« Home run for sustainability | Main | Reasons to be cheerful (well, almost) »

Payment terms unsettle suppliers

Earlier this month we reported that the Institute of Credit Management here in the UK had produced a league table aimed at shaming companies putting suppliers at risk through the late payment of invoices.

Now - that ploy clearly didn't work - another company is coming under fire from a number of groups for imposing new terms on suppliers that appear symptomatic of the current credit environment.

Alliance Boots has said that it will pay its suppliers up to 105 days after billing and (if that wasn’t enough) will then charge a 2.5 per cent “settlement fee”. It’s enough to make the eyes water, and despite Alliance Boots claiming that their procurement standards “are in line with those of other groups of similar size and scale”, the news will come as a hammer blow to suppliers who are coming under increasing pressure as times get tough.

A clearly unhappy Phil Orford, the chairman of the Forum of Private Business, said the “practice of large retailers abusing their buying power continues to have a very negative impact on smaller businesses.”

But despite the criticism one thing seems assured -  Alliance Boots won’t be the only large company to put the squeeze on their suppliers in the coming months.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

I've never quite understood what companies think they gain by moving out supplier payment terms. Okay, so you get a one off gain of credit as the terms move (ie from 30 to 90) but given that the majority of the payments are for regulary goods and services this then kicks back into a payment monthly cycle.

So the potenital damage to a relationship for a one off return seems a high price to pay. Also, they must know that ultimately the supplier will pass any credit costs (plus a margin) back to the customer so this act costs more in the long run.

I know that it's the short term reporting to the city and poor AP processing/systems that drives a lot of this behaviour but surely they should be negotiating shorter payment terms and discounts for payment terms.

I'd love to hear an argument that can tell me the benefits of moving out payment terms as I remain unconvinved.
April 9, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAlan Day
It's better than many supplier agreements in the US. In many cases suppliers have to wait a year before they get paid. Consequently during that first 12 months you are effectively doing free work.
May 14, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterAustralia Tools

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.