Manchester, United KingdomUse Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Cashflow Council
June: making the clock visible
Dear members,
This month, our work moved from gathering evidence to confirming what the evidence can support. On 23 June, CF-001 passed the five-part pattern test: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. That is an important step, but it is not the end of the work. It means the pattern is strong enough to take forward; it does not mean we have already agreed the answer. We still need to draft a fix, hear objections and alternatives, and put the result to a ballot.
On 27 June, the Secretariat marked Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day. That occasion is a useful reminder of scale: the United Nations estimates that MSMEs make up around 90 per cent of businesses, account for 60–70 per cent of employment and contribute about half of global GDP.1 Those figures describe a large and diverse part of the economy. They do not make late payment inevitable, or make it less damaging when it happens.
What the reports tell us
As of today, Reseated has 1,000 seated members in 49 countries and 2,756 reports filed from 50 countries. The difference is worth noting: reports reach us from one more country than our current membership does. Across the seven councils, the report totals are Platform 1,406; Cashflow 747; Fair Play 231; Trade 140; Red Tape 121; Resilience 58; and Team 53.
For Cashflow, 235 members from 46 countries have filed 747 reports. The median amount at stake is approximately US$4,644. Of the reports, 612 describe a client paying late and 135 describe supplier terms. In the last 30 days alone, members filed 204 reports. The team-size breakdown also matters: 37 per cent are sole operators, 41 per cent have teams of two to nine, 17 per cent have 10 to 49 people, and 5 per cent have 50 to 249.
These numbers are not an estimate of every late invoice in the world. They are a record of what members have chosen to report to us. But they are substantial, geographically broad, and detailed enough to test whether the same problem is recurring rather than isolated.
One account behind the totals
One member, whose identity and business are withheld, described finishing work for a large buyer and submitting an undisputed invoice for just under US$4,600. The buyer accepted the invoice. The payment date then moved, and moved again. While waiting, the member had to decide which obligations could be met from the cash available and which would have to wait. The member did not describe a disagreement about whether the work had been done. The difficulty was that an accepted invoice still did not provide a dependable date for payment.
That account is not a claim that every member has the same experience, nor is its amount a substitute for the median across our reports. It illustrates why the distinction between an invoice being accepted and the money being received matters. A small supplier may have completed its part of the bargain and still be left carrying the delay, the uncertainty and the cost of keeping work moving.
What we learned this month
First, the pattern is not limited to one type of business or one country. Our reports span 50 countries, and the Cashflow Council itself has members in 46. Second, the immediate pressure is often not just the length of a term on paper. Members describe changes to expected payment dates, and the gap between an invoice being undisputed and the supplier having usable funds.
Third, a proposed rule must be workable as well as clear. CF-001 asks large buyers to pay small suppliers within 15 days of an undisputed invoice, apply interest automatically when payment is late, and publish payment times. The three parts address different failures: a deadline gives both sides a common reference; automatic interest reduces the burden on a supplier to chase what is owed; and published payment times let suppliers see a buyer’s practice rather than rely only on a promise.
There are existing policy approaches to learn from, not simply copy. The UK Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May. It proposes a 60-day maximum term, mandatory interest at 8 per cent above the base rate, and a role for the Small Business Commissioner in adjudication and enforcement.2 India’s existing rules provide another distinct approach, including shorter payment periods for micro and small enterprises and consequences for delayed payment.3 Different legal systems have different powers and constraints. Our task is to make a standard that is specific enough to be useful and clear about the practice it asks of buyers.
Passing the pattern test does not settle whether 15 days is the right standard in every circumstance, how to define an undisputed invoice, or what transparent reporting should contain. Those questions belong in drafting and consultation. We should not treat a strong case for action as permission to skip the hard design choices.
What comes next
By 2 July, the consultation on the Platform Fairness Standard is scheduled to close. That is a separate council process, but it is also an opportunity to observe how a public consultation can turn a draft into a more usable document.
On 21 July, the Cashflow Council is scheduled to publish its draft 15-Day Pay Standard, RC/CF/2026/L.1. The draft will set out the proposed rules and the questions on which we want members and the wider public to comment.
In July, we expect the second-quarter report and the confirmation of Fellows by ballot. We will share the evidence and the process openly, including areas where members disagree.
The CF-001 public consultation is scheduled to open on 25 August. Please read the draft, test it against your own experience, and tell us where the wording is unclear, incomplete or impractical. Agreement is not the price of participation; useful scrutiny is.
Thank you to Asha in Nairobi, Daniel in Toronto, Lucia in Madrid and Peter in Birmingham for taking time to help members compare experiences and keep the evidence specific. Thank you as well to everyone who filed a report, checked a detail or asked us to distinguish what we know from what we still need to learn.
Late payment can make a small business carry costs and uncertainty that belong elsewhere in the transaction. Our response must be careful, but it must also be usable. This month we established that the pattern merits a standard. Next month, we begin putting that standard into words.
With thanks,
Harpreet SinghChair, Cashflow CouncilManchester, United Kingdom