Summary record of Open Table 5 (two sittings)

Attendance

The Secretariat’s Assembly-wide record as of 26 June listed 998 members in 49 countries. The Secretariat’s records do not list separate attendance counts or country totals for either sitting; accordingly, the Assembly-wide figures are not presented as sitting-specific attendance. Members participated anonymously unless they chose to speak publicly. The member names below are identifiers used for this record, not names of actual members.

Agenda

1. Opening and procedural reminders.
2. Reports on the Platform Fairness Standard consultation.
3. Consideration of the Cashflow Council’s PL? No. CF-001 pattern-test result and next steps.
4. Updates from the Fair Play, Trade, Resilience, Red Tape and Team Councils.
5. Evidence handling, public participation and actions before the next Open Table.

Record

1. Mr. Nikic opened both sittings and stated that Open Table was a forum for listening and clarification, not a ballot. He reminded participants that council proposals describe practices and proposed safeguards, rather than allegations against named companies. Members were asked not to identify their own businesses or attribute unverified conduct to a named organization. He recalled that the Assembly’s process proceeds from reports through a five-part pattern test, drafting, public consultation and ballot, followed by letters to the chief executives able to adopt an agreed standard.

2. The chair noted that the Assembly-wide report total stood at 2,751, drawn from 50 countries. The council allocation recorded on 26 June was: Platform, 1,405; Cashflow, 745; Fair Play, 229; Trade, 140; Red Tape, 121; Resilience, 58; and Team, 53. He emphasized that the figures describe reports filed, not unique businesses or a count of independently verified incidents. Participants were asked to distinguish firsthand experience, documentary evidence and secondhand information when submitting material.

3. In the Asia-Pacific sitting, Ms. Mei Lin Tan of Singapore said that a seller facing a sudden restriction needed an explanation that identified the affected listing or account function, the relevant rule and a usable route for review. She said that a generic notification did not enable a small operator to correct an error or plan cash needs. She supported keeping the consultation open to evidence about both automated and human decisions, while avoiding assumptions about the cause of any individual restriction.

4. Mr. Arjun Rao of Bengaluru, India, described the practical difficulty of matching a payment hold to a particular order or dispute when several transactions were involved. He said that a notice should distinguish a temporary review from a final decision and should state what information the affected business could provide. He asked the Platform Council to make sure that proposed protections could be understood by a small business without specialist legal assistance.

5. Ms. Naree Chaiyaporn of Chiang Mai, Thailand, drew attention to differences in access to support across languages and time zones. She said that a review process described as available in principle could be difficult to use if the notice did not explain the next step or if the route required repeated contact through a single channel. She urged the council to consider whether the proposed standard would work for businesses operating outside the platform’s principal market.

6. In the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting, Ms. Sofia Almeida of Porto, Portugal, reported that the Platform Fairness Standard draft was in public consultation from 2 June through 2 July. She reminded participants that the draft asks for written notice, a specific reason, review by a person and a time limit on payout holds before specified account actions or fee changes, with the same protections in every country in which a platform operates. She asked contributors to comment on whether each requirement was clear, workable and capable of being checked.

7. Mr. Daniel Okafor of Lagos, Nigeria, said that predictable notice was especially important where a business had already committed money to stock, delivery or staff. He asked contributors to separate the question of how quickly a review should occur from the question of whether a hold should be permitted at all. He also asked the council to consider whether a time limit should include a clear explanation of what happens when the review is not completed within that period.

8. Ms. Camila Rojas of Bogotá, Colombia, supported retaining the draft’s cross-country scope. She cautioned that a safeguard stated in a global policy could lose practical value if local support routes or notice formats varied substantially. She proposed that consultation comments identify the point at which local legal requirements need to be accommodated without removing the minimum protection sought by the standard.

9. The chair recorded that the draft remained under consultation and had not been adopted. Participants were reminded that the Assembly had not yet considered a final text or held an adoption ballot. The Secretariat was asked to preserve both supportive and critical comments, including comments identifying implementation burdens or unintended effects, rather than reporting only endorsements.

10. On the Cashflow Council, Mr. Nikic reported that CF-001 had passed its five-part pattern test on 23 June. The proposed standard seeks payment by large buyers to small suppliers within 15 days of an undisputed invoice, automatic interest when payment is late and publication of payment times. No CF-001 draft had yet been issued and no consultation or adoption ballot was before the Assembly. Participants were asked to treat the pattern-test decision as authorization to proceed to drafting, not as approval of the proposed terms.

11. Ms. Aisha Bello of Accra, Ghana, said that an invoice dispute should be identified promptly and with enough detail to allow the supplier to respond. She supported a defined payment period but asked the Cashflow Council to examine how the proposed rule would handle partial disputes, missing documentation and invoices submitted through a buyer’s portal. She said that the record should make clear when a payment period starts and how a supplier can verify that an invoice has been received.

12. Mr. Luca Bianchi of Bologna, Italy, asked the drafting group to consider whether publication of payment times would be comparable across buyers. He said that a published average without a stated method could conceal differences between payment categories or obscure late invoices. He recommended that any disclosure proposal explain its coverage and measurement period in plain language. The chair noted that these were drafting questions for the Cashflow Council, not settled provisions.

13. Ms. Emily Carter of Melbourne, Australia, observed that reporting on payment practices can help suppliers compare terms, but that small suppliers need an accessible way to raise a specific late-payment issue as well. She asked the council to keep the relationship between automatic interest, disclosure and dispute resolution clear in any future draft.

14. The Assembly received a short Fair Play Council update. The Secretariat clarified that, as of 26 June, the Fair Play Council was still collecting evidence and had not reached a pattern-test decision. Ms. Amara Diallo of Dakar, Senegal, said that payment-fraud reports should record the payment route, the time at which the payer contacted the provider and the response received, while protecting sensitive account information. She asked that evidence gathering distinguish a mistaken payment from a payment induced by impersonation.

15. Mr. Mateo Silva of Santiago, Chile, added that business email compromise could involve several parties and that a small business may not know which institution can act first. He asked the council to consider how a proposed recall process could explain responsibilities without promising a result that a provider cannot guarantee. The chair recorded that no Fair Play standard was before the Assembly for decision.

16. On trade, Ms. Hana Sato of Osaka, Japan, said that small importers need to understand the expected landed cost before committing to a purchase. She supported the Trade Council’s evidence work on size-based thresholds, plain-language guidance and phase-in periods, and asked that the council examine how forwarders explain fees and duties. She emphasized that evidence should identify the relevant type of shipment and rule without disclosing commercially sensitive details.

17. Mr. Kwame Mensah of Kumasi, Ghana, said that traders may receive guidance too late to adjust an order already in transit. He recommended that the council record when guidance became available, whether it was understandable and whether a small trader could estimate the cost before shipment. The chair noted that TR-001 had not yet passed the pattern test at the date of this meeting.

18. On resilience, Ms. Leila Haddad of Beirut, Lebanon, said that a business affected by a flood or other disruption may need to manage insurance, premises and continuity questions at the same time. She supported the Resilience Council’s work on claim timelines, bridge funding and continuity support, while noting that the council had not completed the corroboration stage of its five-part pattern test. She asked that reports distinguish the date of a disaster from the date a claim or assistance request was submitted.

19. On red tape, Mr. Peter Mwangi of Nairobi, Kenya, said that uncertainty about permit timelines can prevent a small business from planning an opening. He supported evidence gathering on service times and one-stop processes, and said that any proposed deadline should explain how an applicant is informed when an application is incomplete. The chair recorded that RT-001 remained at three of five pattern tests and was not ready for drafting as a standard.

20. On team and hiring costs, Ms. Elena Petrova of Sofia, Bulgaria, said that employers considering a first or early hire need to know the full cost and the steps required to register payroll. She supported the Team Council’s cost diary and comparison work, but asked contributors to distinguish statutory contributions from other employment costs. The chair noted that TM-001 remained at two of five pattern tests and that no proposal had been adopted.

21. Participants discussed the purpose of the evidence process. The Secretariat recalled that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises account for approximately 90 per cent of businesses, 60–70 per cent of employment and around half of GDP worldwide.¹ It also noted the International Labour Organization’s estimate that MSMEs account for about 70 per cent of employment worldwide and that around 80 per cent operate in the informal economy.² These global figures were used as context for the Assembly’s work and were not treated as evidence that any particular practice had passed a council’s pattern test.

22. Participants referred to existing policy cases as context rather than as proof that the Assembly’s proposals were already in force globally. The EU Platform-to-Business Regulation provides for a statement of reasons in specified cases of restriction or suspension of business users.³ The discussion also noted that the UK Government had introduced its Late Payments Bill in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026, and that the UK consultation response had addressed proposals on payment practices.⁴ Members were asked to ensure that any future comparisons state the jurisdiction and scope of the measure being discussed.

23. In closing, the chair confirmed that no Assembly ballot had taken place at Open Table 5 and no new standard had been adopted. He thanked speakers for identifying both the value of proposed protections and questions requiring further analysis. He said that the next Open Table would continue the monthly schedule and would be held on 24 July 2026, with the same two sitting times, subject to Secretariat confirmation.

Decisions and action items

1. Platform consultation: The consultation on the draft Platform Fairness Standard remains open through 2 July 2026. The Platform Council will organize comments by requirement, record implementation concerns and prepare a transparent summary for the next stage. Owner: Platform Council.

2. Cashflow drafting: The Cashflow Council may proceed from the completed pattern test to draft CF-001. Drafting should address invoice receipt, disputed portions, calculation of the payment period, late interest and comparable publication of payment times. No text is approved by this record. Owner: Cashflow Council.

3. Evidence quality: Council evidence submissions should distinguish firsthand reports, supporting documents and secondhand accounts, and should avoid naming members’ businesses. Owner: Secretariat and all councils.

4. Outstanding council updates: Fair Play, Trade, Resilience, Red Tape and Team Councils will continue their evidence work and report their status at a subsequent Open Table. No council status is advanced by this record. Owner: respective council chairs and evidence teams.

5. Publication: The Secretariat will publish this summary record, preserving the distinction between Assembly-wide totals and sitting-specific attendance, which the Secretariat did not record. Owner: Secretariat.

Notes and 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 Government, Late Payments Bill and consultation response. ↩

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 Government, Late Payments Bill: what it could mean for your business
5. UK Government, Late payment consultation: government response