Trade Council Chair’s Letter — May 2026

Dear members,

May has been a month of turning evidence into work. I want to thank everyone who has taken time to report what happens when tariffs, supplier terms and cross-border costs meet the daily limits of a small business. A report does not need to be dramatic to matter. A missing cost, an unclear requirement or a deadline that leaves no time to adjust can change whether a small trader can accept an order at all.

What moved this month

On 5 May, the Assembly opened its pledge programme for businesses. On 12 May, the first Platform Council issue, PL-001, passed all five pattern tests: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. That is a useful milestone for the whole Assembly. It shows the method at work: reports are assessed for a recurring pattern before a proposed fix is drafted.

On 19 May, the UK Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. It is relevant to our work because the strain of waiting for payment often falls hardest on smaller firms. But the bill excludes import and export contracts, a reminder that cross-border trade can leave small businesses outside protections that may apply elsewhere. On 26 May, the Platform Council published a draft fairness standard for consultation. That is another council’s work, but the process matters to all of us: a draft is a starting point for public scrutiny, not a finished answer.

Our own council has continued gathering evidence on tariffs and supplier terms. We have not yet completed the five-part test for TR-001, and we should be precise about that. The evidence is substantial enough to keep examining; the Council has not adopted a standard or concluded the test.

The numbers behind the work

As of 27 May, Reseated has 759 seated members in 49 countries, and members have filed 1,980 reports from 50 countries. The Trade Council has 93 members across 40 countries and 74 reports from 27 countries. The median amount at stake in Trade Council reports is approximately US$4,880. In the last 30 days, 36 Trade reports were filed.

Of those 74 reports, 46 concern tariffs and 28 concern supplier terms. They come from businesses of different sizes: 47 per cent of Trade Council members reporting team sizes have 2–9 people, 30 per cent are working alone, 16 per cent have 10–49 people and 7 per cent have 50–249. The largest numbers of Trade reports came from the United States, Canada and Mexico, with reports also coming from India, Peru, Jordan, Australia and Italy. This is not one country’s problem or one kind of trader’s problem.

For perspective, the United Nations estimates that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises make up about 90 per cent of businesses worldwide and account for 60–70 per cent of employment. Those broad figures explain why rules that seem manageable to a large organization can carry very different costs for a small importer.

One composite story

It brings together recurring concerns raised in Trade Council reports while protecting members’ privacy.

A small importing business agrees a price with a supplier and plans its cash around the information it has. The goods are on their way, but the final landed cost is still unclear. Different charges arrive through different parties, and the business cannot easily tell which costs are fixed, which may change, or when the full amount will be due. The owner has to decide whether to proceed with the next order before having a reliable total for the last one.

That uncertainty is not simply an inconvenience. It can tie up working cash, make a quoted price unreliable and leave a small trader carrying risk it cannot assess in

advance. The composite does not say that every shipment works this way. It shows why we are asking about clear, itemised landed-cost information and why timing matters as much as the final amount.

What we are learning

First, the size of a business changes how a rule lands. A requirement may be straightforward for a firm with specialist staff and still be difficult for an owner doing purchasing, compliance and customer service in the same day.

Second, the problem is often not only the tariff or fee itself. It is whether the trader can find out what applies, understand it in plain language and know the total early enough to make a decision. Our council’s agenda therefore includes both size-based thresholds, guidance and phase-ins when new trade rules or tariffs apply, and transparency from freight forwarders about landed costs.

Third, we need to keep the distinction between a pattern and a proposed fix. A large number of reports is important, but it does not by itself settle what would be workable or fair. The five-part test, followed by drafting and public consultation, gives members and other affected parties a chance to examine both the evidence and the remedy.

What comes next

For the Assembly, the draft Platform Fairness Standard is scheduled to enter public consultation from 2 June to 2 July. The Cashflow Council’s CF-001 issue is scheduled to reach its pattern test on 23 June, and the Secretariat will mark MSME Day on 27 June. The Cashflow Council’s draft is scheduled for 21 July. These are Assembly-wide milestones, not decisions already made by the Trade Council.

For Trade, the next task is to keep strengthening the record. Please continue sharing experiences through the Landed Cost Diary and the supplier-terms survey. Specific details help: what information you received, when you received it, what remained unclear and what decision you had to make. Please do not include confidential information you do not want considered, and remember that members’ identities remain private unless they choose a public seat.

Notes and sources

Sources

1. United Nations: Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day
2. European Parliament: CBAM simplification