RC/SEC/2026/1 — On Micro-, Small and Medium‑sized Enterprises Day, 27 June 2026

On Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day, 27 June 2026

Statement of the Founding Secretariat

1.On 27 June, the United Nations observes Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day. The day recognizes the contribution of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to livelihoods, local economies and sustainable development. It is also an occasion to examine whether the institutions and markets on which these businesses depend are designed to work for them, not only for organizations with more staff, capital and bargaining power.

2.The United Nations estimates that MSMEs account for about 90 per cent of businesses, 60 to 70 per cent of employment and around 50 per cent of gross domestic product worldwide.¹ These are global estimates, not a description of every country or sector. They nevertheless make clear that the experience of smaller firms is not a marginal concern. The way they are paid, regulated, hired, insured and treated by commercial platforms affects a substantial part of economic life.

3.The International Labour Organization estimates that MSMEs provide about 70 per cent of employment worldwide and that roughly 80 per cent of them operate in the informal economy.² Informality is not a single condition with one cause. It can reflect the structure of a local economy, barriers to registration, the cost and complexity of compliance, limited access to finance, or a combination of these and other factors. It can also leave workers and business owners with less protection and make it harder for firms to access formal markets. Policies intended to encourage formal activity must therefore be workable for the people expected to comply with them.

4.Reseated marks this observance as a global assembly of small-business owners. The Assembly is organized through seven councils, each examining a set of recurring practices rather than making allegations about a single company. Members participate anonymously unless they choose a public seat. Their reports describe business experiences; they are not, by themselves, a representative survey of every MSME or a finding against any named organization.

What members have reported

5.Since Reseated launched on 10 February 2026, members have filed 2,756 reports. The members are seated across 49 countries; the reports come from 50 countries. Those figures describe different things: members’ locations and the places from which reports were submitted. The additional reporting country does not change the reported count of member countries.

6.The reports are grouped by the council responsible for examining the practice. The figures below are the internal totals for 27 June 2026:

7.The largest share of reports concerns platform practices. Members have described experiences involving account suspensions, listing removals, delayed or held payouts, changes to fees, and difficulty understanding or challenging decisions. Reports refer to categories of service, such as a large marketplace or a payment provider. They do not name members’ businesses, and the

Assembly does not use individual accounts to make unsupported claims about a particular company.

8.Cashflow reports concern the time between supplying goods or services and receiving payment. Members have raised late payment, unclear payment dates, disputes over invoices, and the effect that an unpaid invoice can have on meeting payroll or paying their own suppliers. These reports do not mean that every late payment has the same cause or that every buyer acts in the same way. They do show why a small supplier’s ability to plan can depend on the payment practices of a much larger customer.

9.Reports to the Fair Play Council concern fraud risks affecting businesses, including payment fraud and business email compromise. Trade reports describe the difficulty of understanding costs and requirements when goods cross borders. Red Tape reports include experiences of complicated procedures and uncertain waiting times. Resilience reports address the challenge of restarting after disruption. Team reports concern the costs and administration involved in hiring. The totals are not a ranking of social importance: smaller counts may reflect the maturity of a reporting effort as well as the frequency of an underlying problem.

10.A report count is a starting point for inquiry, not a conclusion. Reseated’s process is to examine reports against five elements: volume, frequency, consistency, spread and corroboration. A council then considers whether a pattern is sufficiently supported to justify a draft proposal. That proposal is subject to public consultation and, if advanced, an Assembly ballot. Adopted standards are sent to the chief executives able to consider adopting them. This approach is intended to distinguish an individual account from a pattern that warrants a shared remedy.

Work under way

11.The Platform Council’s consultation on the draft Platform Fairness Standard is under way from 2 June to 2 July. The draft asks for written notice before an account suspension, listing removal, payout hold or fee change; a specific reason; review by a person; and a time limit on payout holds. It also asks that the same protections apply in every country in which a platform operates. The consultation is an opportunity to test whether the proposed

protections are clear, workable and responsive to different business models and legal settings.

12.The proposal is concerned with fair process. A business should be able to understand what action is being taken and why, and to seek a meaningful review when an error or misunderstanding may have occurred. Where a payment is held, the business also needs to know what conditions apply and when the hold will end or be reviewed. These protections do not prevent platforms from enforcing rules or responding to genuine risks. They ask that consequential decisions be communicated and handled in a way that affected businesses can understand and address.

13.Existing law provides cases of process protections. The European Union’s Platform-to-Business Regulation requires covered online intermediation services to provide a statement of reasons in specified cases of restriction or suspension of a business user, and requires at least 30 days’ notice before terminating the whole service, subject to stated exceptions.³ The scope and details of that regulation matter; it is not a universal rule for every platform or every business. It does, however, illustrate that reason-giving and notice can be part of the rules governing digital commercial relationships.

14.The Cashflow Council passed its pattern test on 23 June. Its proposed subject is payment terms between large buyers and small suppliers. The council is developing a draft standard that would ask large buyers to pay an undisputed invoice within 15 days, apply automatic interest when payment is late, and publish payment-time information. Passing the pattern test is not adoption of a standard. The proposal must still be drafted, consulted on and put to an Assembly ballot before it can be adopted as a Reseated standard.

15.The question is practical: when a small supplier has delivered work and submitted an undisputed invoice, how long should it have to finance the buyer’s business? A predictable payment date can help a firm manage wages, rent, stock and its own supplier commitments. A clear route for raising a genuine invoice dispute can protect both parties. The proposed 15-day standard is a policy position under development, not a statement that every jurisdiction currently requires payment within that period.

16.Governments are considering different approaches. The United Kingdom’s Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026. The Government’s published account of the proposed measures includes a 60-day maximum payment term, mandatory interest for late payment and an adjudication role for the Small Business Commissioner, with specified enforcement powers; the Bill also provides for an exception concerning import and export contracts.⁴ In India, provisions concerning qualifying micro and small enterprises include payment deadlines of 15 days where there is no written agreement and no more than 45 days where there is one, alongside interest provisions for delay.⁵ These cases differ in design and scope. They demonstrate that payment practices are a matter for public policy as well as private contract.

What governments and large companies can do

17.Governments can make rules easier to understand before imposing them. They can assess the practical effect of proposed requirements on the smallest affected firms, publish plain-language guidance, provide a single route to complete related processes where possible, and state expected service times. They can consult businesses with different levels of staffing and digital access, not only trade bodies with the capacity to respond to lengthy technical papers. Where a rule is phased in, the timetable should be clear and proportionate to the risk being addressed.

18.Governments can also make payment and administrative performance visible. Published payment-time data, clear deadlines for resolving disputes, and accessible routes to challenge non-compliance can help firms plan and can allow buyers and public bodies to compare practice. Measures should be designed with care: data definitions need to be consistent, and reporting duties should not create a disproportionate burden for the smallest firms. The purpose is useful accountability, not paperwork for its own sake.

19.Public authorities can review how permits, registrations and inspections work in practice. They can explain what is required, identify the responsible office, provide status updates and tell applicants when a decision is expected. Where a process is delayed, the applicant should be able to find out why and what remains

outstanding. Governments can also consider whether digital services are usable for people with limited time, specialist support or reliable access to technology.

20.Large companies can make commercial relationships more predictable without waiting for every detail to be prescribed by law. Buyers can set clear payment dates, acknowledge receipt of invoices, identify a dispute promptly and pay the undisputed amount while a genuine disagreement is resolved. They can review whether their own procurement processes create avoidable delays, and publish payment performance in a form suppliers can understand. A contract term that is clear on paper is not enough if operational practice routinely makes it difficult to receive payment on time.

21.Digital platforms and payment providers can explain consequential decisions in specific terms, distinguish an automated flag from a final decision, provide a route to human review, and communicate the steps needed to restore access or release funds. If an account or payout is restricted to protect users or comply with law, clear communication can help an affected business respond without undermining that protection. A review process should be accessible and should have a stated timeframe.

22.These actions are compatible with legitimate commercial judgment. A business that serves millions of users may need consistent rules; a bank may need to respond to fraud risks; a public authority may need to enforce safety or tax requirements. The issue is whether the rules are understandable, proportionate to their purpose, and administered with enough transparency for smaller firms to comply or seek review. Good process can support trust while preserving the ability to act.

23.Reseated will continue to gather reports and test proposed solutions through consultation and ballot. The figures published here record the Assembly’s first months; they do not claim to capture every business experience or to settle the causes of each reported difficulty. They provide a basis for asking better questions, comparing practice across places and developing proposals that can be examined in public.

24.On this Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day, the Secretariat recognizes the business owners who have contributed evidence, the members who have examined it, and the organizations and individuals who have taken part in consultation. The scale of MSMEs in the world economy makes their day-to-day treatment a matter of shared concern. Governments and large companies can help ensure that smaller businesses are able to understand the rules, receive what they are owed and resolve consequential decisions without facing avoidable uncertainty.

Sources

[1] United Nations, Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day.

[2] International Labour Organization, Micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises.

[3] Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, Article 4.

[4] UK Small Business Commissioner, Late Payments Bill: what it could mean for your business.

[5] Legal 500, Payments to micro and small enterprises: implications under section 43B(h) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. United Nations — Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day
2. International Labour Organization — Micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises
3. Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, Article 4
4. UK Small Business Commissioner — Late Payments Bill
5. Legal 500 — Payments to micro and small enterprises: implications under section 43B(h)