Navigating Uncertainty, Driving Solutions
Geopolitical tensions, trade barriers, and regulatory uncertainty continue to shape the international business landscape. Tariffs are increasing, supply chains are under pressure, and new EU regulations are redefining sustainability expectations. In this evolving environment, businesses must remain agile and proactive.
At ICC, we see these challenges as a call to engage, not retreat. Whether through trade facilitation, arbitration, or sustainable trade finance, our mission is to help businesses navigate complexity and advocate for open markets. This was the key message of Philippe Varin, chair of the International Chamber of Commerce during his visit to the Netherlands last month.
Key Themes This Month:
Read the full interview by Eliot Wilson
“The new US administration will certainly introduce a lot of uncertainty in the global trading system. But we view this as part of a broader trend: in 2023, over 3,000 new barriers to trade were introduced by governments, five times more than just five years ago. This is driving a steady fragmentation of trade, and we are particularly alert to the risk of major disputes arising as a result of climate and industrial policy interventions. The trade tensions stoked by the EU’s carbon border adjustment are a good example of that.” To keep trade open and effective, we must be pragmatic. As Varin explains: “Finding ways to smooth these frictions, rather than allowing unilateral or retaliatory policies to shut off markets, is crucial. We have to make a positive case for open markets.”
Geopolitics & Trade Tensions: How will economic nationalism and tariffs impact global business? Read our interview with Bart Jan Koopman for insights into 2025 trade developments.
Sustainability & Compliance: The EU Omnibus Proposal is redefining ESG reporting. Should businesses scale back compliance efforts or strengthen their sustainability strategies?
The Future of Trade Rules: Despite regulatory uncertainty, progress is being made in trade digitalization. The long-overdue reform to recognize Digital Trade Documents in the Netherlands is finally moving forward.
Key Developments:
• Trade finance is evolving to support sustainable supply chains. This month, Standard Chartered became the first international bank to fully align with ICC Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance, setting a precedent for greater transparency, due diligence, and accountability. More financial institutions are expected to follow.
• Growing reliance on ICC dispute resolution – New 2024 figures show that businesses are turning to ICC arbitration and mediation more than ever, especially for B2G disputes. The 20th ICC International Commercial Mediation Competition also kicked off in Paris, highlighting the increasing role of mediation in resolving global business conflicts. Read our interview with Jeremy Lack on the evolving landscape of mediation.
• ICC remains committed to free trade – As the G20 Presidency moves to South Africa, ICC sees new opportunities for international cooperation. John Denton, ICC-WBO Secretary General, emphasizes: “As the first African nation to hold the G20 Presidency, South Africa has a unique opportunity to build coalitions and revitalize the multilateral trading system.”
Stay Engaged & Informed
“The ICC is engaged with businesses around the world to understand how we can react and adapt while staying true to our mission: promoting peace and prosperity through trade. The way we fulfil that mission may evolve, but our commitment remains the same.” — Philippe Varin
ICC Strategic Priorities
Geopolitics in 2025: “The world
order is changing from a ‘rules-based’ to a more ‘power-based’ setup”
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!
ADVANCING CLIMATE ACTION AND SUSTAINABILITY
The Omnibus Initiative: What it means for International Business
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.
NL Sustainability Commission Meeting
3 April | 15:00 - 17:00
• Effective ESG Communication in a Fragmented World
• The Role of Voluntary Carbon Markets in Financing Climate Action
Omnibus: What you need to know
CSRD Reporting Limited to Larger Firms
Only companies with 1,000+ employees & €450M turnover need to report (85% out of scope)
Sector-Specific ESG Standards Scrapped
Industry-based ESG reporting rules may be permanently removed
Due Diligence Limited
Companies only need to assess direct suppliers (Tier 1), not the full supply chain
Main changes
No More Civil Liability
Firms won’t face legal consequences for failing to meet sustainability obligations
EU Taxonomy Reporting May Become Voluntary
Less mandatory alignment, more business discretion
Delays Across the Board
Sustainability reporting deadlines pushed back by up to two years
What This Means for Businesses
Challenges
• Reputational risks for companies scaling back ESG commitments.
• More uncertainty as regulations keep shifting: Businesses must stay Agile.
What’s next?
Opportunities
• Less red tape & compliance costs for firms no longer in scope.
• More flexibility to align with voluntary ESG standards instead of strict EU rules.
• The European Parliament and Council will now debate the proposal, further changes possible!
• Market-driven ESG strategies will matter more than ever.
The Next Step in Trade Digitalisation: Why The Netherlands Must Go Beyond the Electronic Bill of Lading
After three years of preparation, the Dutch Parliament is set to deliberate on a bill introducing electronic bills of lading (eBLs) this month. This legislative move aims to modernize trade documentation, enhancing efficiency and security within the logistics sector. While this is a crucial step forward, it is only one piece of the puzzle in achieving full trade digitalization. To maintain momentum, the Netherlands must now focus on a broader legal transformation, particularly the full implementation of the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR).
UN’s Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records
MLETR enables the legal use of digital trade documents and is built on three core principles:
Non-discrimination
Digital records must have the same legal status as paper documents
What This Means for Businesses
Technology neutrality
No specific technology or platform should be required
Functional equivalence
Electronic documents must serve the same purpose as paper ones
The adoption of eBLs allows companies to transition from traditional paper-based bills of lading to digital formats. This shift is expected to:
• Expedite transactions by eliminating paper- based delays.
• Reduce administrative burdens and costs.
• Minimize fraud risks through secure digital tracking.
• Improve operational efficiency by integrating digital trade documents into IT systems.
However, while beneficial, this reform alone does not fully enable the digitalization of trade. For businesses to truly benefit from a paperless system, other critical transferable records— such as promissory notes and trade finance instruments— must also be legally recognized in electronic form.
Why This Is Not Enough for Trade Digitalization
Although the introduction of eBLs marks significant progress, it addresses only one type of transferable document. Comprehensive digital transformation necessitates a legal framework that recognizes and facilitates the use of all electronic transferable records, ensuring their enforceability and interoperability across international markets. Without this broader framework, businesses will still face inefficiencies and legal uncertainties when using digital trade documents beyond eBLs.
36 Key Trade Documents enable physical and financial flows in Supply Chain
Phytosanitary
The Importance of Fully Implementing MLETR
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) provides a global framework for the recognition and use of all electronic transferable documents. By fully adopting the MLETR, the Netherlands can:
• Establish legal certainty for all forms of electronic trade documents.
• Reduce reliance on paper-based processes across supply chains.
• Improve cross-border trade efficiency, ensuring alignment with international partners.
• Strengthen the competitiveness of Dutch enterprises by reducing trade friction.
• Reduce corruption risks by minimizing manual handling and document forgery opportunities.
• Enhance sustainability by cutting down on paper usage and inefficient transport of physical documents.
• Improve data security and transparency, ensuring real-time traceability of trade documents.
The Role of ICC and DSI in Driving Trade Digitalization
ICC actively advocates for harmonized international trade laws and facilitates dialogue between businesses and policymakers to accelerate digital adoption.
The Digital Standards Initiative (DSI), an initiative under ICC, focuses on developing digital trade standards that enhance interoperability between different stakeholders in global trade. By working alongside governments and industry leaders, ICC and DSI are instrumental in creating a regulatory environment that enables full- scale adoption of electronic transferable records, including electronic bills of lading, digital promissory notes, and digital trade finance instruments. By aligning national regulations with international standards, Dutch businesses can remain competitive and seamlessly integrate into global trade ecosystems. Why do we need standards?
The world with ISO 668
The world without ISO 668
Urgent Next Steps for the Netherlands
To capitalize on the momentum generated by the eBL initiative, the following actions should be prioritized:
1. Full Implementation of MLETR – Ensure all electronic trade documents are legally recognized, not just eBLs.
2. Update Existing Legislation – Revise outdated laws that still require paper-based documentation.
3. Invest in Digital Infrastructure – Secure and standardized platforms for digital trade document processing.
4. Educate Businesses – Provide training and support for companies transitioning to electronic trade.
Already aligned
In progress
The introduction of eBLs is a positive but incomplete step toward full trade digitalization. If the Netherlands wants to lead in global trade efficiency, it must broaden its regulatory reforms to encompass all transferable records. By implementing the MLETR and updating national laws, businesses can fully embrace a paperless, efficient, and secure trading environment, ensuring that the Dutch economy remains competitive in an increasingly digital world. Stay updated and engage in the conversation! Join our MLETR implementation working group.
PROMOTING ACCESS TO JUSTICE, INTEGRITY, AND RULE OF LAW
New 2024 Preliminary Figures on Dispute Resolution Released
Caseload
831 cases filed under the ICC Arbitration Rules
152 new cases were administered under the Expedited Procedure Provisions (‘EPP’).
Parties
2,392 parties participated in ICC arbitrations in 2024 Parties originated from 136 jurisdictions
A total of 45 states and 143 state-owned entities were involved, accounting for 19% of new cases.
Place of arbitration
ICC arbitral tribunals were seated in 107 cities across 62 countries or independent territories on all continents
Amounts in dispute
From just below US $10,000 to US $53 billion
With a total of US $354 billion, the aggregate amount in dispute for pending cases sets an all-time record.
“The 2024 statistics underscore the ICC Court’s role as the leading arbitral institution. With so many parties from jurisdictions around the world and a record value of pending cases, it is clear that arbitration remains a vital tool for resolving domestic and cross-border disputes. As we move forward, we continue to prioritise accessibility, efficiency and innovation, ensuring that ICC remains a trusted and effective solution for businesses and States worldwide”.
Claudia
Salomon, President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration
ICC Model Contract on Commissioning & After-sales Services
Provides a structured framework to ensure that suppliers and the companies providing services are on the same page on key after-sale commitments.
By detailing the responsibilities for both commissioning (e.g. installation) and ongoing after-sales support (e.g. maintenance), this contract helps maintain product functionality and quality and, therefore, boost customer satisfaction.
The Model Contract ensures, but is not limited to:
• Confidentiality
• Obligations of the Client and the Contractor Quality Assurance
• Delay Damages
• Performance test and certificate of acceptance Warranty
• Liability
• Force Majeure
• Dispute Resolution
Benefits:
• Standardised framework Clear expectations Compliance
• Risk management
• Quality assurance
• Customer satisfaction
• Effective dispute resolution
Explore how the ICC Model Contract can support your business.
The role of mediation in dispute resolution
Wanting to learn more about the role of mediation in dispute resolution, we spoke to dispute resolution expert Jeremy Lack. We quickly discovered that this was a subject that was as complex as it was interesting. That’s why we decided to divide our interview over two editions of the newsletter. You can read part one here . And below is part two, which looks closer at how the three main aspects of mediation – “there’s a social component, an emotional, and a rational component,” says Jeremy – relate to issues such as confidentiality, trust building, and the psychological tools and barriers to mediation.
Let’s continue by talking about confidentiality in mediation; how should that be handled?
It is important to understand the level of confidentiality required by the parties in each case, as this can vary depending on the nature of the dispute and the individuals involved. In general, there are two levels of confidentiality in mediation to consider. There’s confidentiality vis-à-vis the outside world, which relates to the existence of the dispute, the existence of the process itself and what was said during the process. The principle is that whatever happens in mediation should not be admissible in any other proceedings. And then there’s the confidentiality of what happens within the mediation itself to ensure what is disclosed by one participant in a private session is not repeated to another participant without prior consent.
This can include questions relating to the need for confidentiality as between those who attend the mediation and those who do not, even if they are involved. As for mediators themselves, depending on which organisation they are affiliated to or the country they may be regulated by, confidentiality may vary, it being a professional obligation in most countries, but not everywhere. There can also be confusion in some high-profile cases between the desire for transparency regarding the final outcome, and the need for the confidentiality of the negotiations that led to that outcome. By belonging to the International Mediation Institute, for example, a mediator is automatically bound by a code of conduct that automatically entails strict confidentiality worldwide.
Besides professional affiliations, in your opinion, what character traits does a good mediator possess?
Inquisitiveness, curiosity and the ability to ask open-ended questions are important attributes for a good mediator, along with the ability to leave your ego at the door and truly listen with an open mind. There is also a social component: one of the most difficult things can be getting meaningful conversations going between people who haven’t spoken much or who greatly distrust or are angry with one-another, to help them get through the process together. This is particularly important if the disputants may need to continue working together in the future, or if they work in a close-knit ecosystem where they are likely to meet again. A mediator must also know when to follow and when to lead. A good mediator is analogous to a good bus driver: they need to make
sure they know where the travellers are headed, that all the passengers are on board, and that everyone reaches their intended destination.
And what methods do you use to create an environment of trust and collaboration?
In a mediation, you want to come with open questions and have all of the participants feel equally seen and heard. You want to find out as much as you can about the needs, interests, concerns, and motivations of everybody involved. This is because, the more you understand their underlying goals, beyond the positions they may have taken, the more room there is for a solution. Exchanging information on such subjective factors often helps promote a sense of trust and collaboration. There’s an arsenal of tools you can use; the more you know when and how to use all the tools, the better off you are, adjusting to whatever is needed, which calls for flexibility.
Is mediation almost a psychological exercise?
Yes. I am not a psychologist, but for me, there are three different aspects to mediation that could be described as psychological. There’s a social component, an emotional component, and a rational component. The mediator has to build on all three of these aspects, which can require different psychological approaches. Mediation is not a form of therapy, however. We don’t try to change people or their behaviour. We try and help focus their attentions in situations of conflict on what truly matters now, what their alternatives are, and what options are available and most likely to better resolve the conflict more holistically, keeping an eye on the future.
Is mediation suited to everyone? Are there any psychological barriers to overcome?
It is rare that mediation is ill-suited to a dispute. It is an excellent complement to litigation and arbitration in almost all cases. There are all sorts of psychological barriers to mediation, however. First, people tend to think they are good negotiators, and if they could not reach a settlement, a mediator is unlikely to add any value. The statistics, however, are that over 70% of mediations (which almost always involve failed past negotiations) settle. Another of these is the fear of looking weak, the concern that: “If I say I want to mediate, it looks like I want to settle”. There can also be the belief that the other party will act in bad faith; or that mediation simply entails replacing one already-breached agreement with another. Mediated settlement agreements are rarely not complied with, however, and there is growing interest in being able to have them recognised and enforced internationally under the Singapore Convention or under the New York Convention. There may also be a general feeling of distrust of the mediation process from lawyers and judges who are not used to it, and a preference for more traditional procedures, but the reality is that most lawyers and judges agree that traditional access to justice on its own tends to take too long, be too expensive or destructive.
Where does conciliation fit into the dispute resolution mix? How does it differ from mediation?
Conciliation and mediation both involve negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party, yet they differ significantly in role, structure, impact, and focus. They are ‘first cousins’ rather than ‘siblings’, each suited to distinct contexts and objectives.
Conciliation is typically a structured, evaluative process, often mandated by courts, particularly in civil-law jurisdictions, aimed primarily at financial settlements without ongoing relationships. The conciliator assesses legal merits, reality- tests positions, and frequently proposes settlements. This formal structure tends to activate competitive dynamics (‘out-of- group’ heuristics), prompting parties to position themselves strategically, anticipating and trying to influence the conciliator’s recommendations.
Conciliation usually yields lower settlement rates (50–60% in court-mandated settings). In contrast, mediation is facilitative, flexible, and less formal, emphasising dialogue and self-determination. Mediators typically refrain from proposing settlements, instead activating ‘in-group’ heuristics that encourage empathy, collaborative behaviour, and greater mutual understanding. Mediation effectively addresses emotional and relational elements, making it ideal for commercial, family, or complex cross-border disputes where ongoing relationships matter, often achieving higher settlement rates (70–90%). In summary, conciliation assesses positions and is mainly appropriate for resolving purely financial disputes without future relationship considerations, while mediation fosters collaboration, empathy, and durable agreements, particularly when relationships and subjective interests are important. When combined using two separate ADR neutrals, they provide almost 100% settlement rates. We understand that you have participated in research into the neuroscience of mediation. Can you tell us more about that?
I am fortunate to have collaborated with a group of neuroscientists at the University of Geneva’s Centre for Interdisciplinary Affective Sciences (CISA) to help to them design and implement experiments related to neuroscience and mediation. Although the neuroscience of mediation is very much in its early days, the more we look at the human brain, we are discovering a whole new understanding of human behaviour, in particular social, emotional and rational heuristics, particularly in the context of conflict, negotiation and mediation. As an example: the results of experiments where couples with recurring conflicts were asked to negotiate with each other or with a mediator present showed measurable differences in social and brain behaviour. This demonstrated that mediation, compared to negotiation, leads to higher satisfaction rates, settlement rates, and a greater sense of inclusion.
How can findings from neuroscience help mediators and the mediation process?
This increased understanding definitely has the potential to change the dynamics of mediation. I believe that as we learn more from neuroscience, mediators should be made aware of the concepts of social, emotional and cognitive plasticity, to better understand and help parties to understand and manage their emotions, social behaviour and cognitive biases in situations of conflict. For mediators working today, understanding these systems and techniques may facilitate more skilful interventions, allowing what seemed impossible before to become possible now.
NL Arbitration & ADR Commission Meeting
27 March | 15:00 - 17:00 | Amsterdam
• Geopolitical tensions, Trade & Dispute resolution - with Alex Krijger
• Update on ICC NL agenda on Arbitration & ADR
• Preparation Global meeting in Paris 8th of April
TACKLING TRADE BARRIERS
Recent Developments in the World of Tax
Advocating for Business in Global Tax Policy
The International Chamber of Commerce is at the forefront of global tax discussions, ensuring that businesses have a strong voice in shaping fair and effective tax policies. From VAT regulations to the development of a United Nations (UN) tax framework, ICC works to create a tax environment that fosters trade, investment, and economic growth.
VAT & Tariffs
The recent policy brief issued by the ICC clarifies the distinctions between VAT and import tariffs, emphasizing VAT’s positive role in global trade. This comes in response to concerns raised by the U.S. in the ‘Fair and Reciprocal Plan’ about VAT potentially discriminating against American businesses.
In the VAT system, businesses act as intermediaries that collect and remit the tax at each stage of the supply chain, but the final cost is absorbed by the end consumer. This structure ensures that VAT is effectively a consumption tax, with each participant in the supply chain reclaiming the VAT on their inputs so that the tax burden accumulates only at the final point of sale.
As a result, VAT, is inherently neutral and non-discriminatory toward foreign businesses, reinforcing its role as a fair and efficient mechanism in international trade.
Recognising these benefits, the ICC has been at the forefront of these discussions, advocating for balanced VAT policies that help eliminate unnecessary trade obstacles. More information on the role of VAT in international trade can be found here.
TARIFF VAT
1. Applied to imported goods
2. Cost is absorbed by businesses or passed on to customers
1. Applied to both domestic & imported goods and services
2. Final consumer bears the cost
3. Collected at the border 3. Collected throughout the supply chain
4. Makes imports more expensive
Neutral impact on trade
The UN Tax Framework Convention: what lies ahead? 7 March | 14:00 - 15:30 | Online Webinar
The UN Tax Convention: ICC Representing Business Interests
In 2024, the United Nations General Assembly established an intergovernmental negotiating committee to draft an UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. This process, running from 2025 to 2027, aims to create a clear and fair global tax framework that improves cooperation between countries.
On 16 August 2024, the UN Ad Hoc Committee approved the Terms of Reference for the convention, marking a significant milestone in the process of developing new cross-border taxation rules. This approval sets the stage for future negotiations, shaping policies that will impact businesses globally.
ICC has been actively involved in these discussions to ensure that the convention:
• Promotes tax certainty and aligns with existing international frameworks.
• Encourages investment, job creation, and sustainable economic growth.
• Includes meaningful engagement with businesses throughout the negotiation process.
Key Concerns and ICC’s Advocacy Efforts
During the negotiations, ICC Global Policy Lead on Taxation, Luisa Scarcella, welcomed the inclusion of stakeholder participation in the drafting process but expressed concerns over the absence of explicit taxpayer safeguards in the final text. Additionally, the ICC emphasized the necessity for broad international coordination to ensure consistency with existing frameworks. Concerns were also raised about the ambitious timeline for negotiating the taxation of crossborder services, particularly regarding its potential economic impact on developing countries.
ICC’s Commitment to Business-Friendly Tax Policies
The ICC remains committed to working closely with policymakers to ensure balanced and effective tax policies that support global trade and investment. By actively participating in UN negotiations and advocating for business-friendly tax frameworks, ICC is shaping a more predictable and fair international tax system.
Stay informed about ICC’s tax initiatives and how we’re working to protect business interests worldwide.
Timeline 2025
The following is a timeline of the ICC’s Global Tax Commission for the remainder of 2025, with all dates subject to final confirmation and potential adjustments.
24-27 March NYC | 30th Session UN Tax Committee of Experts
28 March NYC | ECOSOC Tax Special Meeting
21-26 April Washington DC | IMF/WB Spring Meetings
28-29 April NYC | FfD Forum
30April - 1 May NYC/Online | 4th Preparatory Committee Session FfD4 May NYC | Possible 1st substantive session UN Tax Convention
30 June - 3 July Seville, Spain | FfD4 Conference
Integrity & Culture: Understanding How Culture Shapes Ethical Behaviour
Inspired by Lee Cronk’s research on culture & behaviour
Culture is often cited as a driving force behind human behaviour, influencing everything from social norms to business ethics. However, as anthropologist Lee Cronk points out, “Although behavioural scientists often use culture as an explanation of behaviour, we have little understanding of why culture sometimes powerfully shapes behaviour and at other times seems to have no effect on it.” This raises an important question in the realm of integrity: how does culture influence ethical behaviour, and why do individuals sometimes act against cultural norms?
Culture as a Social Coordination Tool
Cronk’s research suggests that culture plays a significant role in shaping behaviour through social coordination conventions. These conventions create shared expectations and provide individuals with a framework for decision-making. Ethical norms, which form the foundation of integrity, can be seen as a type of social coordination mechanism. For example, widely accepted ethical principles—such as honesty in business transactions—help facilitate trust and cooperation within societies.
A critical insight from Cronk’s work is that people are more likely to conform to cultural norms when those norms provide a clear structure for coordination. Ethical standards function similarly, establishing a shared understanding of acceptable behaviour. However, when ethical norms are ambiguous or in conflict with other cultural influences (such as economic pressures), individuals may deviate from them. As Cronk states, “people may claim that they value a certain trait or behaviour but fail to act accordingly when other factors, such as economic incentives or social pressures, come into play.”
When Culture and Behaviour Diverge
One of Cronk’s key observations is that people do not always follow cultural norms, especially when those norms are not tied to social coordination. He provides an example from the Maasai culture, where traditional gender preferences expressed by parents did not align with their actual behaviour. Maasai parents often state a preference for sons over daughters due to traditional societal values that emphasize the role of men as providers and warriors. However, when researchers observed their real-life actions, they found that parents often invested just as much—if not more—into their daughters’ well-being and education.
Cronk explains this discrepancy by highlighting the difference between stated cultural values and actual decision-making behaviours. While Maasai parents verbally uphold traditional gender norms, their practical decisions are guided by evolving social and economic realities, such as the increasing importance of education for all children. This illustrates a broader issue in ethics: individuals and organizations may publicly support ethical norms but act differently when competing incentives come into play.
In corporate settings, this explains why some organizations publicly endorse ethical standards yet engage in questionable business practices. The mere presence of an integrity policy does not guarantee ethical behaviour. Instead, ethical norms must be integrated into an organization’s coordination mechanisms, ensuring they guide everyday decision-making.
Partner meeting: A culture of Integrity
6 March | 15:00 - 17:00 | Den Haag
Integrity as a Cultural Construct
From a cultural perspective, integrity is not just about individual moral choices—it is about shared beliefs and practices that shape behaviour. Ethical cultures within organizations are most effective when they function as social coordination conventions. For example, when companies make ethical behaviour a fundamental part of their corporate culture—embedded in training, performance evaluations, and leadership expectations—employees are more likely to follow ethical guidelines.
Conversely, when ethical policies are seen as mere formalities without meaningful reinforcement, they are likely to be ignored or overridden by other influences, such as financial incentives or peer pressure. This aligns with Cronk’s argument that culture’s influence on behaviour is strongest when it provides clear guidance on how to act in specific situations. “Cultural rules that are clearly tied to tangible benefits are more likely to be followed than those that exist primarily as abstract ideals,” he explains.
Conclusion
Lessons for Businesses and Organizations
Cronk’s insights offer valuable lessons for organizations aiming to foster a culture of integrity:
• Make Ethical Norms Actionable: Ethical guidelines should not be abstract ideals but practical rules integrated into daily business operations.
• Ensure Common Knowledge: Ethical standards must be widely known and understood within an organization. Transparency and communication are essential in reinforcing these norms.
• Align Incentives with Integrity: When employees perceive ethical behaviour as a requirement for success, rather than an optional guideline, they are more likely to adhere to ethical standards.
• Create Accountability Mechanisms: Social coordination relies on mutual expectations. Establishing clear accountability structures ensures that ethical breaches are addressed effectively.
Culture is a powerful force in shaping behaviour, but its influence depends on how norms are embedded in social structures. Ethical behaviour thrives when integrity is not just an individual choice but a collective expectation reinforced through cultural coordination. As organizations and societies continue to navigate ethical challenges, understanding the relationship between culture and behaviour is crucial for fostering a sustainable and integrity-driven future.
AU - Cronk, Lee
T1 - Culture’s Influence on Behaviour: Steps Toward a Theory
JO - Evolutionary Behavioural Sciences
Culture’s Influence on Behaviour: Steps Toward a Theory
Bezuidenhoutseweg 12 2594AV, The Hague, The Netherlands
www.iccwbo.nl
info@icc.nl