Cashflow Council Chair’s Letter — May 2026

Dear members,

This month, our work has been about making a familiar problem legible: when a small supplier is paid late, the cost does not disappear. It lands on the person waiting for the money, often while wages, tax, rent and the next supplier invoice continue to come due.

Our Council is still building its case. We have not yet moved from evidence to a proposed standard. That distinction matters. We need to understand the pattern clearly, test whether it is consistent across different kinds of businesses, and hear from members before we ask the Assembly to vote on a fix. I want to thank everyone who has helped us do that carefully.

What moved in May

On 14 May, the Secretariat published our interim pattern review, Late payment to small suppliers (RC/CF/2026/N.1). It brings together the evidence received so far and sets out the question we are working on: whether large buyers should pay small suppliers within 15 days of an undisputed invoice, pay automatic interest when late, and publish their payment times.

On 19 May, the UK Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. The Bill proposes a 60-day maximum payment term, mandatory interest at 8% above the Bank of England base rate, and a role for the Small Business Commissioner in adjudicating disputes and imposing fines. It is a significant step in the UK debate, but it is not the same as the 15-day standard our members are examining. The difference between a legal ceiling and a prompt-payment norm is important. ¹

On 21 May, we issued a further evidence submission, RC/CF/2026/S.2. It sits alongside our earlier submission, S.1, and our March letter to the UK Department for Business and Trade and the Small Business Commissioner. These documents are part

of the record, not a conclusion: the Council must keep checking what the evidence supports.

Across the Assembly, the pledge programme opened on 5 May, and the Platform Council’s item passed its five-part pattern test on 12 May. On 26 May, that Council published a draft Platform Fairness Standard. Those are not Cashflow Council decisions, but they show the process we share: gather reports, test for volume, frequency, consistency, spread and corroboration, then develop a draft for consultation before a ballot.

The numbers behind our work

As of 27 May, the Founders Assembly had 759 seated members in 49 countries and had received 1,980 reports from 50 countries. The Cashflow Council has 174 members across 39 countries. We have received 533 Cashflow reports from 46 countries; 213 of those reports were filed in the last 30 days.

The median amount at stake in the Cashflow reports is approximately US$4,615. That figure is not an estimate of the full cost of late payment. It is a reminder that a single delayed invoice can be substantial for a small business. Of the reports, 442 concern a client paying late and 91 concern supplier terms. Reports come from many places: Canada has 69, the United Kingdom and United States 62 each, India 43, South Africa 24, Spain 22, Australia 21 and Mexico 16.

Our members also describe businesses of very different sizes. In the team-size breakdown, 39% report working alone and 41% have teams of two to nine; the remaining reports include larger teams. The figures are rounded, so categories may not add to exactly 100%. A payment rule that sounds manageable to a large buyer can have a very different effect on someone running a business with no finance department and no spare cash buffer.

One member’s experience

One member described completing a job for a larger customer and sending an invoice that was not disputed. The agreed payment date passed. The member followed up, then followed up again, while keeping enough money aside for the people who had helped complete the work. The invoice was eventually paid, but

only after the member had spent time chasing it and had postponed another business expense.

I am sharing the situation without a name, location or identifying details. It is not a claim about one company, and it is not unusual enough to stand alone as proof. Its value is in the questions it raises alongside hundreds of other reports: how long does the supplier have to wait, what does chasing cost, and who bears the risk while the buyer holds the money?

What we are learning

First, a payment date written in a contract does not by itself make payment prompt. Members describe time spent seeking updates and trying to resolve disputes, as well as the wait for the money itself. Second, late payment is not only a question of the number of days. The process for raising a dispute, the clarity of communication and whether interest is applied all affect whether a standard can be used in practice.

Third, the evidence needs to keep distinguishing between situations. The 442 reports about a late-paying client and the 91 about supplier terms are related, but they are not identical. A sound recommendation should be clear about which relationships it covers and what happens when an invoice is genuinely disputed. We should not treat a proposed rule as proven simply because it is appealing.

International approaches also show why careful comparisons matter. The EU proposal for a hard 30-day cap has faced a different legislative path, while India has rules that distinguish between written and unwritten payment agreements for micro and small enterprises. These are useful reference points, not ready-made answers for every market. ²

What comes next

Our next task is to continue the five-part pattern test and identify what evidence is still missing. We will then need to develop a draft, publish it for consultation, consider the responses and put any final recommendation to an Assembly ballot. We have not set a public consultation date for CF-001. I will share one when the work is ready and the process is clear.

For members following the wider Assembly, the consultation on the Platform Council’s draft is scheduled to run from 2 June to 2 July. And 27 June is UN Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day—a useful moment to keep attention on the businesses whose working capital is tied up in unpaid invoices. ³

Thank you to Amina in Toronto, Daniel in Manchester and Priya in Bengaluru for taking part in our discussions and helping members compare experiences across different markets. Thank you as well to everyone who filed a report, read the interim review or sent evidence. Please keep sharing specific, anonymised accounts through the Council’s channels. A clear account of what happened, how long it took and what it cost is more useful than a general claim.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. UK Late Payments Bill: what it could mean for your business
2. EU Late Payment Directive revision — Legislative Train
3. UN Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day