February Chair’s Letter: Building the Evidence Together

Dear members,

We began this work on 10 February, with the launch of Reseated and the Founders Charter, RC/A/2026/1. For the Fair Play Council, that meant opening a serious question rather than arriving with a finished answer: what should fair treatment look like when a small business is hit by fraud through a payment system?

This month, the Council’s call for evidence, RC/FP/2026/1, gave members a place to bring their experiences. Across Reseated, seven council calls for evidence were issued. We also held the first Open Table, in two sittings: one for Asia-Pacific, and one bringing together Europe, Africa and the Americas. These were early steps, but they matter. A standard that affects people across borders should begin by listening across borders.

Our method is deliberately patient. We collect reports, test whether a problem shows a pattern across Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration, and only then consider a draft fix. A draft goes to public consultation before an Assembly ballot. If members adopt it, we write to the CEOs with the authority to act and track each seat honestly: proposed, letter sent, delivered, replied, signed or empty chair. We are not at those later stages on Fair Play. We are building the record first.

What the numbers say

As of 27 February, Reseated has 127 seated members in 38 countries. Members have filed 212 reports from 39 countries. The different country totals reflect different things: where members are seated and where reports come from. Across the councils, the reports are Platform 158, Cashflow 48, Red Tape 4, Trade 1 and Fair Play 1.

The Fair Play Council has 23 members from 16 countries. It has one report, from one country. That report is recorded as fraud; the business team size is in the 2–9 range, and the amount at stake is approximately US$5,880. With one report, the median amount at stake is approximately US$5,880. The report is from South Africa. There has been one Fair Play report in the last 30 days.

Those figures are small, and we should say so plainly. One report cannot establish how common a problem is, whether the same failure is occurring elsewhere, or what a proportionate remedy should be. It is a reason to listen carefully, not a licence to claim more than we know. At the same time, one report is not nothing. It is a person taking the trouble to document a loss and trust us with it.

One member’s report

A Fair Play member in South Africa reported fraud affecting a small business with a team of 2–9. The amount at stake was about US$5,880.

Even this limited record makes the human scale visible. For a small team, an amount of that size can put working cash, payroll planning and confidence under strain. Our job is to ask clear follow-up questions, protect the member’s anonymity, and learn whether other businesses describe the same sequence of events. We will not identify the member or their business.

What we are learning

First, evidence needs to be usable as well as sensitive. Members should be able to explain what happened without exposing their identity or naming their own business. We need enough detail to compare reports, but we should not ask for details without a clear purpose. Second, the number of reports matters, but so do consistency, spread and

corroboration. A count alone cannot show whether different members encountered the same practice.

Third, the problem deserves attention in a wider context, while our own claims must remain modest. The United Nations estimates that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises make up about 90% of businesses, account for 60–70% of employment and contribute around half of GDP worldwide.¹ The ILO estimates that MSMEs account for about 70% of employment worldwide, and that roughly 80% operate in the informal economy.² Those figures help explain why small-business payment risks matter. They do not prove the scale or cause of the Fair Play issue we are investigating.

Finally, trust is part of the evidence process. We must keep reported experience separate from verified pattern, and pattern separate from proposed remedy. That distinction may feel slow. It is how we avoid turning a member’s difficult experience into an unsupported claim about a whole industry.

What comes next

In March, we will continue receiving Fair Play reports and checking whether members’ accounts can be compared responsibly. The next step is the five-part pattern test. As of 27 February, no date has been set for a Fair Play pattern decision, proposal, consultation or ballot. We will publish dates before those stages open; there is no announced deadline for members to meet today. The monthly Open Tables will continue, with future sitting dates to be announced.

If you have experienced business fraud involving a payment, please report what you can: what happened, when you noticed it, what steps you took, what response you received, and what amount was at stake. You may leave out identifying details. If you are unsure whether your experience belongs with Fair Play, send it in and we can help route it. A report is not a promise that the Council will reach a particular conclusion. It is a contribution to a record that should be tested fairly.

I also want to thank the members who have shared reports and joined the first Open Table. Your careful contributions are valued, whether or not your name appears here.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. United Nations: Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day
2. International Labour Organization: Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises