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: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;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:20260314T123000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260314T150000 DTSTAMP:20260227T122938Z CREATED:20260226T103028Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260227T122938Z UID:10000196-1773491400-1773500400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Eetclub Chinese New Year edition March 14 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-chinese-new-year-edition-march-14-in-amsterdam/ 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 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:20260319T153000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260319T170000 DTSTAMP:20260219T075617Z CREATED:20260218T195627Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260219T075617Z UID:10000192-1773934200-1773939600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:The Art of War 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/de-kunst-van-het-oorlogvoeren/ LOCATION:Wijnhavengebouw\, The Hague Campus\, Universiteit Leiden\, Wijnhaven 3.46\, Turfmarkt 99\, Den Haag\, Zuid-Holland\, 2511 DP CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/TAoW_Image.jpeg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260408T160000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260412T233000 DTSTAMP:20260408T204508Z CREATED:20260325T095944Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260408T204508Z UID:10000212-1775664000-1776036600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:CinemAsia Film Festival 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/cinemasia-film-festival-2026/ CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CinemAsia-2026_Landscape_1920x850_00164-JgYZju.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260423T160000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260423T180000 DTSTAMP:20260416T101452Z CREATED:20260414T100102Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260416T101452Z UID:10000218-1776960000-1776967200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Book launch: Taiwan island of versatility 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-launch-taiwan-island-of-versatility/ LOCATION:Leiden Asia Centre\, Doelensteeg 16\, LEIDEN\, Zuid-Holland\, 2311 VL\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/image.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260424T094500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260424T123000 DTSTAMP:20260416T101310Z CREATED:20260409T153520Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260416T101310Z UID:10000215-1777023900-1777033800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Wuxi Huishan (Amsterdam) Industrial Cooperation Symposium 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/wuxi-huishan-amsterdam-industrial-cooperation-symposium/ CATEGORIES:Economie en zakelijk,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/20260330-Wuxi-Symposium-20260424-scaled.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260425T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260425T163000 DTSTAMP:20260403T155114Z CREATED:20260312T093905Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260403T155114Z UID:10000209-1777125600-1777134600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Bicycle Tour: The Chinese Man Who Fell Out the Window and Disappeared 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/bike-tour-the-chinese-who-fell-out-of-the-window-and-disappeared/ LOCATION:restaurant gember\, Stadhouderslaan 43\, Den Haag CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Afbeelding1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260430T150000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260430T164500 DTSTAMP:20260416T111154Z CREATED:20260414T102343Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260416T111154Z UID:10000217-1777561200-1777567500@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Lecture by Dr. Ping Foong: ‘To Amuse\, to Amass\, and to Multiply: The Art and Activism of Ai Weiwei’ 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/lecture-by-dr-ping-foong-to-amuse-to-amass-and-to-multiply-the-art-and-activism-of-ai-weiwei/ LOCATION:Wereldmuseum Amsterdam\, Linnaeusstraat 2\, Amsterdam\, Noord-Holland\, 1092 CK\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/SAM2025_AiWeiwei_062c-1024x683-1.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Wereldmuseum Amsterdam":MAILTO:willemijn.vannoord@wereldmuseum.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260512T153000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260512T170000 DTSTAMP:20260504T202234Z CREATED:20260504T202234Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260504T202234Z UID:10000232-1778599800-1778605200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:From China with Love 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/from-china-with-love/ 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/2026/05/CKN-From-China-with-Love-1-uFOEg7.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Leiden Asia Centre":MAILTO:info@leidenasiacentre.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260513T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260513T180000 DTSTAMP:20260504T204041Z CREATED:20260504T201539Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260504T204041Z UID:10000230-1778691600-1778695200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Zhejiang Trade Delegation 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/zhejiang-trade-delegation-2026/ LOCATION:DCTEPA\, Sloterweg 296\, Badhoevedorp\, Noord-Holland\, 1171VH\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Economie en zakelijk,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/44bd5d598c56a0f7e5482c85f2a6843e-XO3SlG.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="DCTEPA (Dutch China Trade and Economic Promotion Association)":MAILTO:dctepa@outlook.com END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260517T150000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260517T160000 DTSTAMP:20260501T112731Z CREATED:20260501T112731Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260501T112731Z UID:10000228-1779030000-1779033600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Artist Talk Ruben Lundgren and Garrie van Pinxteren 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/artist-talk-ruben-lundgren-and-garrie-van-pinxteren/ CATEGORIES:Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Nieuwe-cover-file-FINAL-67-small-13HPkj.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260518 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20260610 DTSTAMP:20260502T104159Z CREATED:20260501T201049Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260502T104159Z UID:10000227-1779062400-1781049599@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:5 special screenings of "More than Babi Pangang" 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/5-special-screenings-of-more-than-babi-pangang/ LOCATION:Nederland\, 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/2026/04/babipangang.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260518T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260518T193000 DTSTAMP:20260512T134816Z CREATED:20260424T124147Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260512T134816Z UID:10000222-1779123600-1779132600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:China Café South; Robots uncovered\, what’s real\, what’s hype in Europe and 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/china-cafe-south-robots-uncovered-whats-real-whats-hype-in-europe-and-china/ 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:20260521T183000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260521T203000 DTSTAMP:20260501T112644Z CREATED:20260428T100947Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260501T112644Z UID:10000224-1779388200-1779395400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Eetclub Thursday 21 May 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-donderdag-21-mei-in-rotterdam/ LOCATION:Tang Dynastie Handpulled Noodle Bar\, westkruiskade 32b\, rotterdam\, 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:20260601T184500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260601T220000 DTSTAMP:20260508T115145Z CREATED:20260325T141656Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260508T115145Z UID:10000210-1780339500-1780351200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Pub Quiz! 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-pub-quiz/ LOCATION:FC Den Bosch\, Victorialaan 21\, Den Bosch\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Economie en zakelijk,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/pubquiz.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260608T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260608T190000 DTSTAMP:20260416T100418Z CREATED:20260416T095120Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260416T100418Z UID:10000220-1780938000-1780945200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:June 8\, 2026 China Café: From Real Estate Crisis to Export Boom: China's New Growth Engine 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/june-8-2026-china-cafe-from-real-estate-crisis-to-export-boom-chinas-new-growth-engine/ LOCATION:De Utrechter Stadsbrasserie en Bar\, Vredenburg 40\, Utrecht\, 3511 BD CATEGORIES:Economics and Business,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:20260616T183000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260616T210000 DTSTAMP:20260601T143726Z CREATED:20260601T143726Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260601T143726Z UID:10000242-1781634600-1781643600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Eetclub Tuesday 16 June 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/vnc-china-eetclub-tuesday-16-june-in-the-hague/ LOCATION:Ming Dynasty\, Spui 170\, Den Haag\, 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:20260619T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260619T190000 DTSTAMP:20260527T145332Z CREATED:20260526T161551Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260527T145332Z UID:10000238-1781888400-1781895600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:BIGGEST HERRING PARTY FRIDAY 19 JUNE 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/biggest-herring-party-friday-19-june-2026/ LOCATION:2e haven van Scheveningen\, Dr. Lelykade 28\, Scheveningen\, Zuid Holland\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,Economics and Business,Economie en zakelijk,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Afbeelding1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260620T100000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260620T150000 DTSTAMP:20260528T160956Z CREATED:20260528T152820Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260528T160956Z UID:10000240-1781949600-1781967600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:FLAG DAY SATURDAY 20 JUNE SCHEVENINGEN 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/flag-day-saturday-20-june-scheveningen/ LOCATION:2e haven van Scheveningen\, Dr. Lelykade 28\, Scheveningen\, Zuid Holland\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,Economics and Business,Economie en zakelijk,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Vlaggetjesdag.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260627T103000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260627T150000 DTSTAMP:20260618T154540Z CREATED:20260618T071654Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260618T154540Z UID:10000244-1782556200-1782572400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Lecture: "The Classical Chinese Gardens". With Chinese 3-course lunch in ... Brabant! Saturday 27 June. 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/lecture-the-classical-chinese-gardens-with-chinese-3-course-lunch-in-brabant-saturday-27-june/ CATEGORIES:Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,Partner ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/CercisChinensisAvondale-PQqIeD.jpg ORGANIZER;CN="Histotainment lezingen":MAILTO:info@histotainment.nl END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260710T183000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260710T183000 DTSTAMP:20260702T120123Z CREATED:20260702T120123Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260702T120123Z UID:10000247-1783708200-1783708200@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Eetclub - July 10 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-july-10-in-rotterdam/ LOCATION:Sansan Restaurant Sichuan Cuisine\, Hang 33\, Rotterdam\, 3011 GG CATEGORIES:Art and culture,China Cafe calendar,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:20260726T080000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260808T170000 DTSTAMP:20260312T101431Z CREATED:20260312T101431Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260312T101431Z UID:10000208-1785052800-1786208400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Table tennis camp Shanghai with Bettine Vriesekoop 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/table-tennis-camp-shanghai-with-bettine-vriesekoop/ LOCATION:Tafeltennisvereniging Tempo-Team\, President Kennedylaan 5\, Amsterdam CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/22_0101_CTTCShanghaitrainingssessieyoutube.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260814T180000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260814T203000 DTSTAMP:20260730T061517Z CREATED:20260728T172607Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260730T061517Z UID:10000257-1786730400-1786739400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:VNC China Eetclub 13 - Cantonese dinner 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-13-cantonese-dinner/ LOCATION:Dimsum King\, Fogostraat 10\, Amsterdam\, Noord-Holland\, 1060 LJ\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,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:20260820T200000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260820T210000 DTSTAMP:20260805T185304Z CREATED:20260805T185304Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260805T185304Z UID:10000260-1787256000-1787259600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:In conversation with the VNC board 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/in-conversation-with-the-vnc-board/ LOCATION:Online CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,Economics and Business,Economie en zakelijk,Education and science,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/online-meeting.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260822T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260822T130000 DTSTAMP:20260709T084939Z CREATED:20260709T084939Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260709T084939Z UID:10000250-1787396400-1787403600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:22 August guided tour of the photo exhibition Flowers in the mirror by Ruben Lundgren 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/22-august-guided-tour-of-the-photo-exhibition-flowers-in-the-mirror-by-ruben-lundgren/ LOCATION:Fotomuseum Den Haag\, Stadhouderslaan 43\, Den Haag\, Zuid-Holland\, 3011dc\, Nederland CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/gH0hGVcg.jpeg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260907T190000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260907T213000 DTSTAMP:20260812T132216Z CREATED:20260812T131244Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260812T132216Z UID:10000264-1788807600-1788816600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:September 7th\, Between Tradition and Transition - Love\, Sexuality and Intimacy in the Netherlands and 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/september-7th-between-tradition-and-transition-love-sexuality-and-intimacy-in-the-netherlands-and-china/ LOCATION:Universiteit van Amsterdam\, Roetersstraat 11\, Amsterdam\, 1018WB\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:China Cafe calendar,Economics and Business,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/webp:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ywmcrpmfdlekzdyia51m.webp END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260919T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260919T140000 DTSTAMP:20260718T104322Z CREATED:20260718T104322Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260718T104322Z UID:10000255-1789815600-1789826400@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:SAVE-THE-DATE: VNC General Members Meeting (GMM) 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/save-the-date-vnc-general-members-meeting-gmm/ LOCATION:Business School Nederland\, Herenstraat 25\, Buren\, Gelderland\, 4116 BK\, Netherlands CATEGORIES:Art and culture,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,Economics and Business,Economie en zakelijk,Education and science,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/VNC_NL-tekst_900x455px-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260921T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260921T193000 DTSTAMP:20260914T085819Z CREATED:20260810T130722Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260914T085819Z UID:10000262-1790010000-1790019000@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:September 21st\, China Café about Responsible Business 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/beyond-the-mismatch-building-responsible-business-between-europe-and-china/ LOCATION:De Apotheek\, Catharijnesingel 57\, Utrecht CATEGORIES:China Cafe calendar,Economics and Business,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Verantwoord-Ondernemen-scaled-1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261001T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261001T180000 DTSTAMP:20260714T110336Z CREATED:20260714T104707Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260714T110336Z UID:10000253-1790863200-1790877600@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:City walk Maastricht 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/city-walk-maastricht/ LOCATION:stadhuis maastricht\, markt 78\, maastricht\, 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/2026/07/IMG_0388-1.jpeg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261005T190000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261005T213000 DTSTAMP:20260914T112546Z CREATED:20260914T112546Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260914T112546Z UID:10000282-1791226800-1791235800@www.vnc-china.nl SUMMARY:Book presentation Garrie van Pinxteren: 'Control and delete. Memories of authoritarian 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/book-presentation-garrie-van-pinxteren-control-and-delete-memories-of-authoritarian-china/ LOCATION:Wijnhavengebouw\, The Hague Campus\, Universiteit Leiden\, Wijnhaven 3.46\, Turfmarkt 99\, Den Haag\, Zuid-Holland\, 2511 DP CATEGORIES:China Cafe calendar,Culture and Society,Cultuur en Maatschappij,VNC event ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.vnc-china.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Pinxteren-Garrie-van-Control-en-delete-3D.png END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR