The Table, No. 27: A standard adopted; the work continues

From the Secretariat

Six months after the Founders Assembly launched, this week brought an important milestone: the Assembly adopted the Platform Fairness Standard. Adoption is not the end of the work. The next task is to carry the agreed standard beyond the Assembly and invite the leaders with the power to act to consider it.

Our work depends on keeping evidence, decisions and follow-through connected. Members report what happens in their businesses; councils test whether a problem is shared and consistent; the Assembly decides whether to adopt a proposed response. We will keep reporting what has been decided, what remains underway and where a response is still pending.

The week at the table

On 13 August, the Founders Assembly adopted the Platform Fairness Standard, recorded in resolution RC/PL/RES/2026/1. The measure passed with 86.4% voting yes, on a turnout of 58%. It followed the Platform Council’s pattern review and a public consultation that received 487 comments. This digest reports the adoption, not a summary of provisions: the resolution itself is the authoritative text for what the Assembly agreed.

The decision marks a step in Reseated’s stated process: reports are assessed against five tests—Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration—before a draft is consulted on and put to an Assembly ballot. After adoption, the work turns to delivery. Letters to seven chief executives are scheduled for 20 August. They have not yet been sent as of this digest date. The seats will be tracked through the Assembly’s status categories, so that a proposed action is not confused with a response or a commitment.

Several other documents were issued this week. RC/SEC/2026/5, dated 10 August, marks six months of the Founders Assembly. RC/TR/2026/23, dated 12 August, is a letter to the WTO Secretariat on MSME participation in trade. The Platform Council’s seventh-session summary record, RC/PL/2026/SR.7, is dated 12 August; the Cashflow Council’s seventh-session summary record, RC/CF/2026/SR.7, is dated 14 August. These records and letters are part of the public trail of work. Readers should consult the documents for their full text rather than infer details from their titles.

The adoption is significant, but it does not itself establish whether any company will implement the standard. That distinction matters. Reseated can gather evidence, deliberate and make recommendations; the companies addressed retain responsibility for deciding whether to act.

By the numbers

As of 14 August, Reseated had 1,337 members in 49 countries. Members had filed 3,929 reports from 50 countries. The difference between the two country counts is intentional: one describes where members are seated, the other where reports originated.

• Platform: 1,739 reports
• Cashflow: 1,055
• Fair Play: 411
• Trade: 277
• Red Tape: 195
• Resilience: 149
• Team: 103

The council figures total 3,929. They show where reports have been filed, not how many distinct businesses are represented or how severe any individual report is. Counts are a starting point for review, not a substitute for examining the evidence under the five-part pattern test.

The scale of the small-business community is also worth keeping in view. The United Nations estimates that MSMEs account for about 90% of businesses, 60–70% of employment and roughly 50% of GDP worldwide. The ILO estimates that MSMEs provide about 70% of employment worldwide and that around 80% operate in the informal economy. These are global estimates, not Reseated membership statistics. Sources: United Nations MSME Day and ILO: Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.

From the table

It reflects the kind of practical problem that can arise when a small business depends on a large marketplace.

A seller makes a run of sales and plans the week around the expected payout: replenishing stock, paying a supplier and covering routine operating costs. Then a payment is delayed or held. The seller can see that the money is unavailable, but cannot easily determine what triggered the delay, what information is needed, or when the funds may be released.

The immediate problem is not only the missing cash. It is the uncertainty. A supplier still expects payment on the agreed date. The business owner has to decide whether to use a limited reserve, postpone an order, or spend time trying to obtain an explanation. Each choice has a cost, and the owner may have little leverage in a relationship governed by a platform’s processes.

This case is deliberately modest: it does not presume misconduct, and it does not claim that every seller has the same experience. It illustrates why reports need concrete details—what was expected, what happened instead, what explanation was given and what the practical consequence was. Repeated, comparable accounts can help a council test whether an individual difficulty forms part of a wider pattern. The Cashflow Council’s session record this week is one part of that continuing work; its published record should be read for what the council actually discussed.

Coming up

The next dates on the published process are the scheduled dispatch of letters following adoption of the Platform Fairness Standard on 20 August, and the opening of the Cashflow Council’s CF-001 public consultation on 25 August. These are future steps as of 14 August, not completed events. The consultation is an opportunity to review the draft, identify practical effects and submit evidence before the Assembly considers a decision.

The Platform Council’s seventh-session summary record and the Cashflow Council’s seventh-session summary record are now dated and available as this week’s documents. The Secretariat’s records specify no further council-session date. We will share confirmed dates and the relevant consultation details through Reseated’s channels as they are published.

For members following the Platform Standard, the next measure of progress is not simply whether letters are sent. It is whether they are delivered, whether a reply is received, and whether any commitment is made. Those are distinct stages, and the public seat tracker will distinguish them.

One thing you can do

If you have experienced a business practice that may affect others, submit a report with a clear timeline and the records that help explain it. State what you expected, what occurred, what explanation you received and how it affected your business. Where possible, include dates and relevant correspondence, while removing personal or commercially sensitive information that is not necessary to understand the issue.

Please do not name your own business in a public account. Reports are most useful when they describe a practice precisely and can be compared with other accounts. A single report can help identify a question; careful, corroborated reporting helps the councils assess whether that question reflects a wider pattern.