Key insights:

• • • AI as a force multiplier 鈥� Advanced analytics now reveal financial and behavioral anomalies that traditional monitoring systems routinely miss, giving executives a clearer view of emerging risks.

    • Geospatial and digital intelligence converge 鈥� Intelligent networks like OSINT, ADINT, and location-based data expose hidden networks and movement patterns, improving the detection of money laundering, trafficking, and smuggling operations.

    • Enterprise risk strategies must evolve 鈥� Organizations that integrate AI-driven intelligence across compliance, security, and operations can respond faster, reduce blind spots, and operate with greater resilience during high-risk events.

Illicit financial activity has always evolved faster than the systems designed to stop it. And today, the speed and sophistication of criminal networks are accelerating in ways that traditional compliance processes can no longer match. Major international events, such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup, bring millions of visitors, heightened commercial activity, and a surge in cross鈥慴order movement, all creating fertile ground for exploitation.

AI as an intelligence multiplier

In this environment, financial institutions are on the front lines of detection and mitigation, and corporations must strengthen their ability to detect hidden risks. AI 鈥� particularly when combined with digital intelligence sources, behavioral analytics, and geo-referenced data 鈥� has emerged as the most powerful accelerator of that transformation.

Among all of this high-volume activity, AI is redefining how institutions detect early-stage indicators of illicit activity. Instead of relying solely on manual reviews or rule-based monitoring, organizations are increasingly deploying systems capable of analyzing vast volumes of structured and unstructured data at once. Three capabilities are shaping this new frontier:

Open-source intelligence (OSINT) 鈥� Criminal activity, even when intentionally concealed, tends to leave trace signals online. OSINT tools can examine social platforms, online marketplaces, media sources, forums, and digital discussion channels to uncover suspicious behavioral patterns, potential recruitment or exploitation signals, inconsistencies between official identification and online presence, or clusters of accounts linked by shared attributes. For many executives, OSINT has become an indispensable layer of enhanced due diligence, risk scoring, and early threat detection long before suspicious activity appears in financial records.

Advertising intelligence (ADINT) 鈥� ADINT focuses on metadata produced by mobile applications and digital advertising ecosystems. While it does not expose personal identifiers, it reveals mobility patterns, device behavior, and clustering anomalies. This type of intelligence becomes particularly powerful during large-scale events because of the ability to monitor the movement of devices across high-risk corridors, identify unusual concentrations of activity near event venues or border regions, or detect digital behavior consistent with organized criminal logistics. ADINT introduces a geographic and behavioral dimension to risk that enables institutions to understand not only who a customer appears to be, but where they go, how they behave, and whether those patterns align with legitimate economic activity.

AI-enhanced investigations 鈥� Modern platforms now merge financial data with OSINT and ADINT inputs and then apply descriptive and generative AI (GenAI) to draw connections that would be impossible to detect manually. These systems can classify digital communications by sentiment or intent, identify unusual financial behavior within seconds, convert large datasets into actionable intelligence summaries, translate and interpret foreign-language content, and map networks through recurring metadata or visual similarity. For decision-makers and organizational stakeholders, this shift represents a dramatic reduction in blind spots and a faster escalation pathway when emerging threats surface.

Why financial institutions and corporations must lead

Human trafficking, migrant smuggling, and money laundering cannot function at scale without the financial system. Even when exploitation occurs offline, profits eventually make their way into the formal economy through remittances, structured cash movements, shell companies, digital wallets, recruitment payments, or short-term rental arrangements.

AI enhanced investigations can help institutions identify subtle but meaningful indicators, such as coached or inconsistent customer responses, accounts linked through shared devices or addresses, rapid deposits followed by immediate withdrawals, purchases that do not correspond to a customer鈥檚 risk profile, payments directed to unverifiable recruiters, unusual patterns of short-term housing across multiple individuals, or transaction flows that follow established exploitation routes.

Illicit financial activity has always evolved faster than the systems designed to stop it. And today, the speed and sophistication of criminal networks are accelerating in ways that traditional compliance processes can no longer match.

All this information already exists inside institutional data today; AI simply makes it visible and usable much more easily and quickly.

While financial institutions are central in detecting illicit finance, companies across multiple sectors face heightened exposure during large events. Hospitality, logistics, transportation, construction, real estate, and digital services all see risk intensifying as demand surges and oversight becomes more complex.

Those senior leaders who responsible for operational continuity should integrate AI-powered monitoring into their internal controls. This can help detect unusual workforce recruitment patterns, unexpected badge or access activity, subcontractor behavior that conflicts with declared operations, repeated presence in high-risk zones, or digital communications that hint at coercive or exploitative conduct.

In the fight against illicit finance, technology is no longer optional. Indeed, it is our most powerful ally.

You can find out more about the fight against illicit finance and money laundering here

Key insights:

• • • Tariffs erode supply chain integrity, not just margins 鈥� Rapid policy shifts can destabilize manufacturers鈥� supplier relationships, customs compliance, and production networks.

    • Unpredictability is the real threat 鈥� Changing duty rates and exemptions undermine forecasting and inventory planning, creating bottlenecks that ripple across customer commitments.

    • Adaptation beats anticipation 鈥� Leading manufacturers aren’t waiting for policy clarity, rather they鈥檙e adapting to the uncertain environment now.

Tariffs have presented significant challenges for manufacturers, increasing input costs and undermining the stability of global supply chains. During the Trump administration, tariffs have become a focal point in debates over the broader economic implications of trade policy. Since 2025, has included a 10% minimum global tariff on a broad range of imports, additional measures targeting China, and various product- and country-specific actions 鈥� all developments that have reshaped corporate sourcing strategies and international trade planning.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in听 marked a pivotal shift in trade authority. By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that the President lacked the constitutional authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, emphasizing that such measures constitute taxes and are therefore within exclusive legislative domain of the U.S. Congress. The ruling invalidated many tariffs implemented by President Trump in 2025, providing some legal clarity while also raising questions about the future of US trade policy. Although the decision limits executive power, uncertainty still persists regarding how Congress will exercise its reasserted authority and what new legislative or trade measures may follow in such a dynamic and uncertain economic environment.

This Supreme Court’s ruling does not eliminate tariffs but rather shifts their governance by curtailing unilateral executive authority under IEEPA and reasserting Congress’s constitutional role in setting tax and customs policy. That means, of course, that tariffs will not disappear but instead will become more politically negotiated and legislatively codified. For supply chain leaders, this introduces a different kind of uncertainty that will be rooted in legislative timelines, committee negotiations, and the potential for prolonged policy stalemates.

Indeed, it鈥檚 unclear whether tariffs imposed through statute will prove more durable and harder to reverse than those enacted via executive order. Ultimately, this legal shift underscores the need for manufacturers to take a proactive adaptation and not one of complacency.

For corporate risk professionals, particularly those within manufacturing companies, these developments carry substantial implications. Tariffs extend beyond increasing import prices and affect profitability, workforce planning, and long-term supply chain resilience. They introduce volatility into customs procedures, supplier qualification, cross-border logistics, and production network design. When trade rules change rapidly, as they have in recent months, the integrity of global supply chains is increasingly difficult to maintain.

Why tariffs hit supply chain integrity so hard

In a global supply chain, every cross-border movement is governed by import and export rules set by the countries involved. Tariffs change those economics immediately, and they also trigger a chain reaction that ripples through sourcing, logistics, compliance, and planning. For example, the (CBP) has had to issue repeated implementation updates on new tariff actions, including guidance tied to imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, underscoring how quickly operating conditions can change for importers. That creates several clear risks to supply chain integrity.

One of the first impacts is on supplier relationships. When tariffs make a sourcing region less viable, manufacturers are often forced to move away from long-established suppliers and instead quickly on-board alternatives in lower-tariff markets. That may reduce immediate cost pressure, but it can also weaken quality control, transparency, and reliability if the new suppliers prove to be less able.

This is already showing up in manufacturer behavior. , a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting manufacturing leaders, reported that in January, more than half (57%) of manufacturers said that US tariff policies were having a moderate or significant negative effect on confident decision-making related to sourcing, pricing, and investment timing. The same research found that companies were increasingly shifting from passive monitoring their supply chains to making active changes in sourcing.

Even after the Supreme Court鈥檚 legal invalidation, many impacts of previously imposed tariffs persist, as retroactive refunds are not guaranteed 鈥� indeed, the government has for such refunds. And these administrative delays in duty recovery can strain cash flow, while companies that already restructured their operations by relocating suppliers, renegotiating contracts, or investing in new logistics infrastructure cannot easily unwind those changes.

Clearly, the economic and operational consequences of past tariffs have already altered global sourcing maps, and those manufacturers that had shifted production to Southeast Asia or Mexico during the 2025 tariff surge may maintain those footprints even if duties are lifted, due to sunk costs or new regional advantages. This illustrates how even temporary policy shifts can have permanent effects on supply chain integrity.

Tariffs force structural changes and create bottlenecks

Tariffs also create operational instability. When duty rates, exemptions, and country-specific rules change, manufacturers鈥� ability to forecast their trade strategy becomes more difficult, and inventory planning becomes less reliable. Customs processing can become more complicated as companies work through classification questions, preference claims, and changing documentation requirements.

For manufacturers running lean networks, that unpredictability can be dangerous. Delays at ports, shipment holds, or reworks tied to customs compliance can ripple across production schedules and customer commitments. The CBP has specifically noted ongoing tariff implementation updates through its Cargo Systems Messaging Service, which only underscores how much administrative attention that manufacturers now need to dedicate to keeping updated on trade compliance.

Tariffs can also break the logic of just-in-time supply chains. If landed costs become unstable or sourcing risk rises, companies often shift toward just-in-case strategies by holding more inventory, extending forecast horizons, or redesigning production footprints. That may improve resilience in the short term, but it also ties up working capital and reduces efficiency.

Manufacturers Alliance research describes this as a move toward tactical adaptation rather than true resolution. In other words, many manufacturers are learning how best to operate in a tariff-heavy environment; however, as the system becomes more buffered, more complex, and often less efficient, it鈥檚 unclear when or whether things will return to a state resembling the previous stability.

How supply chain professionals can mitigate tariff risk

For corporate risk and supply chain leaders, the most practical response starts with supplier diversification. Overconcentration in one tariff-exposed region creates avoidable vulnerability. Manufacturers also should use supplier information management technology to map sub-tier dependencies, because tariff exposure often sits deeper in the supply base than tier-one suppliers alone reveal.

Other strong mitigation strategies include nearshoring to reduce long-distance logistics exposure and scenario planning to stress-test tariff shocks before they happen.

Those manufacturers best positioned for continued disruption ; instead, they are building flexibility into sourcing, inventory, and trade compliance now.

The bottom line

The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources marks a significant check on executive power around tariffs, but it does not signal a return to stable or predictable trade policy. Tariffs remain a potent and politically salient tool, now subject to legislative rather than unilateral control.

For manufacturers and their corporate risk professionals, the imperative remains unchanged: Supply chains must be designed not just to survive today’s tariffs, but to adapt to the next wave of trade policy disruption. Indeed, resilience is no longer a function of cost minimization alone. It requires transparency, agility, and a deep understanding of how legal, political, and economic forces converge at the border. The most effective manufacturing companies will continue to be those that treat tariff exposure not as a compliance afterthought, but as a core dimension of supply chain integrity.

You can find out more about the challenges manufacturers are facing from tariffs here

Key takeaways:

• • • Your post-OBBBA forecasts should look different 鈥� If the tax department doesn’t own the OBBBA model, someone else will own the OBBBA story.

• • • Rely on your department鈥檚 inner strengths 鈥� It鈥檚 governance and analysis 鈥� not tools 鈥� that get you into the strategy room.

    • Factor in the conflict in the Middle East 鈥� The Iran war risk belongs in your tax model, not just in your CFO’s macro deck.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law in July 2025, enacted large business tax cuts, most notably by providing permanent full expensing of many forms of investment. Under the previous major corporate tax legislation, 2017鈥檚 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), bonus depreciation was scheduled for gradual phase-out following 2023. The OBBBA restored that expensing 100% retroactively for assets acquired from mid-January 2025 onwards.

The after-tax cost of new machinery, fleets, and equipment has effectively fallen by around 21%, designed to encourage immediate capital outlays by allowing businesses to write off these expenses in the year they are incurred rather than amortizing them over five years.

For corporate tax departments, that’s not a disclosure footnote 鈥� that’s your capital plan.

Capital-intensive corporations will see tax burdens reduced through permanent rate extensions, depreciation adjustments, and expansion of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap 鈥� but only if your models are built to capture the timing and location of investment, the mix of debt compared to equity, and where your organization books its next dollar of income.

Not surprisingly, most corporate tax departments aren’t there yet. They’re still recalculating last year, plus a few adjustments. That’s glorified compliance, not modeling.

A standout tax department doesn’t ask, What’s the OBBBA impact? Rather, it asks, Which version of OBBBA do we choose for this business? 鈥� and it has the models to back it up.

From spreadsheet heroics to controlled modeling

For many organizations, tax modeling still means creating a massive spreadsheet that only one director truly understands. The spreadsheet gets pulled out for budget season, rebuilt under pressure, and quietly retired until next year. That’s a single point of failure, not a process.

And after OBBBA, continuing that practice is dangerous. One wrong assumption on expensing or interest limitation can move cash tax by millions of dollars and blindside the Finance Department.

Here’s what disciplined modeling looks like in practice:

• • • Create a unified model 鈥� Build one integrated model that the whole team can use or accept that your department is choosing to fly blind.
    • Use the same assumptions 鈥� Standardize the levers that matter most (such as capex timing, financing mix, jurisdiction, and incentives) and make sure every scenario runs off the same assumptions.
    • Conduct modeling reviews 鈥� Treat major OBBBA-driven decisions (such as large capex, funding shifts, supply-chain redesign) as tax deals that must go through a modeling review before they’re greenlit.
    • Document your assumptions explicitly 鈥� Under permanent full expensing, the difference between a well-supported assumption and a poorly documented one isn’t just an audit risk, rather it’s a credibility problem with your CFO.

It鈥檚 also important to remember that in a post-OBBBA world, this level of disciplined modeling is not technology transformation 鈥� it鈥檚 basic survival.

Governance: Where leaders quietly win or loudly fail

The differentiator isn’t which corporate tax department has the fanciest tool 鈥� it’s which one has the cleanest governance. And the data is unambiguous: More than half (55%) of tax departments are still in the reactive phase of their technological development, stuck with five capex models circulating with five discount rates and the tax team arriving late to the planning meeting.

Those tax departments that are breaking out of that pattern share one trait: They put someone formally in charge. In the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report, a large portion (88%) of survey respondents said their company had appointed a person to lead the tax department’s technology strategy. That number jumped a whopping 37 percentage points, from 51%, from the previous year鈥檚 survey. That single structural move separates those departments with a governance model from those that simply hold a governance conversation every budget cycle and forget about it.

Clearly, this type of ownership drives results. Two-thirds of those surveyed agreed that their company’s investment in technology has enabled a shift from routine, reactive work to more strategic, proactive, higher-value work.

Under OBBBA, the kind of governance isn’t housekeeping. It’s how you get invited into strategy discussions instead of having to clean up after things go awry.

Why your OBBBA win may not feel like a win

On paper, the tax changes embedded in the OBBBA look generous. In practice, your effective tax benefit is colliding with something you don’t control.

When the war on Iran began, all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was effectively halted, removing roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply from the market. Fuel prices throughout the world spiked and are likely to remain elevated as long as conflict persists.

With oil prices hovering around $100 a barrel, there are will wipe out the benefits of higher tax refunds this year for most Americans. If those benefits, arising from Trump’s 2025 tax cuts, are erased for the average American, only the top 30% of taxpayers will still seeing a net gain.

For corporate planning purposes, the parallel dynamic is real: The topline OBBBA benefit is being eroded by higher fuel, freight, and financing costs across the business and its supply chain.

Inflationary pressures are being driven by higher energy prices tied to the Iran war, and the conflict’s impact on a wide range of goods and services is likely to last for months 鈥� with experts saying even a ceasefire is unlikely to immediately ease global energy shortages.

A serious corporate tax department doesn’t handwave these concerns away. It takes three actions:

1. 1. 1. Run a war-extended scenario 鈥� The scenario should show exactly how sustained higher energy costs and borrowing rates change the payoff from accelerated expensing and leverage 鈥� with specific numbers, not just directional commentary.
      2. Share your forecasts internally 鈥� Put your monthly or quarterly cash-tax forecasts on the table for Finance to see, so that it can manage liquidity rather than hope the annual plan holds.
      3. Force the hard conversation 鈥� Ask the tough question: At today’s rates and fuel costs, the after-tax return on this project is X. Are we still in? That question should come from the tax team now, not from the finance team six months later.

Clearly, the daily fluctuations in oil prices matter less than monthly and quarterly averages 鈥� and volatility will likely remain elevated given the absence of a clear timeline for the end of the war. That’s exactly the kind of sustained uncertainty that belongs front and center in your scenario set, not in a footnote.

The bottom line

The OBBBA gives corporate tax departments a genuine opportunity to move from being simply a compliance function to becoming more of a strategic advisor. Permanent full expensing, richer cost recovery, and more flexible interest rules can create real levers to add value, but only for those organizations that model them rigorously, govern them cleanly, and stress-test them against the macro environment their business actually faces today.

Indeed, the Iran war is a live test of that readiness. The corporate tax departments that show up with modeled scenarios, cash-tax forecasts, and a clear point of view on after-tax returns will earn a seat at the strategy table. The ones that show up with caveats will be asked to leave it.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report here

Key takeaways:

• • • Only IEEPA鈥慴ased tariffs are up for refund 鈥� Refunds will flow electronically to importers of record through ACE, the government鈥檚 digital import/export system, but only once CBP鈥檚 process is finalized.

    • Liquidation and protest timelines are now critical 鈥� An organization鈥檚 tax concepts that directly influence which entries are eligible and how long companies have to protect claims.

    • Tax functions must quickly coordinate with other corporate functions 鈥� In-house tax teams need to coordinate with their organization鈥檚 trade, procurement, and accounting functions to gather data, assert entitlement, and get the financial reporting right on any tariff refunds.

WASHINGTON, DC 鈥� When the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling on President Donald J. Trump鈥檚 authority to impose mass tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February it set the stage for what it to come.

The Court ruled the president did not have authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs that generated an estimated $163 billion of revenue in 2025. In response, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a ruling in requiring the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue refunds on IEEPA duties for entries that have not gone final. That order, however, is currently suspended while CBP designs the refund process and the government considers an appeal.

At听the recent , tax experts discussed what this ruling means for corporate tax departments, outline what is and isn鈥檛 a consideration for refunds and the steps necessary to apply for refunds.

As panelists explained, the key issue for tax departments is that only IEEPA tariffs are in scope for refund 鈥� many other tariffs remain firmly in place. For example, on steel, aluminum, and copper; Section 301 tariffs on certain Chinese-origin goods; and new of 10% to 15% on most imports still apply and will continue to shape effective duty rates and supply chain costs.

So, which entities can actually get their money back?

Legally, CBP will send refunds only to the importer of record, and only electronically through the government鈥檚 digital import/export system, known as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system. That means every potential claimant needs an with current bank information on file. And creating an account or updating it can be a lengthy process, especially inside a large organization.

If a business was not the importer of record but had tariffs contractually passed through to it 鈥� for example, by explicit tariff clauses, amended purchase orders, or separate line items on invoices 鈥� they may still have a commercial basis to recover their share from the importer. In practice, that means corporate tax teams should sit down with both the organization鈥檚 procurement experts and its largest suppliers to identify tariff鈥憇haring arrangements and understand what actions those importers are planning to take.

Why liquidation suddenly matters to tax leaders

As said, the Atmus ruling is limited to entries that are not final, which hinges on the . CBP typically has one year to review an entry and liquidate it (often around 314 days for formal entries) with some informal entries liquidating much sooner.

Once an entry liquidates, the 180鈥慸ay protest clock starts. Within that window, the importer of record can challenge CBP鈥檚 decision, and those protested entries may remain in play for IEEPA refunds. There is also a 90鈥慸ay window in which CBP can reliquidate on its own initiative, raising questions about whether final should be read as 90 days or 180 days 鈥� clearly, an issue that will matter a lot if your company is near those deadlines.

Data, controversy risk & financial reporting

The role of in-house tax departments in the process of getting refunds requires, for starters, giving departments access to entry鈥憀evel data showing which imports bore IEEPA tariffs between February 1, 2025, and February 28, 2026. If a business does not already have robust trade reporting, the first step is to confirm whether the business has made payments to CBP; and, if so, to work with the company鈥檚 supply chain or trade compliance teams to access ACE and run detailed entry reports for that period.

Summary entries and heavily aggregated data will be a challenge because CBP has indicated that refund claims will require a declaration in the ACE system that lists specific entries and associated IEEPA duties. Expect controversy pressure: As claims scale up, CBP resources and the courts could see backlogs. If that becomes the case, tax teams should be prepared for protests, documentation requests, and potential litigation over entitlement and timing.

On the financial reporting side, whether and when to recognize a refund depends on the strength of the legal claim and the status of the proceedings. If tariffs were listed as expenses as they were incurred, successful refunds may give rise to income recognition. In cases in which tariffs were capitalized into fixed assets, however, the accounting analysis becomes more nuanced and may implicate asset basis, depreciation, and potentially transfer pricing positions.

Coordination between an organization鈥檚 financial reporting, tax accounting, and transfer pricing specialists is critical in order that customs values, income tax treatment, and any refund鈥憆elated credits remain consistent.

Action items for corporate tax departments

Corporate tax teams do not need to become customs experts overnight, but they do need to lead a coordinated response. Practically, that means they should:

• • • confirm whether their company was an importer of record and, if so, ensure ACE access and banking information are in place now, not after CBP turns the refund system on.
    • map which entries included IEEPA tariffs, identify which are non鈥憀iquidated or still within the 180鈥慸ay protest window, and file protests where appropriate to protect the company鈥檚 rights.
    • inventory all tariff鈥憇haring arrangements with suppliers, assess contractual entitlement to pass鈥憈hrough refunds, and align with procurement and legal teams on a consistent recovery approach.
    • work with accounting to determine the financial statement treatment of potential refunds, including whether and when to recognize contingent assets or income and any knock鈥憃n effects for transfer pricing and valuation.

If tax departments wait for complete certainty from the courts before acting, many entries may go final and fall out of scope. The opportunity for tariff refunds will favor companies that are data鈥憆eady, cross鈥慺unctionally aligned, and willing to move under time pressure.

You can find out more about the changing tariff situation here

Key takeaways:

• • • The supply hit is real, not just priced-in fear 鈥� Tanker insurance has collapsed, infrastructure is damaged, and volumes are physically offline. Some of this isn’t coming back quickly.

    • Tax policy is moving in five directions at once 鈥� Energy security incentives, BEPS 2.0 rollout, windfall tax rumblings 鈥� governments are improvising, and your effective tax rate is caught in the middle.

    • Your Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) guidance is probably already stale 鈥� If you haven’t stress-tested your EtR guidance against $100-plus per barrel oil and a multi-quarter disruption, you’re behind.

Let’s be direct: This isn’t a risky premium situation. When military strikes take out Middle Eastern infrastructure in the Persian Gulf and tanker insurers pull out of a corridor carrying 15% to 20% of global crude and liquefied natural gas (LNG), supply goes offline. That’s what’s happened.

At the time of writing, the price of oil continues to fluctuate. The recent release of the , which forecasts and analyze the global oil market, shows that more global markets are starting to say the word recession. And whether or not a recession actually materializes, the energy price environment has shifted in ways that will take multiple quarters, and maybe years, to unwind. For corporate tax departments, the question isn’t whether this changes their planning, it’s whether they’ve caught up yet.

Which scenario-modeling is most worth it?

Most ominously, nobody knows how this all ends, and that’s exactly why your tax team may need more than one base case.

The optimistic read is a short, sharp shock 鈥� prices spike, some flows resume, upstream books a windfall quarter, and consuming-country governments start muttering about excess profits taxes. Messy, but manageable.

The harder scenario is prolonged disruption: Hormuz remains constrained for months, along with repeated infrastructure hits with resulting rerouting that permanently shifts where profits land and which entities suddenly have a taxable presence for which they didn’t plan. Not surprisingly, transfer pricing and permanent听establishment听(PE) exposure get complicated fast.

Add to the mix, by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that multinational corporate tax departments are still required to adhere to and now plan for how it may interact and intersect with the other two scenarios.

The policy environment is a mess, but in a very specific way

Here’s what makes this cycle different from 2008 or 2014: Governments are pulling in opposite directions simultaneously. The United States has pivoted hard toward energy dominance 鈥� domestic fossils, nuclear, extraction incentives. Meanwhile, BEPS 2.0 is still rolling out unevenly across jurisdictions, which means your organization鈥檚 effective tax rate in any given country depends heavily on where it sits in the implementation timeline.

Throw in 鈥� which historically shows up about six months after prices stay high and voters get angry 鈥� and you have an environment in which the gap between your statutory tax rate and your actual sustainable rate could widen fast if you’re not actively managing it.

5 actions tax team leaders can take now

Of course, none of these are new concepts; but in a fast-moving situation, the basics that get done quickly will beat the sophisticated that gets done late.

First, rebuild your EtR guidance around at least three commodity paths. Not as a theoretical exercise 鈥� as something your CFO can actually present to the board with a straight face.

Second, map out which legal entities are genuinely exposed to Hormuz-dependent flow volumes. Companies鈥� operations and trading teams often know this; but the tax team too often doesn’t until there’s a problem. Close that knowledge gap now.

Third, re-rank your project pipeline on a real after-tax basis. Updated incentive assumptions, global minimum tax, domestic versus cross-border production 鈥� run all the numbers again. Some projects that looked marginal six months ago may look very different now, and vice versa.

Fourth, build a windfall tax playbook before you need one. The data you’d need to defend your profit levels and capital allocation decisions takes time to pull together. Don’t leave that work until the week the legislation drops.

Fifth 鈥� and this is the one that gets skipped most often 鈥� make sure the company鈥檚 tax, treasury, and trading groups are talking to each other in real time. Hedging decisions, financing structures, physical flow changes 鈥� all of these have tax consequences, and they’re happening fast right now.

One final thought

Corporate tax departments that come out of this looking good won’t be the ones that predicted the conflict. They’ll be the ones who translated what鈥檚 happened into specific, actionable data and numbers for their leadership 鈥� presented quickly, clearly, and with their own company’s footprint in mind.

That’s the brief. Now go build it.

You can find more of our coverage of the impact of the ongoing War in Iran here

Key takeaways:

• • • Companies should act fast on refunds 鈥� Companies that paid IEEPA-based duties have potential refund claims, but statutory deadlines are ticking. Business leaders should map exposure, quantify opportunities, and file protective claims now.

    • Remember, other tariffs still apply 鈥� This decision only invalidated IEEPA-based tariffs. Tariffs based on Sections 232, 301, and 122 of the 1974 Trade Act听remain in force, and the administration is already signaling plans for new global tariffs.

    • Businesses should update their financial models 鈥� Tariff refunds flow through cost of goods sold, which affects taxable income and effective tax rates. Business leaders should review their transfer pricing models and contracts to determine which parties receive refund proceeds.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the tariffs that the Trump Administration based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) creates immediate refund opportunities for businesses that paid billions of dollars in now-invalidated duties. However, the administration’s pivot to alternative tariff authorities means the trade policy landscape is shifting rather than settling.

Now, corporate tax and trade leaders must move quickly to preserve refund claims while building resilient strategies for the next wave of tariff changes that are already fully in motion.

What actually happened

In , the Supreme Court said last month that President Donald J. Trump went too far by using the IEEPA 鈥� a statute designed for genuine national emergencies 鈥� to impose broad, peacetime tariffs. The Court’s message was blunt: If you want sweeping tariff authority, get the U.S. Congress to give it to you explicitly 鈥� IEEPA doesn’t cut it.

This ruling invalidated the tariffs that relied solely on IEEPA, including certain reciprocal global duties and some measures targeting Canada, Mexico, and China. However, here’s the catch: Other tariff regimes 鈥� such as those outlined in Sections 232, 301, and 122 of the Trade听Act听of听1974听鈥� are still standing. Those weren’t touched by this decision, and they’re not going away.

Check out听听for more on the Supreme Court鈥檚 tariff decision here

Further, the administration isn’t sitting still either. There’s already talk of pivoting to Section 122 to impose a new 10% global tariff. So, while one door closed, another may be opening, which means the legal landscape is shifting, not settling.

Why this matters right now

There are several important factors to consider in the wake of this decision, including:

Start with the money 鈥� If your company paid IEEPA-based duties, your effective tariff rate on many imports just dropped. That , changes your margin picture, and could shift pricing dynamics across the retail, consumer goods, manufacturing, and automotive sectors.

Then there’s the refund potential 鈥� Billions of dollars were collected under tariffs that are now unlawful. The government won’t write checks automatically 鈥� indeed, the administration has already signaled it will fight broad refund claims 鈥� but for individual companies, the cash at stake could be significant.

Don’t overlook your contracts 鈥� Many commercial agreements include tariff pass-through clauses, price adjustments, and indemnities. Those provisions will determine which parties actually gets the money: the importer of record, the customer, or someone else in the chain. If you restructured your supply chain around the old tariff regime, you may need to rethink those decisions, too.

What businesses should do first

There are several steps business leaders should undertake to move forward in this new environment, including:

Map your exposure 鈥� Tax and trade teams need to pull multi-year import data by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code, country of origin, and legal authority. Figure out which entries were hit specifically by IEEPA-based tariffs, as opposed to Section 232 or 301 duties, which again, are still in effect.

Quantify the opportunity 鈥� Calculate total IEEPA duties paid by entity, jurisdiction, and period. Include a rough estimate of interest, prioritize the highest-value lanes, and flag any statutory deadlines for protests or post-summary corrections. Missing a deadline isn’t something you can easily fix later.

Preserve your rights 鈥� If you’ve already filed test cases or joined class actions, revisit your strategy with counsel. If you haven’t, evaluate quickly whether to file protests, post-summary corrections, or other protective claims with the U.S. Customs & Border Protection. These procedures will evolve, of course, but the clock already is ticking.

Get the right people in the room 鈥� This isn’t just a tax problem or a trade compliance problem. Stand up a cross-functional working group that includes tax, customs, legal, finance, supply chain, and investor relations. Agree on who owns what, how you’ll share data, and how you’ll communicate, especially if the refund could move the needle on earnings or liquidity.

Financial reporting and tax implications

Most importantly, you need to reassess your tariff-related balances and disclosures. If refunds are probable and you can estimate them, that may affect liabilities, expense recognition, and reserves. Even if the accounting is murky, material claims may need to be discussed in your report鈥檚 Management鈥檚 Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) section or in footnotes.

On the tax side, tariff refunds and lower ongoing duties flow through cost of goods sold (COGS), which changes taxable income and your business鈥檚 effective tax rate. Timing matters: When you recognize a refund for book purposes may not match when it hits for tax, creating temporary differences that need Accounting Standards Codification 740 analysis.

And don’t forget transfer pricing. Many intercompany pricing models were built during the high-tariff period and may embed those costs in tested party margins. If tariffs fall or refunds materialize, those models and the supporting documentation may need updates. Review intercompany agreements that allocate customs and tariff costs to make sure they align with both the economics and the legal entitlement to possible refunds.

Think beyond the refund

Yes, the immediate focus is on getting your company鈥檚 money back and staying compliant 鈥� but this is also a moment in which more strategic thinking is required, including:

Run scenarios 鈥� Business show run their models to see what happens if IEEPA tariffs disappear and aren’t fully replaced. Model what happens if a broad 10% global tariff lands under Section 122. Model what happens if country- or sector-specific measures expand. For each scenario, stress-test your gross margin, cash flow, and key supply chain nodes.

Revisit your sourcing strategy 鈥� Some nearshoring or supplier diversification moves you made under the old tariff structure may no longer make sense. Others may still be smart as a hedge against renewed trade tensions. The tax team needs to be part of these conversations 鈥� not just because tariffs affect cost, but because new structures reshape your effective global tax rate, foreign tax credit position, and your base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) exposure.

Fix your data and governance 鈥� Trade policies can move fast and unpredictably. If you can’t quickly pull clean import data, run classification reviews, or model your exposure across scenarios, then you’re simply flying blind. Now is a good time to fix that.

The bottom line

The Supreme Court’s decision closed one chapter of the president鈥檚 tariff story, but it didn鈥檛 end it. For corporate tax and trade leaders, the message is straightforward: Grab the refund opportunity, protect your position, and use this moment to build a more resilient strategy for whatever comes next.

Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that the next round of tariff changes is already on its way.

For more on the impact of tariffs on global trade, you can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 Global Trade Report听here

Key insights:

• • • Different tools, different impacts鈥� Tariffs raise costs but allow business to continue; sanctions create legal barriers that can make transactions impossible, with severe penalties for violations.

    • Scale brings scrutiny鈥� Expansive US sanctions risk diminishing returns as targets develop workarounds and alternative financial systems.

    • Strategic or reactive use?鈥� The core challenge isn’t whether sanctions work, but whether they’re deployed as part of coherent strategy or simply as visible action that avoids harder diplomatic or military choices.

In the foreign policy arsenal of the United States, economic sanctions have become a widely used weapon. As their use expands, so does the debate about how effective they actually are, what additional risks they create, and what unintended consequences they may bring.

Tariffs vs. sanctions: What’s the difference?

In wartime or during high-tension economic crises, both tariffs and sanctions can significantly impact businesses, but the two methods work in different ways.

Tariffs are a form of economic pressure. Governments use them to reduce an adversary’s export revenue, raise the cost of critical imports, signal disapproval of countries that continue doing business with the target, and generate funds for their own efforts. For companies, tariffs usually create friction rather than a full stop. Businesses can often continue importing, but at a higher landed cost. And that can compress margins and force decisions around topics such as renegotiating pricing, passing costs to customers, or shifting to lower-tariff suppliers.

Sanctions are closer to an economic blockade. They aim to isolate the target by banning broad categories of trade, restricting strategic sectors, blacklisting specific entities and individuals, and sometimes pressuring third parties through secondary sanctions. The business impact is often binary. For example, if a counterparty or its majority owner is sanctioned, trading partners generally cannot make the deal work by paying more. The transaction becomes illegal, and violations can trigger severe penalties.

How the difference shows up in operations

Consider a European manufacturing company in March 2022 that is trying to manage the crisis situation caused by Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine.

If policymakers respond to the crisis with tariffs, such as a steep duty on Russian aluminum and timber, the primary challenge for this manufacturer is financial and operational planning. Costs rise, and then the company must decide whether to absorb the increase, reprice contracts, or switch suppliers, even if alternatives are more expensive.

Check out for more on the Supreme Court鈥檚 tariff decision here

If policymakers respond with sanctions, however, the situation can escalate quickly. Restrictions on major banks and key import categories, combined with aggressive designations of targeted companies and individuals can disrupt the entire supply chain. Payments can freeze, and goods can be delayed or seized. Even indirect connections to the sanctioned party can create problems, including for banks, shippers, insurers, and in some cases for logistics providers or warehouse owners. Indeed, what looked like a routine transaction can become non-compliant without warning.

The scale of sanctions use

Over the past several decades, the US has increasingly relied on economic sanctions as a core foreign-policy tool. In fact, by the early 2020s, US sanctions programs were targeting more than 30 countries and thousands of individuals and entities, with the sanctions primarily being administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). That trend has not only continued but accelerated under the current administration, which has turned to sanctions more frequently amid a volatile political environment. As the use of sanctions has expanded on a massive scale, their breadth and effectiveness have come under growing scrutiny.

Indeed, the phrase economic warfare reflects how modern sanctions often operate.

Many sanctions now target entire sectors, not only military goods. Secondary sanctions can threaten foreign companies that do business with sanctioned parties, effectively using access to the US financial system and the dollar as leverage. Critics argue that sanctions can also cause harm to civilians through inflation, shortages of essential goods including medicine, and broader economic damage. While targeted sanctions are intended to focus on elites, broader measures can affect entire populations.

What makes sanctions risky

The overuse of sanctions can create several problems. Yet sanctions can be politically attractive because they offer visible action without direct military risk, which may increase the temptation to use them even when they are unlikely to work.

As sanctions become routine, however, their impact may weaken as countries and companies develop workarounds, find alternative payment channels, and establish sanctions-resistant trade networks. Broad pressure from US sanctions can also encourage efforts to reduce reliance on the dollar-based financial system. China, Russia, and others have invested in alternative payment mechanisms such as cross-border interbank payment systems (CIPS) and systems for transfer of financial messages (SPFS) and expanded the use of non-dollar currencies. Over time, this response can reduce US financial leverage.

Sanctions can also provoke retaliation, including cyber activity, support for US adversaries, or wider regional instability. Sanctions also may harden diplomatic positions and make negotiation more difficult. In some cases, shared sanctions pressure can push sanctioned states closer together, strengthening the very coalitions that the US is trying to disrupt.

The argument for a middle ground

Supporters of sanctions argue that they provide an option between doing nothing and using military force. They can impose real costs on harmful actors, signal resolve, and respond to domestic demands for action, while still preserving diplomatic channels and avoiding full-on armed conflict.

The central question, however, is whether sanctions are being used as a substitute for strategy rather than as a single tool within a broader strategy. As sanctions continue to expand, it is worth weighing their benefits against their limits and long-term consequences. For policymakers and businesses alike, understanding these dynamics is critical to making informed decisions and managing risk.

You can find out more about here

Key takeaways:

• • • The Strait of Hormuz crisis threatens a global recession 鈥� The effective closure of the Strait, which is being driven more by insurance withdrawal and risk perception than a physical blockade, has effectively halted roughly 20% of global petroleum flow. If this disruptions persist beyond 30 days, economic modeling points to overwhelming recession risk for major importing economies, with oil potentially reaching $100 to $200 per barrel depending on severity.

    • The world is facing an unprecedented dual-chokepoint shipping crisis 鈥� With the Strait of Hormuz effectively shut and the Houthis resuming attacks on the Suez/Bab el-Mandeb corridor, roughly one-third of global seaborne crude trade is compromised simultaneously. All five major container lines have suspended Hormuz transits, and the cascading delays will hit supply chains far beyond the Middle East, including those companies with no direct Gulf exposure.

    • Companies that act now will fare far better than those that wait 鈥� Supply chain disruptions propagate on a lag of two to four weeks, meaning that the pain from today’s anchored tankers hasn’t arrived yet. Businesses should immediately audit their Gulf supply chain exposure, secure alternative freight capacity before it disappears, and prepare for a significant escalation in cyber threats from Iran and its allies.

Just days into the largest military operation undertaken by the United States since the 2003 Iraq invasion, the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered the most severe energy supply disruption since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The conflict with Iran has removed roughly 20 million barrels per day of crude from global markets and sent oil prices to above $80 as of press time. The conflict’s trajectory over the coming weeks will determine whether the world faces a manageable price shock or a full-blown recession.

How we got here

The February 28 strikes order by President Donald J. Trump followed weeks of negotiations around Iran鈥檚 nuclear program that ended without a deal just two days before the strikes began. Administration officials have since acknowledged that the timing was driven in part by Israel’s plans to strike Iran independently.

Iran鈥檚 Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, age 86, along with his defense minister Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and approximately 5 to 10 senior Iranian officials, died in the opening salvo of the operation.

Even after the destruction of a large segment of Iran鈥檚 senior leadership, the war continues on. Hezbollah launched a rocket strike on March 3 with Israel initiating a ground invasion of Lebanon in response. Iran’s retaliation has extended across the region as drone and missile strikes have hit targets across Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, and Bahrain, while the US Embassy compounds in both Kuwait and Riyadh have been struck directly. Six American service members have been killed thus far.

Indeed, the regional escalation has given Iran the context to play one of the most feared cards in its arsenal 鈥� and one with the potential to throw an already fragile global economy into recession.

On March 2, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, vowing to attack any ship trying to pass through the strait. An European Union official said that began receiving VHF radio transmissions from the IRGC stating that no ships would be permitted to pass.

Ship-tracking data based on the MarineTraffic platform showed at least 150 tankers 鈥� crude oil and LNG vessels (those specifically built to transport liquefied natural gas 鈥� anchored in open Gulf waters. At least five tankers have been struck near the Strait, including one off Oman that was set ablaze, while the US-flagged tanker Stena Imperative was hit by two projectiles near Bahrain. On March 2, Marine insurers Gard, Skuld, and NorthStandard stated publicly they would effective March 5. One day later, four more of the 12 global insurance groups joined them, with London P&I Club, American Club, Steamship Mutual, and Swedish Club announcing similar moves.

Energy markets absorb the most severe supply shock in years

In light of 20 million barrels per day of crude being frozen out of the global markets, brent crude surged as much as 13% before settling at $83 per barrel, while WTI crude jumped to $76 at press time 鈥� both at their highest levels since the June 2025 conflict. Further, that several major oil companies and trading houses suspended shipments through the Strait as soon as strikes began.

“Unless de-escalation signals emerge swiftly, we expect a significant upward repricing of oil,” said , head of the company鈥檚 geopolitical analysis, citing the immediate impact of halting of traffic through Hormuz. UBS analysts warned clients that a material disruption scenario could send brent crude above $120 per barrel, while Barclays projected $100 per barrel as increasingly plausible. Just twenty-four hours later, that range has widened considerably. Goldman Sachs now models $120 to $150 per barrel in a prolonged war, JPMorgan sees $120 if the war lasts beyond three weeks, and Deutsche Bank’s worst-case approaches $200 if Iran mines the Strait.

OPEC+ announced a modest 206,000 barrel per day output increase for April, but as Le贸n told Reuters, markets are now more concerned with whether barrels can physically move than with spare capacity on paper. If Gulf export routes remain constrained, additional production provides limited immediate relief.

Global shipping faces an unprecedented dual-chokepoint crisis

While the energy supply shock is severe, it is only one dimension of a broader shipping disruption that has no modern precedent. For the first time in history, two of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints are simultaneously compromised 鈥� the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal/Bab el-Mandeb corridor, the latter under renewed threat after the Houthis announced they would resume attacks. Together, these two passages that connect Asia to Europe handle roughly one-third of the global seaborne crude oil trade and a significant share of containerized cargo. All five major container lines 鈥� Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, and COSCO 鈥� have suspended or halted transits through Hormuz and are rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to voyage times.

The practical consequences for businesses extend well beyond higher shipping costs. The rerouting absorbs vessel capacity that was already stretched thin, meaning delays will cascade across trade lanes that have no direct connection to the Middle East. Companies that source components from Asia, ship finished goods to Europe, or depend on just-in-time inventory models should expect weeks 鈥� not days 鈥� of compounding delays.

Dubai, Doha, and Abu Dhabi 鈥� three of the world’s busiest air cargo hubs 鈥� are also facing disruptions, meaning the usual fallback of shifting urgent shipments to air freight is itself constrained. For affected companies, the window to secure alternative routing and lock in freight capacity is closing fast; those companies that wait for the March 5 insurance deadline to pass before acting will find themselves competing for scarce logistics options in a market where scarcity is already the defining feature.

3 scenarios and their divergent economic consequences

There are three most likely scenarios as this conflict unfolds, each with their own challenges and potential outcomes:

Scenario 1: Rapid regime collapse and quick normalization

Credible but unlikely in the near term, this scenario banks on the fact that Iran’s opposition is real 鈥� the protest movement of the last year or so has been the largest since 1979, and the regime’s legitimacy has been severely eroded by economic collapse and violent crackdowns. If internal collapse occurs, energy markets would normalize rapidly.

Brent crude would likely retreat to the $70 to $75 range within weeks as the primary disruption drivers 鈥� fear and insurance withdrawal, not physical blockade 鈥� dissipates. Tanker traffic would resume once insurers restore war-risk coverage.

Scenario 2: Prolonged conflict, Strait mostly reopened

This is the most likely outcome based on available analysis. Energy Aspects founder Amrita Sen said she expects oil prices to , noting it is unlikely Iran could maintain a complete closure. She assessed that the US and Israel possess the military capability to neutralize Iran’s ability to fully shut down the Strait but acknowledged that sporadic attacks on individual vessels are far harder to prevent.

This is the critical distinction: A full blockade is unsustainable against US naval superiority, but one-off tanker strikes create an insurance and risk environment that chills commercial traffic almost as effectively. In this scenario, oil prices remain very high before gradually declining as the U.S. Navy establishes escort operations and mine clearance, with an open question revolving around insurance companies鈥� willingness to insure floating barrels of flammable liquid sailing into an open warzone, even under escort. Asian refiners face weeks of constrained supply access.

Scenario 3: Sustained Strait closure for weeks or months

This is the catastrophic tail risk. Roughly 20% of global petroleum consumption and significant LNG volumes moves through the Strait daily, representing an estimated $500 billion in annual energy trade. Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline and the UAE’s Fujairah pipeline offer bypass capacity, but these routes can absorb only a fraction of the 15 million barrels per day now stranded.

Capital Economics estimated that a sustained $100 crude price could add to global inflation. And UBS warned that if disruptions extend beyond three weeks, Gulf producers could exhaust storage capacity and be forced to shut in output, pushing brent crude into the $100 to $120 range if not substantially higher if a significant blockade is held for a long duration.

The economic modeling is unambiguous, however, showing that disruption beyond 30 days carries overwhelming recession risk for major importing economies.

What companies should be doing right now

Of course, the economic impact of this conflict will not arrive all at once. Supply chain disruptions propagate on a lag 鈥� the tankers anchored outside Hormuz today represent goods and energy that won’t arrive at their destinations in two to four weeks. Companies that wait until these shortages materialize before they develop contingency plans will find themselves competing for scarce alternatives alongside everyone else. The window to act is now, not when the pain becomes visible.

Audit your supply chain exposure immediately

Any inputs, components, or raw materials that originate from or move through the Persian Gulf are at risk 鈥� and that extends well beyond oil. For example, one-third of global fertilizer trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, meaning agricultural and chemical supply chains face disruption as well.

Business leaders should identify their companies鈥� Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers that have Gulf exposure, assess existing inventory buffers, and begin conversations with alternative suppliers before demand for those alternatives spikes. And companies with operations dependent on Middle Eastern air hubs 鈥� such as Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi 鈥� should assume they鈥檒l face weeks of disruption to business travel and cargo routing and therefore plan accordingly.

Prepare for a serious escalation in cyber threats

Iran and its allies 鈥� including Russia, which has condemned the strikes and has well-documented cyberwarfare capabilities 鈥� have historically used cyber operations as an asymmetric response to kinetic military action. Indeed, there are signs already emerging that such actions are already taking place.

US critical infrastructure, financial services, and professional services firms are all plausible targets. The steps to prevent this are straightforward but urgent: Companies need to ensure that multi-factor authentication is enforced across all systems, verify that endpoint detection and backup protocols are current, brief employees on heightened phishing and social engineering risks, and confirm that incident response plans are not just documented but actually ready to be exercised.

The cost of preparation is negligible; the cost of a ransomware attack or data breach during a period of global economic stress is not.

Peering through the fog of war

As the conflict鈥檚 economic aftershocks move from risk to reality, the companies that act decisively now by diversifying supply chains, securing logistics, and hardening defenses will not just weather the disruption, but emerge more resilient whatever the outcome.

You can find out more about here

Key highlights:

• • • Principles need a repeatable process 鈥斕齊esponsible AI commitments become real only when companies systematize human rights due diligence to guide decisions from concept through deployment.

    • Policy and engineering teams should co-own safeguards 鈥� Ongoing collaboration between policy and technical teams can help translate ideals like fairness into concrete requirements, risk-based approaches, and other critical decisions.

    • Engage, anticipate, document, and improve continuously 鈥斕齀nvolving impacted communities, running regular foresight exercises (such as scenario workshops), and building strong documentation and feedback loops make human rights accountability durable, instead of a one-time check-the-box exercise.

More and more companies are adopting responsible AI principles that promise fairness, transparency, and respect for human rights, but these commitments are difficult to put into practice when it comes to writing code and making product decisions.

, a human rights and responsible AI advisor at Article One Advisors, works with companies to help turn human rights commitments into concrete steps that are followed across the AI product lifecycle. He says that the key to bridging the gap between principles and practice is embedding human rights due diligence into the framework that guides product development from concept to deployment.

Operationalizing human rights

Human rights due diligence involves a structured process that begins with immersion in the process of building the product and identifying its potential use cases, whether it is an early concept, prototype, or an existing product. This is followed by an exercise to map the stakeholders who could be impacted by the product, along with the salient human rights risks associated with its use.

From there, the internal teams collectively create a human rights impact assessment, which examines any unintended consequences and potential misuse. They then test existing safeguards in design, development, and how and to whom the product is sold. “Typically, a new product will have many positive use cases,鈥� explains Natour. 鈥淭he purpose of a is to find the ways in which the product can be used or misused to cause harm.” In Natour’s experience, the outcome is rarely a simple go or no-go decision. Instead, the range of decisions often includes options such as go with safeguards or go but be prepared to pull back.

The use of human rights due diligence in the AI product lifecycle is relatively new (less than a decade old) and as Natour explains, there are five essential actions that can work together as a system:

1. Encourage collaboration between policy and engineering teams

Inside most companies, responsible AI is split between policy teams, which may own the principles, and the engineering teams, which own the systems that bring those principles to life. Working with companies, Natour brings these two functions together through a series of workshops to create structured, ongoing collaboration between human rights and responsible AI experts and the technical teams to better co-develop responsible AI requirements.

In the early stages of the collective teams鈥� work, the challenges of turning principles into practice emerge quickly. For example, the scale of applications and use cases for an AI product can make it difficult to zero in on those uses that . Not all products or use cases need to be treated equally, says Natour, and companies should identify those that could potentially cause the most harm. Indeed, these most-harmful uses may involve a “consequential decision” such as in the legal, employment, or criminal justice fields, he says, adding that those products should be selected for deeper due diligence.

2. Consider the principles at each stage of the development process

Broad principles and values, such as fairness and human rights, should be considered at each stage of the lifecycle. For the principle of fairness, for example, teams may assess which communities will use this product and who will be impacted by those use cases. Then, teams should consider whether these communities are represented on the design and development teams working on the product, and if not, they need to develop a plan for ensuring their input.

3. Engage with impacted communities and rightsholders

Natour advocates for companies to actively engage with impacted communities and stakeholders, including those who are potential users or who may be affected by the product鈥檚 use. This could be the company鈥檚 own employees, for example, especially if the company is developing productivity tools to use internally in their workplace. Special consideration should be given to vulnerable and marginalized groups whose human rights might be at greatest risk.

External experts, such as Natour and his colleagues, hold focus groups with such stakeholders as . The feedback from focus groups can then be used to influence model design, product development, as well as risk mitigation and remediation measures. “In the end, knowing how users and others are impacted by your products usually helps you make a better product,” he states.

4. Establish responsible foresight mechanisms

To prevent responsible AI from becoming a one-time check-the-box exercise, Natour says he uses responsible foresight workshops and other mechanisms as a “way to create space for developers to pause, identify, and consider potential risks, and collaborate on risk mitigations.鈥�

The workshops use personas and hypothetical scenarios to help teams identify and prioritize risks, then design concrete mitigations with follow-on sessions to review progress. Another approach includes developing simple, structured question sets that push product teams to pause and think about harm. For example, Natour explains how one of his clients includes the question: What would a super villain do with this product? in order to help product teams identify and safeguard against potential misuse.

5. Create documentation and feedback loops for accountability

As expectations around assurance rise from regulators, customers, and civil society, strong documentation and meaningful, accessible transparency are essential, says Natour.听Clear, succinct, and accessible user-facing information about what a model does and does not do, about data privacy, and other key aspects can help users understand “what happens with their data, as well as the capabilities and the limitations of the tool they are using,” he adds.

Further, transparency should enable two-way communication, and companies should set up feedback loops to enable continuous improvement in the ways they seek to mitigate potential human rights risks.

The hardwired future

Effectively embedding human rights into the AI product lifecycle starts with a shared governance model between a company鈥檚 policy and engineering teams. Together they can collectively hardwire human rights into the way AI systems are imagined, built, and brought to market.

You can find more about human rights considerations around AI in our here

Key insights:

• • • Tech adoption is rising, but critical gaps remain 鈥� Adoption of technology has surged over the last year but several important trade functions are still not widely automated.

    • Satisfaction levels with technology remain low in some areas听鈥� Trade leaders are generally satisfied with the gains they see from their use of technology, but lack of integration is hindering supply chain visibility efforts.

    • Organizations are increasing their technology investments 鈥� Technology budgets are expected to continue to grow this year.

The recently published 2026 Global Trade Report, from the 成人VR视频 Institute, discussed how the use of technology is rising across corporate trade departments, with trade professionals much more likely this year to report that their departments have deployed automated tools. In addition, many were even exploring the use of advanced technologies such as AI and blockchain.

In the report, the percentage of trade professionals that characterized their departments as being early adopters or behind the curve (meaning they鈥檙e still using manual systems) dropped significantly.

However, amid the rapidly growing adoption of technology, key challenges and gaps remain, the report showed.

Urgency to improve efficiency

Increasing efficiency in trade operations is a high priority, as workloads continue to increase. More than half (56%) of respondents said that workloads and overtime requirements have grown over the last year as a result of increased tariff activity and trade complexity. Respondents also cite more complex reporting and documentation requirements. And an even higher percentage said they expect those pressures to increase over the next year. As a result, nearly half (49%) of trade professionals surveyed report increased stress on their teams.

In addition, trade departments are taking on a more strategic role in their organizations, as detailed in the report, which noted that with the heightened trade and tariff volatility, trade professionals are more involved in executive decision-making and are expanding their scope of responsibilities, including having greater influence over procurement decisions. However, these added roles and responsibilities also mean that trade departments must take on additional workflows.

Fortunately, technology can be a critical force multiplier to help manage these changes. While about half of respondents said they expect increased budget allocations to hire additional staff over the next year, trade departments are increasingly looking to technology to help automate workflows and increase efficiency. In addition, automating routine tasks for compliance and reporting can free up staff time to focus on more complex tasks such as using advanced analytics and engaging in strategic planning.

It’s not surprising then, that while most respondents (52%) anticipate more budget for additional headcount this year, an even higher percentage (65%) said they expect more resources to be budgeted for technology solutions. This positions trade departments to reap the best of both worlds 鈥� more staff and greater use of technology to improve efficiency across the department.

Continuing technology gaps

Most trade departments, according to respondents, have now adopted trade and supply chain data analytics, automation for enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, and supply chain visibility. However, significant technology gaps remain, with relatively few respondents saying their departments have deployed tools and platforms to allow for global trade management (32%), managing tariff changes (7%), and managing classification changes (4%).

As a result, satisfaction with tech capabilities often remains modest at best. Fewer than one-in-five respondents report being very satisfied with the impact of technology on workflow efficiency for trade and supply chain management, keeping up with regulatory changes, or improving their ability to glean insights from trade data in order to drive business decisions.

One major contributing fact is that four-in-ten respondents said they are not yet satisfied with their organization鈥檚 level of technology integration. This lack of integration hinders the ability of the trading team to maximize their use of existing systems to track and analyze data across various functions and geographies. This is increasingly important as businesses seek to improve visibility across their entire supply chain.

Thus, it鈥檚 not surprising that system integration is the top technology investment priority for the next year. An overwhelming 83% of respondents said this is a high- or medium-priority to help support informed decision-making.

Only about a quarter of trade departments have visibility across regions听听

鈥� 成人VR视频 Institute, 2026 Global Trade Report

Modernizing trade technology

With 40% of organizations exploring emerging technologies such as AI and blockchain, and satisfaction levels remaining modest across currently deployed capabilities, a significant technology transformation opportunity exists. However, successful technology deployment requires strategic focus rather than adoption of the latest technologies simply for their own sake.

Trade leaders should focus their technology investments in several key areas:

Supply chain visibility platforms 鈥� Real-time tracking enables proactive rather than reactive management. Automated exception alerting, comprehensive visibility across multi-tier supply chains, and integration with other systems can create a solid foundation for data-driven decision-making.

Data analytics and predictive capabilities 鈥� The jump from 8% to 58% in the last year in respondents saying their organizations adopted and used trade and supply chain data analytics indicates widespread recognition of data’s strategic value. Organizations should invest in platforms that not only collect data but generate actionable insights through advanced analytics and machine learning. Predictive capabilities can anticipate disruptions before they occur, enabling preventive action rather than damage control.

AI-assisted product classification 鈥� Product classification is time-consuming, error-prone when done manually, and yet, critical for compliance. AI systems have the potential to dramatically improve both efficiency and accuracy while freeing trade professionals to focus on more strategic work rather than routine tasks.

More technology investments ahead

The recent surge in technology adoption is positioning corporate trade departments to increase efficiency and expand their capabilities. Despite numerous gaps depending on specific technology use, about half of trade leaders indicate they are already at least somewhat satisfied with the overall gains they are seeing because of their use of technology.

Despite the recent gains, however, significant gaps in technology adoption still remain. Fortunately, organizations are recognizing the importance and urgency of increasing their investments in technology, coupled with adding to trade department headcount.

While workloads and pressures continue to grow, the elevation of the trade department as a strategic partner to the business 鈥� along with growing involvement in decision-making at the executive level and increasing recognition of the trade function鈥檚 value to the business 鈥� suggests that organizations are likely to continue accelerating their investments in technology as an integral part of their growing commitment to supporting their in-house trade professionals.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2026 Global Trade Report here