ESG Conference 2025: a conversation with Ambassador Willem Van de Voorde

Sara Carnegie (SC): Ambassador Willem Van de Voorde is a Belgian diplomat currently serving as Special Envoy for climate and environment at the Belgian Foreign Ministry. His distinguished career includes roles as an ambassador and secretary to the Queen of Belgium. In addition, he has led the cabinet of two foreign ministers and coordinated the Belgian EU presidency. As permanent representative to the EU from 2020 to 2024, he co-chaired Coreper II, the key preparatory body of the Council of the European Union during the 2024 presidency, playing a key role in shaping EU policy. He kindly contributed to the IBA session ‘ESG The Brussels Effect at a Crossroads’ in both a keynote and panel speaker capacity.

SC: Welcome to you, Ambassador. Thank you so much for agreeing to talk with us today. It’s been an absolute pleasure listening to your speech earlier and your contributions on the panel session just now. I’d really like to start with your thoughts on the current political environment that we find ourselves in. Essentially, almost all countries are bound by the Paris Agreement, but can you give us more thoughts on the necessity for collaboration and how we achieve that in this current environment we’re in?

Ambassador Willem Van de Voorde (WVV): Well, the current environment gives very contrasting, even disturbing, signals. On the one hand, as you said exactly, we are witnessing a turbulent geopolitical environment, which injects a lot of uncertainty in businesses, in governments, in everyday lives, I think, of many people everywhere in the world. There are wars here in Ukraine, of course, Europe, the Middle East. 

Then we’re also in the midst of an historic green transition. This is really comparable to the electric revolution in the 18th to 19th century or the steam engine revolution in the 18th century. These are really historic movements which are difficult, which are disruptive, which oblige all actors in society to adapt, to find new ways, to spend money to adapt, so that is causing a lot of turbulence. 

A third factor is also that we now, especially here in the West, in the European Union, so to say, are experiencing an ever more prominent presence of industry and imports from third countries which so many years ago were absent from our scene. The most prominent example are of course the electric vehicles from China which are now entering massively into the European Union. This was unheard of 15, 20 years ago, and that is, of course, challenging our competitivity, but with that also, I think, the social climate.

So that is on one hand. And then on the other hand, contrastingly, the climate doesn’t stop. The warming up of the Earth is accelerating and we are now experiencing that everywhere. And it’s not just in the faraway countries, but also here in the European Union. We see the glacial melting in the Alps; we see irregular rainfall patterns with periods of too much rain and floodings unexpectedly very often, and then combined with periods of drought, as we are now witnessing here in Europe. 

So, how to manage these contrasting experiences? Turbulence, which injects hesitation and at the same time, accelerating climate change. So, I think this is a very difficult time to navigate for our political leaders. They have to keep the whole public calm, to motivate the troops, the economic actors, operators to steer the course which was decided – and the decisions have been taken many years ago already in very informed processes – the culmination was the Paris Agreement of 2015. So, we’re in a legal treaty, striving for carbon neutrality in 2050. So, they have to steer that course and at the same time take into account changing circumstances, difficult circumstances. So that is the international context in which climate policy has to operate these days. 
Then maybe to say a word on your question on international cooperation. I think for the European Union we are actually only a small part of the global scene now. We are responsible for maybe five, six per cent of emissions, which is not very much, but nevertheless, GDP-wise, we still are a very important actor in the world as an industrial powerhouse.

We have a very strong interest in developing relations and agreements with third countries. But in reality, in a globalised world, you need to extend that level playing field beyond your national borders. And of course, that is much more difficult because it requires international agreements, it requires a lot of dialogue, of comparing notes, and trying to bring over that sense of urgency. We all are having a deep interest in extending a kind of level playing field which is fair and which is workable and which is favourable for all partners in the world.

And that is what we do in the climate negotiations, but it goes much further than just these United Nations-led climate negotiations. It goes also straight into the dialogue which we, as member states of the European Union have with important industrial players, for instance, we are now negotiating trade treaties with India, with a lot of Latin American countries we conclude the trade treaties. MERCOSUR is the most important one. But it always contains an important dimension of ESG measures. We need them exactly for having that level playing field in which we can operate fairly inside the European Union. 

SC: Thank you. I only wonder your thoughts on populism and the short-termism of how populists operate, notwithstanding the long-termism of climate change. And so what’s concerning me is that most companies hopefully will be driven by market forces, but if political exigence overrides that and short-term profit and concerns of that nature start to play out more forcefully, it begins to undermine the progress that’s been made in this space. Are you optimistic about what the future looks like given those challenges?

WVV: Well, first of all, I acknowledge it is a difficult task for our political leaders to calm down these moments of doubt, of short-termism, and it is exactly the role they have to play, to offer that perspective on the longer term: to explain how everyday actions actually have a meaning in the longer term. That’s the whole art of the business. If that can be conveyed, that understanding that what you do today, which causes pain, which causes effort, which necessitates you to change old habits, if you understand better its significance in the broader story, the longer horizon, then I think you begin to make things palatable and defendable. But that is the challenge in all societies. But of course, and let’s never forget every country or grouping of countries has also its own interests and rationale, and they are different.

For instance, American interests are different from European interests, from Chinese interests. If a country like the United States has a lot of oil and gas deposits, it can produce enough to supply its own industry, which is very hungry on fossil fuels, because it’s a large industrial nation, and on the top of that can export to others – like we now import a lot of American LNG gas from the United States. So, if you’re in that situation, it’s very different from a country or a series of countries without that resource, and that adds an additional dimension to it. So, then you have to explain to the population, ‘we want to pursue that green transition because we are bound by the Paris Agreement Treaty. It’s our international obligation. It’s better for our health, for the individuals, for of nature and survival of the human species on Earth’ and so on. But on top of that, you have those kind of strategic calculations, desires for autonomy or more autonomy when you don’t have fossil fuels. And then it’s in your interest to use whatever you have. The starting position in the debate is a bit different according to what nature gives you or doesn’t give you.

Emily Morison (EM): Ambassador, you made some really valuable comments in the session that we’ve just had around the long arcs that need to be observed in times of geopolitical turbulence and you’ve touched on some of those in your comments now around self-interest, around the fact that we’re moving toward a fossil-free future, the fact that some of the hiccups that we’re seeing now don’t detract from that longer term trend. You’ve also spoken just now about the really important role of diplomats in communicating to the population around these issues. Do you see a role for private practice lawyers in particular in contributing to that conversation and how can lawyers help to keep us on track in relation to Paris Agreement alignment and broader sustainability objectives?

WVV: I think that lawyers have a really important role because we as diplomats or politicians, we are sometimes a little bit aloof and far away from the working ground where the decisions are discussed in boardrooms, where the investment decisions have to be taken, where the contracts have to be prepared and concluded. 

That is the area where the lawyers operate, and I think that the awareness of the broader political context in which these everyday decisions are being taken, I think it’s really key for lawyers to have good insight in that because they are the closest. We don’t advise directly companies. We try to organise a broad framework in which they can operate through international treaties, through legislation. But the real work on the floor happens in companies with investors and there the lawyers are very close. So I think this conference is extremely useful to sharpen that awareness of the lawyers. I think it’s very welcome. I’m happy to hear that the International Bar Association has a long history of working on these themes and trying to offer these broader perspectives to its members.

SC: I have one last question, and it relates to Stop the Clock. And I find that a somewhat ironically named concept given that the urgency of climate really isn’t capable of stopping any clock. I just wonder whether that seems to run counter to the urgency that we face and the description that you’ve given about the changes we’ve been seeing in the climate around the world. And do we think that the current approach is really appropriate or is it simply based on political realism that we have to face and the tensions between the two that we’ve spoken about?

WVV: Thank you all for this remark, I think it is very correct. I hadn’t really looked at it like this, but it only illustrates the difficulty and the challenge in communicating correctly on the processes which are ongoing.
So ‘stopping the clock’, it sounds nice. It is repeated everywhere. Maybe there is something to say that it doesn’t communicate the right message.

Actually, it is, ‘we win some time’. It doesn’t stop the clock. We only give a little bit of extra time to prepare companies and all kinds of operators to adapt to a new framework.

I will give your message to Brussels, whoever is there at present. But I think it’s a very correct remark and it really shows, as I said also in the conference, we have to improve our capacity to communicate about what we really want and what we do just to adapt in order to preserve and keep our main objective intact. And it is a very difficult area to navigate. And maybe we should think a little bit more about so what kind of message do we want to give, in order not to create or add to the confusion which is already now existing.

SC: I think that’s a perfect ending point. The IBA’s mission and efforts are to try and educate our members and our bars to do more in this space and to understand the issues better. And of course, politicians and diplomats are needed to try and explain to the people why it matters. And I know there is a cohort of people who perhaps still think it’s not as urgent as it in fact is out there, but thank you for your time today. It’s been an absolute pleasure to speak with you and we’re grateful for your contribution.