RC/CF/2026/OP.6 — Amendment to the 15‑Day Pay Standard

23 October 2026
RC/CF/2026/OP.6
Opinion — amendment

To the members of the Cashflow Council

Who I am and what happened

I am Dariusz Jankowski, a member of the Cashflow Council, writing from Kraków, Poland. I am writing in support of the purpose of CF-001 and in favour of amending its proposed deadline. I do not name my business or describe its work. The issue before us is not what any one member sells; it is whether a payment standard can set a clear expectation that small suppliers can rely on, while taking account of the different capacity of buyers.

CF-001 began with evidence reports, proceeded through the Council’s five-part pattern test, and was put out for consultation after the draft 15-Day Pay Standard was published. The adoption ballot is scheduled to open on 26 October and close on 9 November. I understand the proposal’s central point: an undisputed invoice should not become a loan that a small supplier is forced to provide to a larger customer. I agree. I also think a single 15-day deadline for every buyer risks making the standard less practicable for the smallest buyers, without materially improving protection for suppliers who deal with them.

My amendment is limited. It does not weaken the deadline for larger buyers, remove automatic interest, or abandon publication of payment times. It creates a second deadline based on buyer size: 30 days for a buyer with fewer than 50 staff, and 15 days for a buyer with 50 or more staff. That is a distinction the Council can state plainly, administer consistently, and review against evidence as experience accumulates.

What the evidence shows

The exact internal figures available on 23 October are important. Reseated had 1,769 seated members in 49 countries and had received 5,410 reports from 50 countries. The Cashflow Council had 426 members in 49 countries and 1,357 reports from 50 countries. The median amount at stake in the Cashflow reports was approximately US$4,296. There were 91 Cashflow reports filed in the preceding 30 days.

The reports are not evenly distributed across a few places. By report count, the leading countries were Canada, 174; the United States, 167; the United Kingdom, 137; India, 105; Australia, 59; South Africa, 58; Spain, 57; and Italy, 53. The reported situations were client-pays-late, 1,100, and supplier-terms, 257. Those two categories make visible that cashflow pressure can arise in more than one part of a trading relationship. A standard should address the payment obligation while leaving room to identify and assess the different patterns behind the reports.

The team-size figures are also exact: 37% of Cashflow members said “Just me”; 42% reported teams of 2–9; 16% teams of 10–49; and 5% teams of 50–249. These are the sizes of members’ teams, not a measurement of the staff numbers of the buyers who paid late. The figures therefore do not prove that a particular share of late payers falls below or above a 50-staff threshold. We should not claim that they do. They do show, however, that a substantial share of the reporting community consists of very small operations. For them, an unpaid invoice can be a material part of the cash available to meet current obligations.

Nor should we treat the reports as a statistically representative estimate of all late payment worldwide. They are reports made to Reseated, not a census or a probability sample. Their value here is that they have met the Council’s pattern-test process and show repeated, geographically dispersed experiences. The 1,100 client-pays-late reports give strong reason to act on the central problem. The reports do not, by themselves, settle whether every buyer should face the same 15-day period. That question calls for a proportionate rule and subsequent review, not an unsupported claim about what the dataset proves.

The proposed distinction uses a simple, observable characteristic of the buyer: staff count. It does not assume that every small buyer pays promptly, or that a large buyer cannot have a genuine processing difficulty. It does recognise that a 15-day obligation may impose a different administrative adjustment on a buyer with a very small team than on a buyer with a larger organisation. The protected party remains the small supplier. A buyer’s smaller size would permit only a 30-day window, not indefinite deferral, and late payment after that window would still trigger automatic interest.

How the law in my country and elsewhere handles it

I write from Poland, but the materials available to this opinion do not set out a Poland-specific rule on payment terms or late-payment interest. I will not fill that gap by presenting an unsupported account of Polish law. The evidence before the Council does provide relevant comparisons from other jurisdictions and from the EU legislative process.

In the United Kingdom, the Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026. The dossier describes a 60-day maximum term, mandatory interest at 8% above the base rate, and adjudication and fine powers for the Small Business Commissioner. The stated exemption for import and export contracts is also relevant: a payment rule’s scope matters as much as its headline deadline. The UK framework described in the materials uses a longer maximum term than either deadline in my amendment, while adding interest and enforcement provisions.¹

At EU level, the Commission’s September 2023 Late Payment Regulation proposal included a hard 30-day cap. The European Parliament adopted its position in April 2024, but the proposal was blocked in the Council, according to the European Parliament’s legislative-train record. The dossier also reports average EU business-to-business payment at approximately 60.3 days in 2024. These facts show both the scale of the delay problem and the difficulty of securing agreement on a common statutory limit. They do not establish that 15 days is the only workable standard, or that 30 days is adequate for every buyer.²

India provides another comparison. Since 1 April 2024, section 15 of the MSMED Act and section 43B(h) of the Income-tax Act require payment to micro and small enterprises within 45 days where there is a written agreement, and within 15 days

without one. The dossier states that failure to comply affects the deduction in that tax year and that compound interest is set at three times the RBI bank rate. That system distinguishes between circumstances affecting the agreed period and includes consequences for late payment. It is not the same as the threshold I propose, but it demonstrates that payment standards can use more than one deadline and still retain a clear consequence for delay.³

Australia’s Payment Times Reporting Scheme is a reporting comparison rather than the same kind of deadline rule. The August 2026 regulator update states that 69.8% of small-business invoices were paid within 30 days, the average was 27.2 days, and 96 businesses were classified as Fast Small Business Payers, meaning they paid within 20 days. Separately, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman reported that payment disputes accounted for about 26% of new managed cases in the June 2026 quarter. Reporting can make payment performance visible; it does not by itself ensure a prompt payment. That is why my amendment retains both the deadline and publication requirements.⁴

These cases should be read carefully. They are not a contest in which the shortest number automatically wins. They show different combinations of limits, interest, reporting, enforcement, and exceptions. CF-001 can set an Assembly standard that is more demanding than some existing arrangements while still differentiating between buyers by size. The question for this ballot is the rule we should ask buyers to adopt, not a claim that the law in every country already has the same form.

The strongest argument against my view and my answer

The strongest argument against the amendment is that a universal 15-day deadline is easier to understand and gives suppliers one firm expectation. A buyer’s headcount does not determine whether a particular invoice is important to its supplier. A smaller buyer may still have more resources than the supplier, may still delay payment strategically, or may still be able to pay within 15 days. Introducing a threshold could create disputes about how staff are counted, encourage avoidance, and leave suppliers waiting longer simply because their customer is small.

That argument is serious. A two-tier rule must not become a loophole, and the Council should not confuse buyer size with good conduct. But a single rule can be clear and still be poorly calibrated. Our evidence does not contain buyer headcounts, so we cannot honestly say that a uniform 15-day rule is proven by the report data. A bounded 30-day period for the smallest buyers is a modest accommodation, not a permission to delay without limit. The 15-day rule remains in place for buyers with 50 or more staff, where the standard’s expectation of prompt payment is most important to state firmly.

The threshold will need precise implementation. The standard should make clear that the relevant count is the buyer’s staff, not the supplier’s, and that the buyer cannot change the applicable deadline merely by delaying acknowledgement of an invoice. The 15- or 30-day clock should begin when the buyer receives an undisputed invoice. If only part of an invoice is disputed, the undisputed part should remain payable on time. Those details protect the supplier and prevent the size distinction from swallowing the payment obligation. They are implementation safeguards, not a reason to reject a differentiated deadline.

There is a further objection: a 30-day allowance may become the new normal even for buyers that could pay sooner. The answer is that the amendment sets a maximum, not a target or an instruction to wait. A buyer able to pay in 15 days should continue to do so. The Council has already addressed that practice in its open letter to businesses that pay in 15 days, RC/CF/2026/25. The standard should encourage good performance and make it visible, while setting a deadline for the cases where it is needed.

My position clause by clause

• Purpose. I support the purpose of CF-001: a small supplier should not be left financing an undisputed invoice for an unreasonable period.

• Deadline. I propose 30 calendar days for buyers with fewer than 50 staff and 15 calendar days for buyers with 50 or more staff, counted from receipt of an undisputed invoice.

• Interest. I support automatic interest when the applicable deadline is missed. It should not depend on the supplier making a separate demand. The standard’s implementing text should specify the rate and how it operates alongside applicable law.

• Publication. I support publication of payment times. Publication gives suppliers and the public a way to distinguish buyers that meet the standard from those that do not. The Council should preserve this clause and develop clear, comparable reporting rules.

• Scope and integrity. The distinction should turn on the buyer’s staff count, not the supplier’s size or the amount of an invoice. The Assembly should provide a workable definition and guard against artificial arrangements intended to evade the 15-day category.

• Review. After adoption, the Council should review implementation evidence, including reports about buyer size, timing, disputes, and the effect of the two deadlines. The current figures support action on late payment, but they do not measure buyer headcount. Future reporting should close that evidence gap.

The replacement wording I ask the Council to consider is:

“1. A buyer with 50 or more staff shall pay a small supplier within 15 calendar days after receipt of an undisputed invoice. A buyer with fewer than 50 staff shall pay a small supplier within 30 calendar days after receipt of an undisputed invoice.

2.Any amount that remains unpaid after the applicable deadline shall accrue automatic interest, without the supplier having to make a separate demand, in accordance with the rate and procedures specified by this Standard and applicable law.

3.Buyers shall publish their payment times in accordance with reporting rules adopted under this Standard.

4.The buyer’s staff count determines which deadline applies. The Standard’s implementing rules shall define how that count is calculated and shall ensure that a dispute about part of an invoice does not delay payment of an undisputed amount.”

What I ask

I ask members to amend CF-001 rather than reject it or adopt it unchanged. The reports establish a widespread and repeated problem; they do not establish that every buyer, whatever its size, should have an identical deadline. My proposal preserves a firm 15-day obligation for buyers with 50 or more staff, limits smaller buyers to 30 days, keeps automatic interest, and requires publication of payment times.

Notes and sources

1. UK Small Business Commissioner, “Late Payments Bill: what it could mean for your business”; UK Government, “Late payment consultation: time to pay up,” government response. ↩
2. European Parliament, Legislative Train, “Late payments: revision of the directive.” ↩
3. Legal 500, “Payments to micro and small enterprises (MSEs): implications under section 43B(h) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” ↩
4. Payment Times Reporting Scheme, August 2026 regulator update; Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into business reporting, September 2026. ↩

Sources

1. UK Small Business Commissioner, Late Payments Bill: what it could mean for your business
2. UK Government, Late payment consultation: time to pay up — government response
3. European Parliament, Legislative Train: Late payments — revision of the directive
4. Legal 500, Payments to micro and small enterprises (MSEs): implications under section 43B(h)
5. Payment Times Reporting Scheme, August 2026 regulator update
6. Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Productivity Commission inquiry into business reporting