Quarterly report of the Secretariat: third quarter (July to September 2026)

I. Scope and reporting basis

1.This report covers the third quarter of 2026, from 1 July to 30 September. It records work undertaken during that period and distinguishes it from later procedural steps. Membership and report totals are the Secretariat’s consolidated figures as of 15 October 2026. They are not presented as quarter-only totals.

2.The Founders Assembly is a global assembly of small-business owners organized in seven councils. Its work is directed toward identifying recurring practices affecting small businesses, testing reported patterns, developing proposed standards, consulting publicly, and submitting adopted standards to the chief executives able to implement them. The Assembly’s institutional process is set out in its Rules of Procedure (RC/A/2026/2).

3.The work is situated in a broad economic context. Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises account for approximately 90 per cent of businesses worldwide, 60–70 per cent of employment and about half of global GDP.¹ The International Labour Organization estimates that MSMEs account for around 70 per cent of employment worldwide and that approximately 80 per cent operate in the informal economy.² These global estimates do not describe the Assembly’s membership; they explain why operational rules affecting small firms merit sustained attention.

4.The Secretariat records reports as evidence about practices, not as findings against a named company. Council work concerns recurring practices across a market or policy area. Individual member accounts remain anonymous unless a member elects to occupy a public seat, and accounts used in the Assembly’s work do not identify the member’s own business.

II. Membership and evidence

5.As of 15 October, the Assembly had 1,716 seated members in 49 countries. Members had filed 5,264 reports originating from 50 countries. The difference between the two country totals is recorded as reported; this report does not infer a reason for it. The figures reflect the Assembly’s cumulative membership and reporting base at the stated date.

6.Reports continued to enter the seven council streams. The distribution below is the complete consolidated count used for this edition. The figures sum to 5,264.

7.The Secretariat’s verified aggregate for this edition reports country coverage but does not provide a validated allocation of reports by region. Regional totals are therefore not published here. The Secretariat will not estimate or derive regional figures from the country count. Country-level coverage and regional reporting should be kept distinct in future public tables so that changes in the reporting base can be interpreted without implying a geographic distribution that has not been verified.

8.The report count is evidence received, not a measure of how many businesses experienced a particular event. Reports may concern related incidents, describe different stages of one process, or provide corroboration from a separate account. Council teams assess them under the five-part pattern test: Volume,

Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. A report count alone does not establish that every test has been met.

9.The Secretariat’s work during the quarter continued to emphasize the quality and usability of evidence. Members were asked to distinguish direct experience from information learned elsewhere, describe the process and its effects in concrete terms, and avoid attributing an individual account to a named company. This approach supports a public record focused on the practice under review and reduces the risk that unverified individual allegations are treated as institutional findings.

III. Council progress and pattern review

10.The quarter brought a major step from evidence review to an adopted Assembly standard. It also advanced a second council proposal through consultation and kept several other issues at earlier stages. The stages are not interchangeable: passing the pattern test authorizes development of a proposed response; it does not itself adopt a standard or require any outside organization to implement it.

11.For Platform, the Assembly adopted the Platform Fairness Standard, RC/PL/2026/1, on 13 August. The vote recorded 86.4 per cent in favour, with turnout of 58 per cent. The standard asks platforms to provide written notice, a specific reason, review by a person and a time limit on payout holds before suspending an account, removing a listing, holding a payout or changing a fee. It calls for these protections to apply in every country where a platform operates.

12.The adopted standard followed a public consultation on draft RC/PL/2026/L.1 that ran from 2 June to 2 July and received 487 comments. The July revision, RC/PL/2026/L.1/Rev.1, carried the proposal forward for Assembly consideration. The consultation record informed the final text; the count of comments is not treated as a vote or as proof that each contributor supported the same formulation.

13.The Platform Council’s work drew on reports concerning account suspensions, listing removals, payout holds and changes to fees. It also considered the range of existing rules and transparency practices. For instance, article 4 of the European Union Platform-to-Business Regulation requires statements of reasons in specified cases where a provider restricts or suspends a business user, and requires at least 30 days’ notice before terminating the whole service.³ The Assembly’s standard is its own adopted proposal; it does not replace or restate the law of any jurisdiction.

14.The Cashflow Council continued to develop CF-001, the proposed 15-Day Pay Standard. It asks large buyers to pay small suppliers within 15 days of an undisputed invoice, apply automatic interest when payment is late, and publish payment-time information. The draft, RC/CF/2026/L.1, was issued in July. Public consultation opened on 25 August and closed on 24 September, receiving 362 comments. At the close of the quarter, the consultation record was available for the next stage of council and Assembly consideration.

15.The Cashflow Council considered a varied policy landscape rather than assuming one existing model could be transferred to all markets. The United Kingdom’s Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026; the proposal includes a 60-day maximum payment term and mandatory interest, while exempting import and export contracts from the cap.⁴ The Assembly’s

15-day proposal is a separate standard and a more demanding target. Its rationale is that predictable payment timing can matter to a small supplier’s ability to meet wages, tax and operating costs.

16.The Fair Play Council’s FP-001 Business Fraud Standard passed its pattern test on 8 September. The proposal addresses payee-name verification, rapid recall of fraudulent payments and reimbursement for small businesses affected by authorised push payment fraud or business email compromise, including in cross-border circumstances. The public consultation opened on 13 October, after the reporting quarter, and was underway on the date of this report. Accordingly, the consultation is reported as a post-quarter procedural update, not as a third-quarter activity.

17.The Fair Play Council examined the limits as well as the mechanisms of existing approaches. In the United Kingdom, the Payment Systems Regulator’s APP reimbursement protections took effect on 7 October 2024, with a stated maximum of £85,000 per claim and coverage for consumers, micro-enterprises and charities; international payments are excluded from the scheme.⁵ The Assembly proposal considers the unresolved needs of small firms, including cross-border exposure. This comparison is descriptive and does not imply that the Assembly has authority over payment providers or national reimbursement schemes.

18.The Trade Council continued work on TR-001, the proposed Small Importer Standard. Its intended focus is size-based thresholds, plain-language guidance and phase-in periods when new trade rules or tariffs apply, together with clearer landed-cost information from freight forwarders. The proposal responds to the practical challenge of understanding total import costs and complying with rules designed without small traders’ capacity in view. At the end of the quarter, the work remained in evidence and pattern review; no adoption decision had been made.

19.The Resilience Council’s RS-001 Reopen Standard remained under pattern review, with four of the five tests completed and corroboration still pending. The proposed measures concern insurance claim decisions within 30 days, bridge funding within 10 days of a declared disaster, and continuity-planning support for

micro businesses. The Council’s work is informed by the documented importance of business continuity for small and medium-sized enterprises in disaster-risk reduction.⁶ The outstanding test is material: the Council is not presenting the proposal as having passed the full pattern test.

20.Red Tape and Team work remained at earlier review stages. RT-001, the proposed Small Business Impact Standard, concerns impact assessment for new business rules, a one-stop digital process, published service times and a deadline for permit decisions. TM-001, the proposed Fair Hiring Cost Standard, concerns simpler and more predictable employment costs for a business’s first ten hires, including phased social contributions and one-stop payroll registration. As of the report date, the Red Tape review had completed three of five tests and the Team review two of five. Neither proposal had passed the full test or reached public consultation.

IV. Documents, sessions and public participation

21.The principal public document issued during the quarter was the adopted Platform Fairness Standard, RC/PL/2026/1. The Secretariat also issued RC/PL/2026/2 on 20 August, transmitting the Assembly’s letters concerning implementation of that standard. The letters were addressed to the chief executives holding the relevant platform seats. Delivery was recorded between 24 and 26 August. As of 15 October, no reply was recorded in the Secretariat’s register; this report makes no assumption about any communication outside that record.

22.The Platform letters continued the Assembly’s established seat-tracking practice. A seat may be recorded as Proposed, Letter sent, Delivered, Replied, Signed or Empty chair. These are status labels for institutional follow-up, not endorsements. The Assembly’s standards are recommendations that their intended recipients may choose to adopt; the Secretariat records the steps taken and does not describe a proposed seat as occupied unless the record supports that status.

23.Monthly Open Table sessions continued during the quarter as a forum for members and observers to hear council updates, raise questions and discuss the work in progress. The Open Table format is intended to make council activity legible across different regions and working hours. The Secretariat does not publish attendance totals in this report and does not infer that participation in a session constitutes support for a proposal.

24.Public consultation remained a central part of the Assembly’s method. The Platform consultation gathered 487 comments before adoption. The Cashflow consultation gathered 362 comments before closing in September. Each consultation allows participants to address the proposed text, its practical effects and possible implementation difficulties. Consultation totals are reported as participation measures, not as representative polling of all small businesses.

25.The Secretariat maintained the distinction between member evidence, public consultation and formal Assembly decision-making. Reports contribute to the pattern review; consultation comments inform the drafting record; and a ballot determines whether a draft becomes an Assembly standard. This separation is necessary to keep the evidentiary basis, public input and governance decision visible as distinct parts of the process.

V. Campaigns, pledges and partners

26.Council campaigns provided practical ways for members and supporters to contribute evidence or engage with a proposed change. The Platform Council continued its “Suspended Without Notice” work, its “Payout Hold Clock” and the “Co-sign PL-001” effort. These activities focused on recording the effects of account restrictions and payout delays and on inviting support for the protections in the standard.

27.The Cashflow Council continued “The Invoice Clock” and the “15 Days” buyer pledge drive. The work connects payment-time evidence with a concrete proposed practice: paying an undisputed small-supplier invoice within 15 days. The Fair Play Council maintained its “BEC Watch” bulletin and invoice-fraud evidence drive, supporting the development and consultation of FP-001.

28.The Trade Council’s “Landed Cost Diary” and supplier-terms survey gathered practical information relevant to the proposed Small Importer Standard. The Resilience Council continued its “Reopen Map” and typhoon and flood readiness work. Red Tape’s “Days to Open” index and “Permit Timer” focused on the time and administrative steps involved in opening or operating a business. Team Council activities included the “First Ten Hires” cost diary and employment-cost comparison.

29.The Secretariat’s pledge programme, opened on 5 May, gives businesses a route to state support for standards and practices in the Assembly’s work. The programme is governed by the Pledge Standards for businesses, RC/A/2026/7. A pledge is a voluntary public commitment; it is not evidence that the pledging business has implemented every proposed standard, and it does not confer a vote in the Assembly.

30.Partners supported the Assembly’s public-interest work through participation and practical assistance. The Secretariat continued to distinguish partner involvement from council decision-making: partners may support convening, evidence access or dissemination, but the Assembly’s members retain responsibility for pattern review, drafting and ballots. The report does not assign partners a role in the adoption of a standard unless that role is stated in the governing process.

VI. Governance and institutional practice

31.The Assembly operated under the Rules of Procedure adopted by ballot on 19 March 2026 (RC/A/2026/2). Its first Board was elected on 23 April. The Board’s role is to support the Assembly’s governance and continuity; it does not substitute for council evidence review or the Assembly ballot required for adoption of a standard.

32.Fellows were confirmed by ballot during the quarter. Their contribution supports the Assembly’s capacity to review evidence and develop work across councils. The Secretariat continues to treat Fellowship as a governance and work-support function, not as a substitute for member consent or a public endorsement of an individual account.

33.The reporting and consultation record remained subject to the principles of anonymity, procedural clarity and careful attribution. Members may choose a public seat, but are otherwise not identified in the Assembly’s public accounts. In particular, individual stories do not name a member’s business. Council statements describe practices, while names appear only where a formal CEO seat is involved or where a cited public source is being discussed.

34.These safeguards matter to the credibility of the Assembly’s work. A pattern-based proposal should be traceable to the evidence and consultation that informed it, while protecting members from unnecessary exposure. The Secretariat’s responsibility is to maintain that record, state the limits of what it shows and ensure that a draft, a consultation result and an adopted standard are not confused.

VII. Transition to the second part

35.The quarter’s record shows an institution moving from initial evidence collection toward repeatable public standards: one standard adopted, a second consultation completed, another proposal entering consultation, and several council issues continuing through pattern review. The second part of this report continues with financial stewardship, operational constraints and priorities for the next quarter.

VIII. Financial stewardship and operating capacity

36.During the third quarter, the Secretariat maintained a modest operating model suited to a young institution. Its resources came principally from partner dues and small foundation grants. The Secretariat used those resources to support evidence handling, consultation, member communications, meeting access and the preparation and publication of Assembly documents.

37.Financial stewardship was organized around continuity and procedural integrity rather than rapid expansion. The Secretariat prioritized work directly connected to the Assembly’s agreed process: receiving and classifying reports, supporting the five-part pattern test, publishing drafts for consultation, maintaining ballot records and keeping the status of letters to decision-makers visible. Expenditure was kept proportionate to the work undertaken and to the organization’s present capacity.

38.The Secretariat did not treat partner support as a source of authority over council conclusions. Partner dues and grants supported institutional work; they did not confer a role in determining whether a pattern had been established, how a standard should be drafted or how members should vote. This distinction remained important as Reseated moved from collecting reports toward public proposals and formal adoption.

39.The Secretariat also sought to avoid commitments that would depend on uncertain future funding. The Assembly’s work spans multiple jurisdictions and requires careful handling of evidence, translation and accessible participation. Those needs are substantial, but the organization’s resources remain limited. The Secretariat therefore sequenced work according to member decisions and the capacity to complete each stage responsibly.

40.Reseated operated as a nonprofit at the reporting date. The Secretariat continued to maintain records of receipts and expenditure and to direct available funds toward the Assembly’s stated purposes. This report provides a general account of financial stewardship; it does not present audited accounts or a detailed financial statement.

IX. Constraints, risks and lessons from the quarter

41.The quarter demonstrated the value of separating evidence collection from decision-making. A high report volume can identify a subject for review, but volume alone does not establish a recurring practice or justify a standard. The five-part test—Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration—remained the basis for determining whether a reported problem could proceed to a proposed fix.

42.The work also showed that the seven councils move at different speeds. A council may be collecting reports while another is consulting on a draft or preparing for a ballot. The Secretariat’s responsibility is to report those stages accurately, not to make the portfolio appear more uniform than it is. At the end of September, the Platform Fairness Standard had been adopted; the Cashflow Council’s consultation had closed; and other issues remained at earlier stages of review or development.

43.The evidence base is international, but its aggregation requires care. Members are anonymous unless they choose a public seat, and individual stories do not identify a member’s business. The Secretariat therefore reports council totals and overall country coverage where those figures are available, while avoiding unsupported regional estimates or details that could make an individual account identifiable.

44.In particular, the Secretariat does not publish a numerical allocation of reports by region in this report. The available reporting snapshot provides totals by council and states the number of countries from which reports were received; it does not provide a validated regional breakdown. The regional table below records the geographic groupings used for convening, not counts of members or reports.

45.Public standards work also depends on keeping legal context distinct from the Assembly’s own request. The Platform Fairness Standard draws on a broader policy landscape that includes European rules requiring reasons in specified platform actions and Japan’s disclosure requirements for designated digital platforms.⁷ Those frameworks provide context; they do not make the Assembly’s proposed protections identical to existing law or establish that the same protections apply in every jurisdiction.

46.The same distinction applies to payment practices. The UK Late Payments Bill, introduced in May, forms part of the policy context considered by the Cashflow Council, but the Council’s 15-Day Pay Standard is an Assembly proposal and not a description of the Bill’s requirements.⁸ The Secretariat will continue to identify the source and limits of external legal claims when they are used in council materials.

47.A further constraint is the time required for meaningful consultation. The 487 comments received on the Platform Fairness Standard and the 362 comments received on the Cashflow Council draft required organization and review. The Secretariat’s aim is not merely to count submissions, but to preserve the distinction between repeated themes, individual proposals and arguments that do not support the direction of a draft. Consultation totals are therefore evidence of participation, not a substitute for analysis.

48.Finally, member participation must remain compatible with privacy and accessibility. The Assembly continued to use anonymous participation as its default, while allowing members to choose public seats. This approach supports candour, but it also places a continuing responsibility on the Secretariat to avoid publishing details that could identify a member or their business indirectly.

X. Priorities for the next quarter

49.The Secretariat will support the Cashflow Council’s adoption ballot, scheduled to run from 26 October to 9 November 2026. It will maintain a clear record of the ballot period, eligibility and result, and will distinguish the outcome of the vote from subsequent outreach to buyers who may adopt the standard.

50.The consultation on FP-001, the Business Fraud Standard, opened on 13 October and is scheduled to close on 12 November. The Secretariat will support participation during the consultation, organize submissions for council review and ensure that the final proposal reflects the evidence and the consultation record rather than treating either as a foregone conclusion.

51.The Secretariat will continue work with the Trade, Resilience, Red Tape and Team councils as their evidence review and drafting proceed. Priorities include maintaining clear records of the five-part test, identifying gaps in corroboration, and communicating what further evidence would be useful. The Secretariat will not present a draft or an adoption timetable as settled before the relevant council and Assembly steps have occurred.

52.Follow-up on the adopted Platform Fairness Standard will remain a priority. Letters to the seven CEOs identified for the first wave of seats were delivered between 24 and 26 August. No replies were on record at the time of this report. The Secretariat will continue tracking each seat by its published status—Proposed, Letter sent, Delivered, Replied, Signed or Empty chair—and will not imply agreement where none has been recorded.

53.A second wave of CEO seats has been proposed for mid-sized platforms, with letters scheduled for 17 November. The purpose of that outreach is to offer a clear route for adoption and a public record of whether a seat is occupied. The Secretariat will preserve the distinction between a proposed seat and a commitment by a recipient.

54.The Secretariat will continue the monthly Open Table format, support the established regional sittings and make council materials available in a form that allows members to follow each stage. It will also maintain the public record of documents, consultations and ballots, including the distinction between a draft, an adopted standard and a letter asking a decision-maker to adopt it.

55.Work on pledges and partnerships will continue under the Pledge Standards adopted by the Assembly. The Secretariat will describe a business as a pledger only where the applicable process has been completed and recorded. Partners may assist with convening, evidence access and dissemination, while council review and Assembly decisions remain with members.

56.The Secretariat will also review the consistency of its reporting categories. In particular, it will assess whether future reports can present regional participation in a comparable and privacy-conscious form. Until a sufficiently reliable regional allocation is available, it will state that limitation rather than infer counts from meeting attendance or country totals.

57.On institutional practice, the next quarter’s work will include continued attention to ballot administration, document control, the protection of anonymous members and the separation of Secretariat administration from council judgment. These safeguards are not separate from the substantive work: they allow proposals to be

examined and contested without turning an individual member’s account into a public identification.

XI. Closing assessment

58.The third quarter marked a shift from initial organization toward a recurring standards process. The Platform Fairness Standard was adopted by the Assembly; the Cashflow Council completed public consultation on its draft; and the Fair Play Council advanced its proposal to consultation shortly after the quarter ended. Other council issues continued through evidence review and development.

59.The record should be read with its limits in view. The membership and report totals describe the snapshot available on 15 October 2026. They do not provide a regional distribution, establish that every report has been corroborated, or imply that a proposed standard has been adopted. The stages of the process remain distinct and should be read as such.

60.Reseated’s work depends on a repeatable sequence: reports, pattern review, a draft fix, public consultation, an Assembly ballot and outreach to the people able to adopt the resulting standard. The Secretariat will continue to support that sequence, report its progress plainly and state where the evidence or institutional capacity remains incomplete.

Annex. Membership and report snapshot

61.The following figures are the internal reporting snapshot dated 15 October 2026. Membership and report totals are not interchangeable: members were seated in 49 countries, while reports had been filed from 50 countries.

62.Reports by council are set out below. The figures sum to the total of 5,264 reports.

63.These totals describe the evidence received and assigned to councils. They should not be read as counts of unique businesses, confirmed violations or findings against any named company.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. United Nations, Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day
2. International Labour Organization, Micro, small and medium enterprises
3. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, Article 4
4. UK Small Business Commissioner, Late Payments Bill: what it could mean for your business
5. Payment Systems Regulator, APP fraud reimbursement protections
6. UNDRR, Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises
7. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, Article 4
8. UK Small Business Commissioner, Late Payments Bill: what it could mean for your business