From April 2016,
large businesses will be required to publish information about their payment
practices twice a year. The announcement, made by business minister Matthew
Hancock at the end of last month, is the latest in a number of initiatives
taken by the last government to tackle unfair payment practices.
It is envisaged that requiring large businesses to publish this
information in a central location will give suppliers more information about
what to expect before entering into contracts – while making it easier for
consumers to see which companies have the most "ethical" payment
policies.
The reporting requirements are due to be created through new
regulations which will be published early in the next parliament and it is
expected that large businesses will be required to report on:-
·
their standard payment terms (including any changes that have been
made to them since the last reporting period);
·
the average time taken to pay;
·
the proportion of invoices paid in 30 days or less, paid between
30 days and 60 days; and paid beyond 60 days;
·
the amount of late payment interest owed and paid;
·
any financial incentives required of suppliers before they can
join or remain on supplier lists;
·
whether they are a member of any industry codes of practice
relating to payment; and
·
dispute resolution processes, availability of e-invoicing and
access to supply chain finance.
Large businesses have until April 2016 to ensure that they are
comfortable with their payment policies and practices. Following this, the
above information will need to be shared in the public domain.
In the meantime, the government has committed to "lead by
example" by paying 80% of central government invoices within five working
days, with the remainder paid within the 30-day limit set by the EU's latest
Public Procurement Directive.
It has long been accepted that small
suppliers were not using their existing legal remedies, such as those available under the Late Payment Regulations, to
enforce timely payments for fear of losing their biggest customers. The Prompt
Payment Code, which was established in 2008, was the first attempt to adjust
the balance in favour of suppliers - but its voluntary nature, and lack of any
real sanctions for non-compliance, resulted in it not achieving what it set out
to do.
That somewhat changed in March with the appointment of a new Code
Compliance Board made up of business representatives, tasked with
investigating challenges made against Code signatories and rigorously enforcing
the removal of those found to have breached its standards. At the same time the
Code was also strengthened to promote 30-day payment terms as standard with an
absolute maximum term of 60 days being allowed for those wishing to sign up or
remain a signatory to the Code.
Although it remains voluntary, it is hoped
that signing up to a strengthened, more robust Code will give businesses a
powerful tool with which to distinguish themselves from their competitors once
the new reporting requirements come into force.
The government is also consulting on how to
properly define what constitutes payment terms and practices that are
"grossly unfair" under UK law, which should provide clarity for both
customers and suppliers going forward. This could make it easier for
small businesses to challenge customers over their payment terms and to enlist the
commercial knowledge of trade bodies to challenge such terms on their behalf.
Taken together, these measures and the reputational damage that
they could potentially inflict could force household names in particular to
address any historical imbalances in their payment terms and align them more
closely with practices that are going to be considered as being fair in the
eyes of the public (or that are at least as favourable as those of their
competitors).
This supports the notion that, following the ineffectiveness of
its previous initiatives, the Government appears to be looking to shift the
issue of prompt and fair payment terms to the heart of corporate social
responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment