Why are U.S. Companies hiring trade compliance like it’s a national sport, while the EU pretends it’s a group project?

Katri Karjalainen chGlobal Trade Compliance & SAP GTS Architect · Independent Global Trade Compliance Lead

A question for the group ,especially those who work across both sides of the Atlantic:

I’ve noticed something funny on LinkedIn lately. In the U.S., companies are hiring for trade compliance like it’s the Olympics: Trade Compliance Manager, Export Controls Lead, ECCN Specialist, CTPAT Manager ; you name it, they’ve posted it.

Meanwhile in the EU, the same responsibilities seem to be quietly scattered across customs, logistics, legal, procurement, tax, and whoever had the misfortune of being “good with spreadsheets.” The job exists… but the title apparently does not.

So I’m curious:

Why does the U.S. treat trade compliance as a standalone profession, while the EU treats it like a group assignment nobody volunteered for?

And the real question I can’t shake: Where are the EU trade compliance jobs actually hiding?

Are they buried under “Customs Specialist”? Disguised as “Regulatory Affairs”? Camouflaged inside “Indirect Tax”? Or do they only appear during a full moon when SAP GTS crashes?

Is this cultural? Is it enforcement intensity?

Is it because CBP likes paperwork and the EU likes… delegation? Or is it simply that the EU is about to catch up once CBAM, forced‑labor rules, and supply‑chain visibility mandates fully land?

Would love to hear perspectives , especially from those juggling compliance across both regions. Is the EU just late to the party, or is this genuinely a structural difference? Or are the job titles just playing hide‑and‑seek?

Asked 6 Sept 2026

2 replies

Bev Tranca4w ago

Penalties. Stateside the fine can land on one person, so one person gets the title. Germany names the job: Exportkontrollbeauftragter.

Marcus Liewsg4w ago

Bev has the mechanism right. I would restate it one level up: this is not a question about job titles, it is a question about where a regulator can put a name.

First, Germany does not merely name the job, it names a person. The export officer has to sit on the body that legally represents the company, and is personally liable when the organisation fails. That is governance design, not hiring fashion.

Second, the EU already forces a named owner on the customs side. Trusted trader status is not granted without a person responsible for customs matters, demonstrable competence behind them, and written procedures. The role exists. It lives in an authorisation file rather than in a job advertisement.

Third, we run the same pattern in Singapore for strategic goods: nominate a control officer, then tell the authority when that officer changes.

So the jobs are not hiding, the accountability is. The question for your own board is whose name is on the file, and whether an internal audit could find it.

This reply was deleted.

2 replies

Community rules