maritime sector has its own traditions. Many maritime arbitrations are conducted under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Rules. London is globally regarded as the centre for maritime dispute resolution. Historically, when England ‘ruled the waves,’ much of the world’s shipping business ran through London brokers. Contracts were drafted there; expertise accumulated over generations. Even today, English law is often the applicable law in maritime arbitrations seated around the globe, because it provides predictable, well-developed case law. What’s interesting is how many maritime cases settle early. Simply initiating arbitration under LMAA Rules signals seriousness; that alone prompts many parties to negotiate. A large percentage never reach a final award. How does mediation fit into the picture? Is it used enough? I believe mediation is undervalued in business. It has enormous potential but is still not used as widely as it should be – especially compared to the United States, where nearly every dispute goes to mediation first. In mediation, parties work with a neutral facilitator who has no decision-making power. It is a collaborative and creative process. I’m convinced it should be used more. Maybe this is a silly question, but does arbitration take place in courtrooms? One of arbitration’s defining features is that hearings can take place anywhere but in a court room – hotel conference rooms, law firm offices, and even in community centres. It is more informal and more adaptable to the needs of the parties. As a result, the parties involved find it a less overwhelming process. Despite this informality, the process still follows key stages: submissions, document production, and then the hearing. What role does the arbitrator play in the process? In arbitration, the tribunal is involved from the very beginning. After appointment, we hold a case management conference to set procedural rules and, in ICC arbitrations, to discuss and finalise the Terms of Reference. This early conversation is essential; you get to see where parties are coming from. It helps clarify expectations and build a working relationship – not just within the tribunal but also with the parties. When issues arise later, it becomes much easier to organise a status conference and resolve them efficiently. For me, this early communication reflects the spirit of arbitration: clarity, collaboration, and moving the process forward in the best way possible.

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics Global Trade Uncertainty Rises: 42% of Firms Brace for Impact 2 May 2025 A recent ICC Pulse Survey reveals growing concern among global businesses following the U.S. administration’s 2 April 2025 announcement of sweeping new tariff measures.

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

< Back < Previous | Next > Sustainability New ICC Policy Brief Calls for Regulatory Reforms to Unlock Climate Finance in Emerging Markets 30 Jun 2025 ICC urges targeted reforms to global banking rules, especially Basel III, to unlock climate finance for emerging markets. The brief proposes near-term fixes and deeper changes to ease capital barriers without risking financial stability. Targeted adjustments to global banking rules could mobilize billions for climate investment without compromising financial stability. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released a new policy brief outlining how targeted reforms to the global banking regulatory framework could dramatically increase the flow of private capital to climate projects in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). Launched this week alongside the FfD4 conference in Seville, the brief—titled Enhancing Climate Finance in EMDEs through Prudential Regulatory Clarification and Reform—provides concrete recommendations to align prudential rules with climate and development goals. At the heart of the brief is a simple but urgent message: if we want to reach net zero globally, we must unlock more finance for the countries that need it most—and current banking rules are getting in the way. Why this matters Despite representing 25% of global GDP, EMDEs attract only 14% of international climate finance. According to the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, these economies need an additional $450–550 billion per year in external finance by 2030 to stay on track with global climate goals. However, ICC’s global business network reports that banks face major obstacles when trying to finance climate-aligned projects in EMDEs—primarily due to how the Basel III framework treats project finance, credit enhancements, and country risk. These technical rules significantly raise capital requirements for EMDE exposures, even when strong risk mitigants are in place. As a result, banks are either exiting these markets or passing on high risk premiums that cancel out the benefits of concessional finance. What ICC proposes The policy brief sets out a two-step reform agenda: Quick Wins: Technical Clarifications and Adjustments These include: Updating Basel guidance to better reflect how credit guarantees, political risk insurance, and blended finance structures actually work in practice. Recognizing partial guarantees and borrower-level protections (like power purchase agreements and FX hedging) when calculating capital relief. Automatically extending favorable risk treatment to all multilateral development banks (MDBs) with AA- credit ratings or higher. Longer-Term Structural Reforms These include: Revising how project finance is treated across its lifecycle, given evidence of strong performance and high recovery rates in EMDEs. Rethinking the use of country risk ceilings to better differentiate project-level risk from sovereign risk. Exploring a “climate supporting factor” for EMDE investments, similar to how SMEs and infrastructure receive adjusted risk weights in some jurisdictions. A call to action ICC is calling for a structured dialogue under the Baku to Belém Roadmap—bringing together financial regulators, development institutions, and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The aim: implement near-term fixes and build momentum toward broader alignment between prudential rules and climate goals. “Finance is the lifeblood of the climate transition,” said ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO. “If we want private capital to flow to the right places, the rules must work with—not against—climate ambition.” The full policy brief is available here: Download

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