The pros and cons of ‘supply chain finance’

Coca-Cola does it. So does the global consumer goods group Procter & Gamble and discount store chain Walmart. In Australia, Telstra and construction group CIMIC are into it.

All are using an increasingly popular scheme known as “supply chain finance” to pay the companies that provide them with goods and services.

The old-fashioned method of paying invoices is simple. A company orders goods from a supplier. The supplier delivers them and issues an invoice with a due date, such as 30 days’ time. The company pays the supplier within 30 days.

Suppliers who have delivered their goods but want to get paid earlier than 30 days have also for many years had another option: approach a bank and sell 80 per cent of the invoice (typically the maximum the bank is prepared to buy) before the due date. The bank later collects the invoice payment.

This is known as debt factoring; the bank or financier that buys the invoices is called a factor.

In recent years, a third option has emerged. With the help of banks and financiers, big companies take the initiative and suggest payment options to their suppliers, giving the companies more control over when and how they pay invoices.

This latter scheme is most commonly known as supply chain finance or, more specifically, “reverse factoring” – a technical term commonly used by ratings agencies to differentiate it from conventional debt factoring.

Reverse factoring compared to normal payment terms

Reverse factoring compared to normal payment terms

In reverse factoring, the big company hires a bank such as JPMorgan or a financier such as London-based Greensill Capital to make agreements with its suppliers. The supplier gets to choose exactly when it wants to be paid the full amount of money it is owed, with payment dates as soon as 10 days after goods and services are delivered.

Banks and financiers team up with technology groups such as Taulia and Oracle, which insert technology known as enterprise resource planning software into the accounting systems of their customers.

Read more at The pros and cons of ‘supply chain finance’

Leave your comments below and join us in the discussion. Subscribe to us to get more updates in your inbox.

 

Coca-Cola refreshes sustainable sourcing goals

Coca-Cola refreshes sustainable sourcing goals

Coca-Cola has increased efforts to make its supply chain more sustainable by announcing a series of new targets in the areas of sourcing, water use and carbon dioxide emissions.

The drinks producer, which is working with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) on its sustainability programme, announced a target of improving water efficiency by 25 per cent among a series of sustainability goals for 2020. It also pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of its drinks by a quarter and to work with the WWF to ensure that materials for its PlantBottle, which is manufactured entirely from plant materials, are sourced sustainably.

Other additions to its 2020 sustainability strategy include working to ensure key ingredients, such as sugar cane, mango and pulp and paper are sourced sustainably and replenishing 100 per cent of the water expended through its operations. It also aims to reach a 75 per cent recovery rate on the bottles and cans it sells in developed markets.

Coca-cola’s strategy is one of many good examples about how supply chain management is utilized into operations. If you are interested in how to improve your supply chain management, feel free to contact us.