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: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 BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:20270328T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:20271031T010000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250916T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250916T153000 DTSTAMP:20250903T161848Z CREATED:20250825T092739Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250903T161848Z UID:10000099-1758020400-1758036600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Welcome to Prinsjesdag 2025 in The Hague 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/welcome-to-prinsjesdag-2025-in-the-hague/ CATEGORIES:China Cafe calendar,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250920T153000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250920T170000 DTSTAMP:20250915T100827Z CREATED:20250911T132754Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250915T100827Z UID:10000109-1758382200-1758387600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Interview and signing session Zhang Yueran: 'Swan Hotel' 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/interview-and-signing-session-zhang-yueran-swan-hotel/ LOCATION:Broese Boekverkopers\, Oudegracht 112-b\, Utrecht\, Utrecht\, 3511 AW\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/webp:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/zhangyueran.webp ORGANIZER;CN="Broese Boekverkopers":MAILTO:klantenservice@broese.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250927T130000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20250927T150000 DTSTAMP:20250704T164437Z CREATED:20250313T091210Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250704T164437Z UID:10000053-1758978000-1758985200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Museum Visit Dragons and Demons\, Groninger Museum 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/museum-visit-dragons-and-demons-groninger-museum/ LOCATION:Groninger Museum\, Museumeiland 1\, Groningen\, Groningen\, 9711 ME\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Art and culture,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Tentoonstellingen2024Draken-en-demonen_1200x670_crop_center-center_95_none_nsDraken-en-Demonen-campagnebeeld.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251002T183000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251002T213000 DTSTAMP:20250911T130026Z CREATED:20250911T094937Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250911T130026Z UID:10000106-1759429800-1759440600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Eetclub - October 2 in Rotterdam 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/vnc-china-eetclub-october-2-in-rotterdam/ LOCATION:Restaurant Little Asia\, Kleiweg 87\, Rotterdam CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/food-china-3.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251010T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251011T170000 DTSTAMP:20250927T114615Z CREATED:20250927T114615Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250927T114615Z UID:10000113-1760094000-1760202000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Rombouts-Shilin Conference 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/rombouts-shilin-conference/ LOCATION:Lipsius gebouw en Wijnhaven\, Cleveringaplaats 1\, 2311 BD Leiden\, Leiden\, Zuid-Holland\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Education and science,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/DSC_0185_edit_2177576367298455.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251011T101500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251011T173000 DTSTAMP:20250925T162304Z CREATED:20250925T162304Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250925T162304Z UID:10000133-1760177700-1760203800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:The 4th Chinese Mental Health Day in the Netherlands 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/the-4th-chinese-mental-health-day-in-the-netherlands/ LOCATION:Nio House Amsterdam\, Nio House\, Leidsestraat 32–34\,Amsterdam\, Amsterdam\, Noord Holland\, 1017PB\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/schedule-hnwVo8.tmp_.png ORGANIZER;CN="Stichting Interculturele Participatie van Chinese Families":MAILTO:info@cnfamiliesinnl.com END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251013T160000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251013T173000 DTSTAMP:20250929T083032Z CREATED:20250929T083032Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250929T083032Z UID:10000132-1760371200-1760376600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Book talk: The Party's Interests Come First by Joseph Torigian 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/book-talk-the-partys-interests-come-first-by-joseph-torigian/ LOCATION:Wijnhavengebouw\, The Hague Campus\, Universiteit Leiden\, Wijnhaven 3.46\, Turfmarkt 99\, Den Haag\, Zuid-Holland\, 2511 DP CATEGORIES:Education and science,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/25-09-28-Book-cover-The-Partys-Interests-Come-First-2-1dgKiJ.tmp_.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Leiden Asia Centre":MAILTO:info@leidenasiacentre.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251014T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251014T100000 DTSTAMP:20250929T081742Z CREATED:20250929T081742Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250929T081742Z UID:10000131-1760432400-1760436000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:CKN Knowledge Session: China's Nuclear Energy Push – A Blueprint for the World? 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/ckn-knowledge-session-chinas-nuclear-energy-push-a-blueprint-for-the-world/ LOCATION:Wijnhavengebouw\, The Hague Campus\, Universiteit Leiden\, Wijnhaven 3.46\, Turfmarkt 99\, Den Haag\, Zuid-Holland\, 2511 DP CATEGORIES:Economie en zakelijk,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/25-10-14-Uitnodiging-Chinas-Nuclear-Power-Ambitions-OGwIqR.tmp_.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251015T150000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251015T160000 DTSTAMP:20251010T120621Z CREATED:20251010T120621Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251010T120621Z UID:10000130-1760540400-1760544000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Millennial Whispers of Paper: Elegance in Artistic Splendor 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/millennial-whispers-of-paper-elegance-in-artistic-splendor/ CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Partner ORGANIZER;CN="China Cultural Center in the Hague":MAILTO:info@ccchague.org END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251017T190000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251017T220000 DTSTAMP:20251019T124431Z CREATED:20250925T151625Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251019T124431Z UID:10000126-1760727600-1760738400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:ART EXPERIENCE 2025-Art Fair 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/art-experience-2025-kunstbeurs/ LOCATION:Metaal Kathedraal Utrecht De Meern\, De Metaal Kathedraal\, Utrecht\, Utrecht\, 3545NA\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/IMG_9062-2-Pfe9cL.tmp_.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Galerie Kunstbroeders in de Metaalkathedraal/Art Experience":MAILTO:rijkschipper@live.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251018T150000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251018T170000 DTSTAMP:20251018T130439Z CREATED:20250929T124232Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251018T130439Z UID:10000120-1760799600-1760806800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Exhibition Toyism: I Play\, Therefore I Am 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/exhibition-toyism-i-play-therefore-i-am/ LOCATION:The Banque Art Gallery Plein 29 Bergen\, Plein 29\, Bergen\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/TOYISM-©-CLAMAOING-GIRLFRIENDS.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251022T100000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251022T123000 DTSTAMP:20251020T091247Z CREATED:20250905T133446Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251020T091247Z UID:10000129-1761127200-1761136200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Creative Industry Dialogue in Architecture\, Interior Design\, Product Design sectors 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/creative-industry-dialogue-in-architecture-interior-design-product-design-sectors/ LOCATION:Capital C Amsterdam\, Weesperplein 4B\, Amsterdam\, North Holland\, 1018 XA\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Economics and Business ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Cover-page-2-events-5HE1UZ.tmp_.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Europe China MICE Network":MAILTO:k.wu@ecmnorg.com END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251023T160000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251023T173000 DTSTAMP:20250929T082212Z CREATED:20250929T082212Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250929T082212Z UID:10000128-1761235200-1761240600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Jeffrey Wasserstrom on China\, Protest and Asia’s Struggle against Autocracy 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/jeffrey-wasserstrom-on-china-protest-and-asias-struggle-against-autocracy/ LOCATION:Wijnhavengebouw\, The Hague Campus\, Universiteit Leiden\, Wijnhaven 3.46\, Turfmarkt 99\, Den Haag\, Zuid-Holland\, 2511 DP CATEGORIES:Education and science,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/25-09-28-milk-tea-alliance-3-EavVyF.tmp_.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251117T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251117T190000 DTSTAMP:20251110T203402Z CREATED:20251013T092551Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251110T203402Z UID:10000124-1763398800-1763406000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:November 17\, 2025 China Café: Finger on the Urban Pulse 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-the-new-urban-generation-in-china/ LOCATION:De Utrechter Stadsbrasserie en Bar\, Vredenburg 40\, Utrecht\, 3511 BD CATEGORIES:China Cafe calendar,Economics and Business,Economie en zakelijk,VNC event END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251123T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251123T160000 DTSTAMP:20251114T104356Z CREATED:20251112T121205Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251114T104356Z UID:10000142-1763906400-1763913600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Sinterklaasfeest voor de Chinese gemeenschap 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/sinterklaasfeest-voor-de-chinese-gemeenschap/ LOCATION:Chinees Cultureel Centrum\, Spui 192a\, Den Haag\, Zuid-Holland\, 2511BW\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Afbeelding1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251127T143000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251127T200000 DTSTAMP:20251115T091643Z CREATED:20251113T140652Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251115T091643Z UID:10000144-1764253800-1764273600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:China Network Event: Stronger Together! 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-network-event-stronger-together/ LOCATION:Steigenberger Airport Hotel\, Stationsplein ZW 951\, Schiphol CATEGORIES:Economics and Business,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/45a846a0-07ff-4595-8701-6842215518da.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251210T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251210T163000 DTSTAMP:20251001T134317Z CREATED:20251001T134317Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251001T134317Z UID:10000127-1765364400-1765384200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Dongzhi Seminar Luncheon – PART III PILLARS OF HONG KONG 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/dongzhi-seminar-luncheon-part-iii-pillars-of-hong-kong/ LOCATION:Koninklijke Industrieele Groote Club\, Amsterdam\, Dam 27\, Amsterdam\, Noord-Holland\, 1012 JS\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Economie en zakelijk,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/9M15518_Panorama-Edit-MurkFeitsma-GsXcX7.tmp_-scaled.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Netherlands Hong Kong Business Association":MAILTO:secretariat@nhkba.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251215T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20251215T193000 DTSTAMP:20251211T153303Z CREATED:20251117T105920Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251211T153303Z UID:10000146-1765818000-1765827000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:China Café South; Behind the headlines of the Nexperia Case: China\, Chips & Choices 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-about-nexperia-behind-the-headlines-of-the-nexperia-case-china-chips-choices/ LOCATION:Academisch Genootschap AG Eindhoven\, Parklaan 93\, Eindhoven\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:China Cafe calendar,Economics and Business,Economie en zakelijk,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/foto-china-cafe.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260112T193000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260112T203000 DTSTAMP:20251219T144931Z CREATED:20251219T144931Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251219T144931Z UID:10000156-1768246200-1768249800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Information evening Table tennis trip China summer 2026 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/information-evening-table-tennis-trip-china-summer-2026/ LOCATION:Online CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Table-tennis-camp.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260116T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260116T180000 DTSTAMP:20260108T111101Z CREATED:20251219T110642Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260108T111101Z UID:10000153-1768572000-1768586400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Healthy living in China 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/healthy-living-in-china/ LOCATION:Kargadoor\, Oudegracht 36\, Utrecht CATEGORIES:Education and science,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/China-Briefing-chinas-fitness-industry.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260123T143000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260123T160000 DTSTAMP:20260108T102255Z CREATED:20251219T150331Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260108T102255Z UID:10000157-1769178600-1769184000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Join us for the exhibition 'Made in China' 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/join-us-for-the-exhibition-made-in-china/ LOCATION:wereldmuseum\, Linaeusstraat 2\, Amsterdam CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/WM_Made_In_China_AMSTERDAM_111_OKT2025.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260123T180000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260123T210000 DTSTAMP:20260108T133957Z CREATED:20260108T100150Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260108T133957Z UID:10000161-1769191200-1769202000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Eetclub January 23 in Amsterdam 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/vnc-china-eetclub-january-23-in-amsterdam/ LOCATION:restaurant NorthEast Kitchen\, Ferdinand Bolstraat 26 H\, Amsterdam\, 1014BA\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/food-china-3.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260125T130000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260125T163000 DTSTAMP:20260119T201751Z CREATED:20251223T093017Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260119T201751Z UID:10000159-1769346000-1769358600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Story series: Chinese diaspora in NL and VNC New Year's drink 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/story-series-chinese-diaspora-in-nl/ LOCATION:Verhalenhuis Belvédère\, Rechthuislaan 1\, Rotterdam\, Zuid Holland\, 3072 LB\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event,Vol ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Verhalenserie-Chinese-diaspora-in-NL-002.jpeg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260125T153000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260125T163000 DTSTAMP:20260108T103404Z CREATED:20260108T103404Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260108T103404Z UID:10000163-1769355000-1769358600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Welcome to the VNC New Year's reception on January 25 in Rotterdam 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/welcome-to-the-vnc-new-years-reception-on-january-25-in-rotterdam/ LOCATION:Verhalenhuis Belvédère\, Rechthuislaan 1\, Rotterdam\, Zuid Holland\, 3072 LB\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,Economics and Business,Economie en zakelijk,Education and science,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Logo_VNC_900x455px.jpeg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260212T200000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260212T220000 DTSTAMP:20260206T205539Z CREATED:20260206T205004Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260206T205539Z UID:10000178-1770926400-1770933600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:An evening with Jung Chang\, author of the bestseller "Wild Swans" 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/an-evening-with-jung-chang-author-of-the-bestseller-wild-swans/ ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/3D_9789049208394-t0GcAt.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260213T211500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260213T230000 DTSTAMP:20260121T132819Z CREATED:20260121T132819Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260121T132819Z UID:10000165-1771017300-1771023600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:🎉🎬 CinemAsia x Filmhuis Den Haag: Lunar New Year celebration 13–24 February 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/%f0%9f%8e%89%f0%9f%8e%ac-cinemasia-x-filmhuis-den-haag-lunar-new-year-celebration-13-24-february/ CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/CinemAsia_Filmhuis-DenHaag_Lunar-New_year-2026-IQ33Hs.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260217T080000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260217T170000 DTSTAMP:20251005T095920Z CREATED:20251005T095920Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251005T095920Z UID:10000125-1771315200-1771347600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC Competition for secondary school students 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/vnc-competition-for-secondary-school-students/ LOCATION:VNC kantoor\, Burgemeester van Karnebeeklaan 6\, Den Haag\, 2585BB CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260219 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260401 DTSTAMP:20260215T190027Z CREATED:20260215T190027Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260215T190027Z UID:10000184-1771459200-1775001599@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:'Meer Dan Babi Pangang' Release 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/meer-dan-babi-pangang-release/ LOCATION:Nederland\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Babi-Pangang-scaled.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Periscoop Film":MAILTO:devaniyo@periscoopfilm.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260221T103000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260221T143000 DTSTAMP:20260217T210434Z CREATED:20260217T210434Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260217T210434Z UID:10000186-1771669800-1771684200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Chinese New Year in Brabant! February 21 : Presentation "Dragons\, Horses and Priests". 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/chinese-new-year-in-brabant-february-21-presentation-dragons-horses-and-priests/ LOCATION:Huize Hal\, Hal 31\, 5296 PZ ESCH\, Esch\, Noord-Brabant\, 5296 PZ CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/G.Castiglione.Horse_Chaonier-zq2HUz.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Histotainment lezingen":MAILTO:info@histotainment.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260221T130000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260221T160000 DTSTAMP:20260211T211140Z CREATED:20260129T101808Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260211T211140Z UID:10000172-1771678800-1771689600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Dining Club: Chinese New Year Edition 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/vnc-china-dining-club-chinese-new-year-edition/ LOCATION:Full Moon Garden – Dim Sum & Cantonese Cuisine\, Leidsestraat 95\, Amsterdam\, 1017 NZ\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event,Vol ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/food-china-3.jpg END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR