BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//VNC | Vereniging Nederland China - ECPv6.18.0//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-WR-CALNAME:VNC | Vereniging Nederland China X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/ X-WR-CALDESC:Events for VNC | Vereniging Nederland China REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H X-Robots-Tag:noindex X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Amsterdam BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:20230326T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:20231029T010000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:20240331T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:20241027T010000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:20250330T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:20251026T010000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:20260329T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:20261025T010000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250510T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250510T130000 DTSTAMP:20250506T130713Z CREATED:20250312T130500Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250506T130713Z UID:10000065-1746874800-1746882000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:General Members Meeting VNC DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/algemene-ledenvergadering-vnc/ LOCATION:VNC kantoor\, Burgemeester van Karnebeeklaan 6\, Den Haag\, 2585BB CATEGORIES:VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/VNC_NL-tekst_900x455px.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250324T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250324T190000 DTSTAMP:20250313T085840Z CREATED:20250221T121412Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250313T085840Z UID:10000047-1742835600-1742842800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:China Café - China’s ambitions in the AI domain DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/24-maart-china-cafe-over-chinas-ambities-op-het-gebied-van-ai/ LOCATION:De Utrechter Stadsbrasserie en Bar\, Vredenburg 40\, Utrecht\, 3511 BD CATEGORIES:China Cafe calendar,Economie en zakelijk ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/foto-china-cafe.jpeg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250303T193000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250303T203000 DTSTAMP:20250413T111027Z CREATED:20250218T154433Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250413T111027Z UID:10000063-1741030200-1741033800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Informatie bijeenkomst -Tafeltenniskamp te Shanghai 26 juli t/m 9 augustus 2025 DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/informatie-bijeenkomst-tafeltenniskamp-te-shanghai-26-juli-t-m-9-augustus-2025/ LOCATION:Tafeltennisvereniging Tempo-Team\, President Kennedylaan 5\, Amsterdam CATEGORIES:Art and culture ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/22_0101_CTTCShanghaitrainingssessieyoutube.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250204T193000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250204T210000 DTSTAMP:20241204T154841Z CREATED:20241009T215338Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241204T154841Z UID:10000037-1738697400-1738702800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Feb. 4\, 2025 - Bettine Vriesekoop at the University of Twente DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/feb-4-2025-bettine-vriesekoop-at-the-university-of-twente/ CATEGORIES:Education and science ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jubileumartikel-interview-met-Bettine-Vriesekoop.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250109T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250109T150000 DTSTAMP:20241219T180903Z CREATED:20241203T130909Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241219T180903Z UID:10000036-1736431200-1736434800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Visit the 'Wu Zetian' exhibition with VNC DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/visit-the-wu-zetian-exhibition-with-vnc/ LOCATION:Prinsessehof\, Grote Kerkstraat 9\, Leeuwarden\, 8911 DZ CATEGORIES:Art and culture ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Wu-Zetian-hires-final-B20086-12-AC-1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20241215T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20241215T170000 DTSTAMP:20241219T173840Z CREATED:20241109T110729Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241219T173840Z UID:10000035-1734271200-1734282000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Mahjong Meet-Up DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/mahjong-meet-up/ LOCATION:Zijp 25\, Zijpendaalseweg 25\, Arnhem\, Zijpendaalseweg 25\, arnhem\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Art and culture ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/webp:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Mahjong-Tournament-2100x920-1.webp END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20241212T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20241212T150000 DTSTAMP:20241112T143306Z CREATED:20241112T143306Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241112T143306Z UID:10000034-1734012000-1734015600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Demons and Dragons exhibition DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/demons-and-dragons-exhibition/ LOCATION:Groninger Museum\, Museumeiland 1\, Groningen\, Groningen\, 9711 ME\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Art and culture ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image002.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20241209T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20241209T190000 DTSTAMP:20241120T154521Z CREATED:20241120T154521Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241120T154521Z UID:10000033-1733763600-1733770800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:China Cafe - China Webshops update DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/china-cafe-china-webshops-update/ LOCATION:De Utrechter Stadsbrasserie en Bar\, Vredenburg 40\, Utrecht\, 3511 BD CATEGORIES:Art and culture,China Cafe calendar ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/China-Cafe-9-december-evenemet.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20241201T120000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250131T170000 DTSTAMP:20241120T125556Z CREATED:20241120T125556Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241120T125556Z UID:10000031-1733054400-1738342800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:River of time - Ma Hui DESCRIPTION:What does ‘corporate responsibility’ actually mean when a European and a Chinese company do business with each other? The regulations on both sides appear to have a surprising number of similarities. But behind similar rules there are sometimes very different interpretations. During the last China Café\, Vera Moll and Congrui Qiao discussed this with each other and with the audience. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n On September 21\, 2026\, VNC in Utrecht\, at the new location “De Apotheek”\, organized a China Café about corporate responsibility in China and Europe. The guests were Vera Moll\, partner at KPMG NL’s Sustainability Reporting & Assurance Group\, and Congrui Qiao\, legal researcher and policy advisor specializing in sustainable law and development. The conversation was led by VNC board member Lianne Baaij. The evening started with a seemingly simple question: when we talk about responsible business in Europe and China\, are we actually talking about the same thing? Qiao’s surprising answer was: to a large extent\, yes. According to her research\, there has been significant convergence between European and Chinese regulations since 2019. When it comes to the social impact of companies – for example\, on workers and communities in the supply chain – more than 80 percent of the requirements surveyed are equal or similar\, she says. The essential difference is therefore not always in the rules themselves\, but in the underlying idea\, the culturally determined interpretation of the rules. From limiting risk to social contributionIn Europe\, corporate responsibility is strongly approached from the perspective of the possible negative consequences of business activities. Companies must avoid causing damage to people\, labour rights or the environment. European regulations on due diligence clearly fit in with that idea. In China\, according to Qiao\, there is traditionally more emphasis on the positive social role that companies can play. Companies are not only economic actors\, but can also contribute to social development\, infrastructure\, poverty reduction and the well-being of workers. That difference has deep historical roots. Qiao pointed to the Chinese danwei system from the time of the planned economy. At the time\, the employer not only offered employees work\, but often also housing\, health care\, education for children and other facilities. Although China is now a market economy\, part of that social expectation still has an effect. This can lead to situations that seem remarkable from a Dutch perspective. For example\, some Chinese employers organize activities to connect single workers in their search for a partner. In China\, this can be presented as part of good employment practices. Dutch reactions that Moll heard during an earlier meeting were very different: why would my employer want to know if I am single at all? The example made it clear how quickly we judge a practice from our own cultural norms. When good employment practices become a European red flagAnother example is collective sleeping and living facilities for employees. For many Chinese employees\, employer-offered housing can be an attractive employment condition. At the same time\, elements that are customary in China – such as camera surveillance or organised transport between living space and workplace – can raise questions about privacy\, freedom of movement and working conditions for a European customer. A practice can therefore be seen as employee well-being in one context and as a potential risk in another. It is therefore insufficient to simply label a practice as ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ without understanding the underlying context. This does not mean\, however\, that local customs are above the law. Qiao emphasized that ultimately the principle of territoriality applies: a company that operates in the European Union must comply with European regulations. The challenge is mainly to understand how companies can actually integrate those standards into their organization. The danger of the ‘student mindset’A particularly recognizable image from the conversation was what Qiao called the‘student mindset’of some Chinese companies. When a European client sends a comprehensive ESG questionnaire\, the first reaction may be:what do we need to do to achieve the highest possible score?Teams are mobilized\, data is collected\, and reports are produced. The danger is that corporate responsibility becomes an exam that the company must pass\, rather than a process that actually brings about change within the company. Qiao therefore advised companies not to automatically try to give the ‘right answer’ to every European criterion. When a particular question cannot be answered directly due to Chinese law or circumstances\, it may be more effective to explain how the company approaches the underlying problem in practice. Moll added an important distinction. Some European rules are hard market access requirements. If a product does not meet these requirements\, it simply cannot enter the European market. With other rules\, for example on reporting and transparency\, there is more room to show where a company stands\, what information is still missing and what steps are being taken to achieve improvement. Compliance on paper is not enoughA recurring theme during the evening was therefore the difference between compliance on paper and actual change within an organization. A company can spend a lot of money on an excellent sustainability report and thus meet the requirements of a European customer. But if the commitments in that report aren’t translated to HR\, operations\, sales\, and management\, a new risk arises: employees\, customers\, and other stakeholders can then hold the company to its own promises. Qiao gave several examples of Chinese companies that were confronted with this. Her broader point was that corporate responsibility cannot end with the communication or sustainability department. Promises to the outside world must ultimately be supported by the organization as a whole. Moll emphasized that this is certainly not exclusively a Chinese problem. European companies can also reduce sustainability to a reporting obligation that must be handled by one employee or department. From obligation to competitive advantageThis brought the conversation to another question: can all these rules also create opportunities? According to Moll\, yes. European sustainability rules increasingly require companies to collect very detailed information on products\, materials\, emissions and supply chains. When a company uses that information not only to fill in forms\, but also to steer its own strategy\, it can create a competitive advantage. For example\, a company that sees early on that a certain material is likely to be restricted in different markets within a few years may look for an alternative earlier than competitors. The same information can also be linked to subsidies and tax incentives. Corporate responsibility is thus not only becoming a compliance issue\, but potentially also a strategic tool. First understand\, then be understoodPerhaps the most relevant message of the evening was ultimately not about regulation. Moll said that\, despite her years of experience with European sustainability regulations\, she regularly encounters situations in her work with Chinese companies that she does not initially understand. Her response is then deliberately not to immediately conclude that something is wrong\, but to ask Chinese colleagues what exactly is behind a certain course of action. Her starting point: try to really understand the other side before you want to be understood yourself. Of course\, that works both ways. Chinese companies entering Europe should not simply stick to the argument that something is ‘the Chinese way’. According to Qiao\, a company that operates internationally must learn to think like an international company and be prepared to adapt to local circumstances. Are China and Europe moving towards each other?At the end of the conversation\, both speakers looked ahead. Both Qiao and Moll expect that both approaches to corporate responsibility will eventually move further towards each other. There are several reasons for this. Regulations and reporting standards are increasingly developing in the same direction internationally. Global challenges such as climate change require cooperation. At the same time\, Qiao sees changing expectations among younger generations of Chinese about equality\, labor relations and participation. But geopolitics can also complicate that development. During the questions from the audience\, it became clear that sustainability\, market access\, subsidies and geopolitical interests are becoming increasingly difficult to separate. Both Chinese companies in Europe and European companies in China experience that the playing field is not always completely level. That is precisely why trust between companies\, knowledge institutions and civil society organisations remains important. The conclusion of this China Café evening was therefore more nuanced than simply an answer to the question of which side has the ‘better’ rules. Europe and China differ in history\, culture and expectations about the social role of companies. But at the same time\, the actual standards in many areas appear to be closer to each other than is often assumed. For companies that operate between the two worlds\, the challenge therefore lies not only in compliance\, but above all in understanding\, explaining and translating. And perhaps that is precisely where the greatest opportunity can be found. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This China Café was made possible by St Anny Foods. For readers who want to delve further into these topics\, Cong-rui Qiao will also participate in the Sustainable Law and Corporate Compliance: Bridging Southern and Northern Perspectives conference on October 23 in The Hague\, where experts from Europe\, Asia and the Global South will discuss different approaches to sustainability law and corporate compliance. Furthermore\, in November there was an IRBC mission organized by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency): https://www.rvo.nl/evenementen/imvo-missie-china \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n A video impression can be found at: URL:https://www.vnc-china.nl/en/event/river-of-time-ma-hui/ LOCATION:OOOIT ART – WERKSPOOR INTERNATIONAL ART CENTER\, Nijverheidsweg 27 P\, Utrecht\, 3534AM CATEGORIES:Art and culture ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Afbeelding-e1732108494346.jpg END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR