Today I’m bringing back an episode of the Collaborative Business Podcast where I explore a perspective on alliances that is often underestimated, and sometimes even resisted, until it is too late. The legal perspective. My guest is Luuk van der Laan, a lawyer specialised in strategic alliances, and someone who has spent much of his career at the intersection of collaboration, technology, and long-term business development.
At first glance, the combination of law and collaborative business may feel uncomfortable to some. Law is still too often associated with control, protection, and worst-case scenarios, while alliances are associated with ambition, growth, and opportunity. One of the reasons I wanted to have Luuk on the podcast is precisely because he challenges that false contrast. In our conversation, it becomes clear that good legal thinking does not constrain collaboration. It enables it.
Luuk brings a rare mix of experience to the table. After more than two decades as a lawyer, including eight years at Philips working directly on large-scale alliances such as Senseo, he understands alliances not only as contractual structures but as living systems. Systems that span R&D, production, marketing, governance, and executive decision making. His work today ranges from start-ups to global corporates, and from bilateral partnerships to complex European technology platforms involving dozens of parties.
One of the central themes in our conversation is clarity of objectives. Luuk explains why making alliance objectives explicit, and even contractual, dramatically increases the chance of success. Not because objectives must be identical, but because hidden agendas almost always erode trust. This insight alone challenges a common assumption that contracts should remain deliberately vague to preserve flexibility. According to Luuk, ambiguity rarely creates flexibility. It creates friction.
We also dive into governance, executive sponsorship, exit clauses, and intellectual property. Topics that many alliance teams prefer to postpone, but which often determine whether an alliance scales or stalls. Luuk shares concrete lessons from real alliances, including why negotiating the exit while everyone is still enthusiastic is one of the most pragmatic moves partners can make.
What I particularly appreciate in this conversation is that it reframes the role of legal professionals in alliances. Not as deal closers at the end of the process, but as alliance architects who help partners think through how they want to work together before complexity sets in.
If you are involved in building, managing, or advising strategic alliances, this episode offers a grounded and refreshingly practical view on how legal design can strengthen collaboration rather than suffocate it.
