Response to interpellation 2025/26:497 on long payment terms and the competitiveness of Swedish companies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers long payment times to be a problem that the government takes very seriously 1. KD argues that the EU Commission's proposal for a mandatory 30-day rule is far too extensive and an excessive interference in freedom of contract 1 2. KD argues that the reporting obligation should strengthen the negotiating position of smaller companies 1 and that it is important to have a solid basis before further measures are considered 2. KD considers it immoral when large companies use smaller actors as banks to add to their own final bill 3 and that a poorly weighed 30-day rule risks hitting the companies it is intended to protect 3. SD argues that the problems persist despite the reporting obligation 4 5 and that small businesses need concrete measures rather than follow-ups 4 5. SD argues that long payment times are a trade barrier 6 and that they cause investments to be postponed and capital to be tied up in accounts receivable instead of innovation and growth 5. SD argues that common and reasonable rules for payment times would strengthen competitiveness and release capital for investments and jobs 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking both the Chamber Office and the members for their patience, given the postponed debate.
Rashid Farivar has asked me what concrete measures the government and I have taken to address long payment times since I last stated that the issue is important for the profitability and competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises. Rashid Farivar also wonders how I assess the effects of the current reporting obligation regarding payment times and what concrete results the government can point to when it comes to shorter payment times.
Furthermore, Rashid Farivar asks how the government justifies that Sweden has advocated for a review of the European Commission's proposal on common rules against late payments while the government has referred to the fact that the issue should be handled at the EU level.
Finally, the member asks if the government and I are prepared to consider national measures to strengthen the position of small and medium-sized enterprises, for example, a statutory main rule of 30 days' payment time if the process within the EU does not move forward. Those were the questions; so to the answer.
Long payment terms and late payments are truly a problem that many small and medium-sized enterprises repeatedly highlight. The Government takes the issue very seriously and generally views measures that promote faster payments positively.
The Commission's proposal for a mandatory payment period of at most 30 days is, however, according to the Government's assessment, not a purposeful measure. The Riksdag has also, in its reasoned opinion in connection with the subsidiarity test, considered the proposal to be too far-reaching.
A national proposal on mandatory payment times was referred in 2013. Some referral bodies welcomed the proposal at that time, but a significantly larger portion raised serious objections. Organizations representing small and medium-sized enterprises were found in both groups.
In the proposal, a reporting obligation regarding payment times for certain companies was introduced, which is intended to strengthen the negotiating position of smaller companies. The Government follows up on the reported payment times together with Bolagsverket, but we believe it is still too early to assess the effects.
According to the bill (prop. 2021/22:50), the system should be evaluated only after September 30, 2026, i.e., this autumn. Furthermore, the business community has, through its own initiatives, committed to shortening the payment periods.
The Government will continue to follow the developments in the area and does not rule out considering further measures if necessary. Any additional interventions need to be well-considered and accurate, with regard to Swedish competitiveness and the principle of freedom of contract.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Energy and Industry for the answer!
I recently read an article where it stated that I should put the minister against the wall on this issue. That is actually not my ambition. Politics is rarely improved by trying to put each other against the wall.
I am here to conduct a civilized and intellectual discussion on how we can solve a problem that Swedish small and medium-sized enterprises have lived with for a long time.
Madam Speaker! I appreciate that the Minister again confirms that long payment times are a problem and that the government takes the issue seriously.
It is not actually the problem description that is controversial anymore. The government, the opposition, industry organizations and the companies themselves seem to agree that long payment times are a real problem. The decisive question is therefore not whether the problem exists, but what the government intends to do about it.
The latest subcontractor barometer from Svensk Industriförening shows that six out of ten companies state that they are forced to accept longer payment terms than they themselves consider reasonable. Over half state that this has led to postponed investments, delayed hiring, or an increased need for external financing.
We also see testimonies from companies within the automotive industry where payment terms of 90 or even 120 days have become a requirement to be involved in doing business rather than a result of negotiation.
This is not some administrative detail. It is about investments that do not happen. It is about innovation that is pushed into the future. It is about jobs that are never created.
Madam Speaker! The Minister refers again to the reporting obligation and that the government follows the developments together with Bolagsverket. But the reporting obligation was already introduced in 2022. In the meantime, the companies' own experiences show that the problems persist.
I have listened to companies describing how they in practice function as cheap financing for their largest customers, or how long payment terms directly affect the possibility of hiring more engineers.
I have listened to suppliers within the automotive industry telling how investments and development projects are being postponed because the capital is tied up in accounts receivable.
Then my questions to the minister are: What has the government concretely been able to establish through its follow-up? If the government is following the issue, what has the follow-up led to? Has the government been able to see that the development is moving in the right direction, or does the government see the same thing as the companies see, namely that the problem persists?
Madam Speaker! This issue has also been discussed for many years, now for over ten years. The Riksdag has issued declarations, and the business sector has tested voluntary commitments. The large companies have had a payment code for nearly a decade. The EU Commission has worked on the issue for a long time, but the problems persist.
How much longer will Swedish small businesses have to wait for further analyses, evaluations, and follow-ups before the government is ready to move from following the issue to actually taking action?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! This entered into force in 2022, but the reporting began in September 2023. We wish to receive the three-year basis in order to be able to make a sensible evaluation. I want to give that as a clear answer here initially, Madam Speaker.
I understand the frustration and that people want more to happen. It is obvious that this is something that I myself encounter in my role as Minister for Enterprise and that Rashid Farivar also encounters.
Since 2023, companies with more than 249 employees have been required to report this. Thanks to the fact that we now have that statistics, it becomes more apparent which companies are violating the voluntary code of conduct that has been introduced.
Some of the companies have also received quite a lot of negative publicity, which can be – I emphasize that it can be – self-regulating. In any case, it has been part of the purpose.
It is obvious that what is important here is that it achieves results and makes a difference. What have we been able to see so far? We do not yet have the formal evaluation of the reporting obligation. We will receive that in September this autumn.
It is from that evaluation that we can make the assessment of whether it has truly had the desired effect or if additional measures would be needed.
As I see it, that evaluation will not be the end point, but it will be the starting point to be able to determine whether further measures are needed or not.
It is also important to demonstrate the complexity of this issue, as it is not black or white. Looking at the latest measurement period from the summer of 2024 to the summer of 2025, it shows that the average time held is still 32 days of agreed time and 34 days of actual payment time for purchases from companies with over 250 employees.
The figures show that we have a fairly decent average time of 34 days. But it is some of the really large companies that stand out negatively. I think it is good that we can be clear and straightforward about that.
We have a reasonable average figure, but it is some individual large companies that have 80, 90 days or in some cases far more than that towards their smallest suppliers. It is many times in direct conflict with the voluntary code of conduct that they themselves have established.
I therefore want to be clear that this is not acceptable. It is also the reason why the government is not completely closing the door on further measures.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
Today's statistics from FKG show how it is in the automotive industry, where the problem is most severe. 85 percent of the suppliers say that the problem with the long payment times has a significant impact. It is therefore a particularly large problem within the automotive industry.
I want to proceed to the part of the interpellation that concerns the EU process and the government's own line.
Madam Speaker! I perceive that there is a contradiction that the Minister has not yet addressed. On the one hand, the government says that the problem with long payment times is serious and that small and medium-sized enterprises are negatively affected. On the other hand, Sweden has been one of the countries that has campaigned for the EU Commission's proposal on stricter rules to be reconsidered or withdrawn.
It is exactly this that I am having difficulty reconciling. The EU Commission proposed a general rule of 30 days payment terms. The European Parliament supported the proposal, but Sweden has argued that the regulation should be withdrawn and replaced with something else.
If the government does not want the commission's model, I would therefore like to ask: Which model does the government want? What maximum payment period does the government consider reasonable? What concrete protection does the government want to give small suppliers, especially within the automotive industry, which is very important for Sweden? What changes does the government actually want to see? So far, we have heard why the commission's proposal is not sufficient, but we still have not heard what the government's own solution is.
Madam Speaker! The Minister also refers to freedom of contract, but freedom of contract presupposes that both parties have a real possibility to negotiate. When a small company receives the notice to accept 90 or 120 days of payment terms or lose the deal, it is difficult to describe the situation as a free negotiation between equal parties. Is it really freedom of contract, or is it in practice a matter of market power?
When large companies use their bargaining power to push financing costs and risks onto smaller suppliers, it is not the small businesses that get freedom; it is the large companies that get financing.
Madam Speaker! Furthermore, long and unpredictable payment terms risk acting as an actual trade barrier. They make it harder for smaller companies to do business with larger customers. They make it harder to grow across borders, and they make it harder to compete on equal terms within the EU's internal market.
If the government says it wants to strengthen the internal market and the competitiveness of small businesses, the question becomes natural: Why is Sweden then not a clearer voice for common European rules of the game?
Madam Speaker! I want to conclude with the most important question in this entire debate: If the EU process continues to stand still or does not lead to any concrete results, is the government prepared to act nationally?
Is the government prepared to consider a statutory main rule of 30 days' payment time, as is the case in the food industry? Or shall Swedish small businesses continue to wait for a solution that may never come?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! One should not have to wait indefinitely either to be paid or to receive an answer. I do, however, think it is reasonable to wait until we have a solid basis.
Now Rashid Farivar is asking a number of questions about the EU process. I would therefore like to have it recorded in the minutes that the responsible minister for the negotiations is Gunnar Strömmer and the Ministry of Justice. We have also had a small discussion among ourselves about who should actually be leading this discussion. I am not an active part of the negotiations in that way, even though I as Minister for Enterprise has a great interest and feel a great responsibility for this.
A mandatory 30-day rule seems, at first glance, like something very positive. But the fact that there is no possibility, for example, to voluntarily agree on a longer period, if one wishes to do so, between the paying party and the selling party based on their respective specific circumstances, is, according to the government, an excessively far-reaching interference in the freedom of contract. In that regard, the door has been very much closed at the EU level when it comes to finding a way forward.
This risks hitting the company's ability to adapt the terms according to the sector's and the business's conditions. The line we have pursued has therefore been that it needs to be possible for the member states to make adaptations according to their situations.
The government also cannot pursue a line in the EU that does not have anchoring here in the Riksdag. The Riksdag has, in its reasoned opinion within the subsidiarity test that has been conducted, and which I referred to earlier, considered that parts of the proposal go beyond what is necessary. To legislate through a regulation that applies directly and without national adaptation is quite simply to go too far.
The government has viewed the intention of the legislation, or the regulation, positively, but the construction comes with biases that have not had support in the Riksdag.
Right now, according to the latest information I have received from the responsible Minister Gunnar Strömmer, it seems that the negotiations have stalled. As I see it, the government will be ready to provide new information on what we have at our disposal today once we have received the basis in September, later this year.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for a constructive debate!
I just want to repeat that the situation within the automotive industry is particularly problematic. I must also state that several of the central issues still lack clear answers, and I can understand that the Minister may not have answers to all questions.
The Minister says that the problem exists; we agree on that. The Minister says that the EU Commission's proposal is not the right way. That can, of course, be discussed. The Minister says that the reporting obligation cannot yet be fully evaluated, and she says that the government is following the issue. But Swedish small and medium-sized enterprises need more than an announcement that the government is following the issue. They need to know what the government actually intends to do.
The companies describe how investments are postponed, how recruitments are delayed, and how capital is tied up in accounts receivable instead of being used for innovation, productivity, and growth. In a time when Europe speaks of competitiveness, investments, and the need to strengthen our industrial development capacity, it is difficult to understand why we accept that small and medium-sized enterprises function as an interest-free bank for their largest customers.
The fundamental question therefore remains: What concrete change does the government want to see to shorten payment times? Perhaps the most important question of all is: When does the minister intend to move from following the issue to acting on the issue?
Common and reasonable rules for payment times would strengthen competitiveness, reduce a real trade barrier in the internal market, and free up capital for investments and jobs in Swedish small and medium-sized enterprises. This is what companies are demanding, and it is what Swedish competitiveness needs.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I believe that this debate has clarified both the value of interpellations and the pressure that Rashid Farivar rightly places on this issue.
The Government sees how this affects, among others, many actors within the automotive sector and several other sectors. I want to emphasize that what is legal is not always morally right. This is a prime example of this.
Furthermore, a voluntary code of conduct has been signed here. Despite that, several large Swedish companies, which we otherwise applaud, choose instead to use smaller actors, who are crucial in the supply chain and who could grow if they are treated decently and fairly, as banks to add to their own final bill. It is immoral.
The government feels the same drive as that which lies behind both the interpellation and the measures that have now been discussed. But a poorly weighed 30-day rule risks hitting the companies that it is intended to protect. The reason we have not simply charged ahead is that we have looked at the referral responses, and when a large group presents serious objections, we need to listen to them. There were organizations representing both small and medium-sized companies in both parts of the referral bodies. Therefore, there was no clear picture of how we should act. In addition, there has been a lack of support for another line here in the Riksdag.
To summarize: This autumn we will have a better basis to be able to say how we can act differently moving forward, but the signal to the large companies that have acted in this immoral way is clear. This must come to an end – voluntarily or otherwise. I look forward to returning to this.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.