Electronic Invoicing Solutions Related To Retail Payments

ERPB/2016/017
ERPB WG EINV 043-16

Version 1.0
4 November 2016
Euro Retail Payments Board (ERPB)
Report from the ERPB Working Group on E-

invoicing solutions related to retail payments
ERPB Meeting 28 November 2016
ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 1/45

ERPB/2016/017
ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments
Contents
1. Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction and background .................................................................................................... 5
3. Overview of the current and future landscape of EIPP solutions .............................................. 6
3.1. Description of EIPP services ................................................................................................. 6
3.2. State of play – uptake of e-invoicing and EIPP services in Europe ....................................... 9
3.3. Critical success factors ....................................................................................................... 15
3.3.1. Compelling value proposition for all actors in the EIPP chain .................................. 15
3.3.2. Customer centricity ................................................................................................. 15
3.3.3. Achieving critical mass and network effects ............................................................ 16
3.3.4. Security and trust .................................................................................................... 16
3.3.5. Other success factors ............................................................................................. 17
4. Barriers to the uptake and development of integrated EIPP services ..................................... 17
4.1. Cost and complexity of current solutions............................................................................. 18
4.2. Reachability not easy to achieve and diverging business rules........................................... 18
4.3. Financial and digital inclusion ............................................................................................. 18
4.4. Other barriers...................................................................................................................... 20
5. Options on how to tackle the identified barriers to support take-up and integration of EIPP
services ............................................................................................................................................... 21
5.1. Need for a well-articulated value proposition ...................................................................... 22
5.2. Improving customer centricity and the trust equation .......................................................... 22
5.3. Facilitating adoption through better targeting of defined customer segments...................... 24
5.4. Improved standards for interoperability ............................................................................... 24
6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 25
7. References ............................................................................................................................. 26
8. Annexes ................................................................................................................................. 27
8.1. Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................ 27
8.2. Surveys methodology ......................................................................................................... 29
8.3. Details on the current landscape......................................................................................... 30
8.4. Details on the perception of the Supply-side on the issues and barriers ............................. 41
8.5. Composition of the Working Group ..................................................................................... 45

ERPB/2016/017
1. Executive summary
In November 2015, the Euro Retail Payments Board (ERPB) decided to launch an
analysis of the landscape for Electronic Invoice/Bill Presentment and Payment
(EIPP/EBPP1) solutions in Europe. This was expected to identify the main issues and
barriers that the market is facing in terms of take-up and in terms of required support
for Pan-European integration of the solutions landscape.
The ERPB decided on a step-by-step approach for the initiative and initially set up a
Working Group composed of members from organisations represented in the ERPB
from the supply-side and demand-side of the market, together with other relevant
experts. The Working Group was expected to undertake a first set of work streams
pursuant to its mandate.
In an introductory section, the mandate of the Working Group and its methodology
are briefly summarised. The Working Group first conducted a Survey, and analysed
the findings to identify the main issues and barriers to a more concerted take-up of
EIPP. The report was then drafted to present the Working Group's main findings and
conclusions. First, the report presents an overall description of the landscape for
EIPP services, provides some statistics regarding the current coverage derived from
the Survey and other sources, the characteristics of the solutions analysed, and the
Working Group's vision on how the future landscape could develop in the coming
years. Critical success factors are discussed to provide inspiration for initiatives to
improve EIPP adoption. Under the heading of barriers and issues the Survey
addressed both the supply-side and demand-side in order to understand the
obstacles encountered in the development of solutions, especially in relation to
individual customers, SMEs and microenterprises, whilst not forgetting the needs of
the mass-billers, which provide the bulk of invoices for payment. The full results and
interpretation of the Survey results are detailed in an Annex to the report.
Analysis of the current landscape for EIPP services reveals the current growth trends
in service penetration, the willingness of the various providers to expand their
engagement, and their high expectations for the future. Nevertheless overall
volumes are still relatively low and there are major disparities in terms of coverage
by geography. This is partially explained by a high degree of domestic ‘centricity’ and
a lack of interoperability. In terms of implementation modes, the majority of the
solutions are operated by payment service providers (PSPs) or specialised EIPP
providers, or both, often in partnership. Existing SEPA payment schemes are broadly
used and major e-invoicing, both international and domestic, standards are widely
accepted.
Analysis of the issues and barriers resulting from the surveys points to the cost and
complexity of current solutions and a lack of interoperability, which creates obstacles
to achieving reachability. Other issues include lack of financial and digital inclusion in
some markets, the entrenchment of current payment habits, and the persistence of
administrative barriers in some countries.
1
EBPP means Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment and is an alternative term for EIPP, common
in the North American market. For the purposes of this document EIPP is used exclusively (see
glossary in Annex 8.1

ERPB/2016/017
The critical success factors are those that the Working Group regards as necessary
for the success of solution providers and their business customers in their goal to
increase EIPP take-up. The absence or only partial fulfilment of them are clearly
linked to the past failure of EIPP initiatives. These factors are: the need for a
compelling value proposition for all the entities in the business chain, customer
centricity, achieving critical mass, and a clear response to security and trust-related
expectations on the part of users.
The Working Group worked in a collaborative way to frame Options that the ERPB
could consider in taking further decisions on next steps to foster EIPP penetration
and usage in Europe and these form the concluding section of the report. These
Options could solve or reduce the impact of the described issues and barriers and
could foster the identified critical success factors. Three dimensions are defined as a
means of articulating these options for further investigation:
 EIPP solutions and services need a well-articulated value proposition: all

actors involved in the EIPP business chain need clear and tangible benefits,
which add value in terms of efficiency and user experience, and contribute to
a positive business case that facilitates uptake. This applies, in particular, for
PSPs, e-invoicing solution providers, and suppliers (payees) implementing
such solutions, and also of course for buyers (payers) using the resultant
services.
 EIPP solutions and services need to be customer centric, cater to
segment-based needs and improve trust: to facilitate uptake solution
providers (be it PSPs, e-invoicing or ERP solution providers) must deliver
excellence in serving the needs of their customers. Most importantly, the
services need to protect customer interests, ensure secure data protection, be
easy-to-use and implement in diverse channels and for different payer
segments: varying from elderly and/or physically impaired to digitally
experienced consumers, microenterprises and SMEs. Customer centricity
incentivizes providers to achieve better network effects and critical mass by
focusing on target segments, such as large billers, including public
administrations, and consumers highly comfortable with using electronic
payments and online banking facilities.
 EIPP solutions and services need a set of minimum requirements at the
level of business rules and technical standards that will promote
interoperability in domestic markets and create growing pan-European
reach: such minimum requirements can be considered as building blocks for
developing new EIPP solutions and services that will be integrated into a
European-wide network model. This will eliminate market fragmentation over
time. Developments in the payments industry such as Instant Payments (SCT
Inst.) and PSD2 (i.e. the introduction of payment initiation and account
information services) are likely to introduce further competition into the retail
payments market and motivate various third party providers to become non-
bank PSPs, aiming, for example, to fully digitize invoicing and payment
processes in the business-to-consumer/SME/microenterprise domain.
At the organisational level, an option for supporting the delivery of further EIPP
solutions at country, community and pan-European level lies in promoting
inclusive cooperation among all actors. This will be essential to address network

ERPB/2016/017
externalities, to create network effects, and promote best practices and common
standards. This cooperation model should create a level playing field and include
within its scope solutions based on PSD2 and Instant Payments.
2. Introduction and background

The Working Group was mandated to focus its analysis on EIPP services which are
provided by payment service providers (PSPs) and third party e-invoicing service
providers enabling consumers, SMEs and micro-enterprises to consolidate the
management and payment initiation of received e-invoices in a seamless and fully
digitized way throughout SEPA (ref. [7.1]). The processing of e-invoices within
enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and other areas relating to the internal
organisation of users is out of scope.
It should be mentioned that other European bodies are currently undertaking

activities related to e-invoicing:
- The European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on E-invoicing (EMSFEI), set up by

the European Commission, brings together stakeholders from national e-
invoicing forums and actors from the market. It aims to promote e-invoicing at
European level and to advise the European Commission on all aspects of e-
invoicing adoption.
- The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) is working on a

European e-invoicing standard focused on B2B and B2G segments. Its main
scope, enshrined in EU Directive 2014/55/EU and endorsed by EMSFEI, is
the definition of a core semantic data model for an e-invoice and the selection
of compliant syntaxes for use with the model. Latest information indicates that
CEN is considering future work on B2C requirements for inclusion in the
semantic model.
An initial analysis undertaken by ERPB Secretariat in 2015, was reflected in the

ERPB Secretariat Note issued in November 2015, which pointed out that current
EIPP solutions are mainly national in coverage and use varying business and
technical standards. It identified a number of issues and barriers that hinder greater
adoption and the pan-European development of EIPP.
The ERPB decided to extend its initial analysis by organising a Working Group
composed of stakeholders and experts from the supply-side and demand-side of the
market. Its mission is to review the landscape, to consider its possible future
evolution, to undertake an analysis of issues and barriers, and to explore options for
tackling them. The Working Group’s focus has been on services provided by PSPs
or e-invoicing service providers as well as on the technical standards and business
rules on which these services are built.
As required in its mandate, the Working Group has carried out survey work to gather
and analyse information related to EIPP characteristics, current issues, and barriers.
Two distinct Surveys were addressed, to organisations from each of the supply-side

ERPB/2016/017
and demand-side, based on content, distribution procedures and methods of

consolidation defined in advance by the Working Group.
More detail on the Survey methodology can be found in the Annex 8.1.
In addition to the analysis of the Survey results, the Working Group made use of
valuable inputs from their respective organisations with regard to the future of the
EIPP landscape and to the options proposed for the way forward.
3. Overview of the current and future landscape of EIPP solutions

3.1. Description of EIPP services
E-invoicing can be defined as the set of processes exclusively based on automated

electronic means for the delivery and processing of e-invoices (or e-bills), and in the
case of EIPP for the presentation of invoices and their payment involving the
business biller and usually their customers in the consumer and small business
segments (B2C and B2b).
A typical process for an EIPP solution is illustrated above. This process is a

component of the financial supply chain of enterprises. The schema below describes
the main use cases in the supplier and buyer domains.

ERPB/2016/017
Models
Depending on the entities which organise the presentation and payment flows within
the interconnection of platforms making up the processing chain, we can distinguish
4 models:
1. Direct Connect to Supplier: in this model, the presentation is implemented on

the supplier side. To access their invoices, buyers are connected to a supplier
operated platform (e.g. a web portal) and the payment is initiated from the
buyer in a secure zone. Depending on the payment instrument chosen, the
payer is redirected either to its own e-banking environment or to the supplier's
acquirer for card payments. This model is very common but has the
disadvantage that the buyer must connect to several supplier platforms to
view and pay invoices.
2. Direct Connect to Buyer: in this model the invoice presentation is
implemented on the buyer side. Suppliers of an individual buyer that are
registered for operating EIPP processes send the invoices to a platform
nominated/used by the buyer, or by email. The buyer makes payments with
the help of systems generally close or integrated into their internal business
support systems (ERP for businesses, e-banking, etc.). Often, this model is
used in e-procurement processes by large billers and/or public administrations
for SMEs, but is less common in the consumer market owing to the
complexity involved on the payer side.
3. 3 Corner network model: in this model the supplier and the buyers are using a
common platform of a third-party provider (PSP or e-invoicing service
provider) where the outbound e-invoice flow from the supplier and incoming
flow towards the buyer converge on a single platform. The presentation and
payment process based on various use cases are orchestrated over the same
platform based on various payment instruments. This is a very common type
of EIPP solution.
4. 4 Corner network model: this is similar to the previous model, but in this case
the supplier and the buyer are using their own third party provider. A routing

ERPB/2016/017
mechanism allows the presentation flow to reach multiple buyers regardless

of their service provider. Typically, this model is implemented by providers,
which organise some form of formal or informal routing scheme for invoice
delivery and then use the normal payment system for payment clearing. This
model is common in markets where a group of typically larger PSPs have
created a mature market development.
The diagram below graphically represents these models:
Supplier/Buyer direct model Network model
Benefits
The existing best practices and the value-added possibilities of closer integration
between e-invoices and payment instruments, demonstrate that e-invoice
presentment and payment solutions may enable:
 Corporates and large billers are better able to accelerate the collection of
receivables in the form of available funds. The payer only needs to check a
pre-filled payment order created in its EIPP service and either authorise a new
payment or manage existing payment options very easily in a few clicks. E-
invoicing standards (including the new European core e-invoice standard
discussed below) typically include the relevant payment data for SCTs, SDDs
as well as card payments, and these coupled with business process

ERPB/2016/017
choreography make the message flows between the payee and PSPs highly
efficient.2
 SMEs and micro enterprises are better able to manage the payment options
for incoming e-invoices and then archive the e-invoices as source documents
for accounting. Moreover, if the EIPP solution supports the sending of e-
invoices by smaller billers such as SMEs and microenterprises, they are
better able to collect funds (see above), reconcile incoming payments, and
solve the late payments issue.
 For all actors, there are savings and convenience in terms of reducing fraud
and error, creating ease to access records of invoices issued, received and
paid, and easier statement reconciliation. In short this provides a convenient
‘one-stop’ shop, at least when using the Models 3 and 4 above.
Businesses can choose
Corporates and large billers may use their internal accounting and ERP systems to
generate the e-invoice messages that can then be sent directly or via a third-party
PSP or e-invoice service provider to the payer’s EIPP solution. Clearly the internal
implementation of e-invoicing is not currently cost effective for most SMEs and micro
enterprises, as is also the case for consumers. SMEs and micro enterprises can,
however, benefit from the advantages of making use of third party services providers
(e.g. PSPs or an e-invoicing solution providers) that help them to manage outgoing
and incoming invoices efficiently in one place. In this way, they are akin to
consumers.
Consumers can choose
Consumers are able to better manage and accurately pay incoming invoices, retain
control over their payment options and - if needed or suitable – archive paid invoices.
Moreover, to provide flexibility towards consumers, EIPP solutions can enable
sharing of e-invoices within a family unit or peer group to allow payment by another
person or simply information sharing. EIPP creates the potential to develop services
that can make the invoicing and payment process much simpler for all types of
consumer. e.g. EIPP can enable a visually impaired consumer to ‘listen’ to the
invoice or read in Braille and then manage the payment. It should be noted,
however, that as a general rule, certain groups of consumers are likely to want to
retain the traditional ways of receiving paper bills and making payments, and so for
some time these may need to remain in place, as part of the evolution.
3.2. State of play – uptake of e-invoicing and EIPP services in Europe
In the latest report published by Billentis, the estimated E-invoices volume in 2016 in
Europe would be about 3 billion in B2C and 5 billion in B2B and B2G, out of an
estimated total number of invoices and bills of about 36 billion (ref. [7.2]).
2
For instance, in the case where the payee is using an SDD for collecting funds, EIPP enables the
payee to send the SDD collection order together with the invoice data, which not only generates the
payment but also ensures that the payer has received the invoice. Likewise, the receipt of invoice
data and a request to pay supports the generation of an accurate and timely SCT.

ERPB/2016/017
It is interesting to notice the growth rate as reported by EESPA (ref. [7.3]) based on
the volumes measured in 2016 regarding the evolution of number of E-invoices
processed by EESPA members between 2014 and 2015:
Segment Increase (2014-2015)

B2B and B2G + 23.44%
B2C + 33.13%
But there are important disparities between European countries in terms of market
penetration rate both in relation to B2b/B2G* and in B2C*.

ERPB/2016/017
*B2C: Business To Consumer, B2B: Business to Business, B2G: Business To Government, G2B:
Government To Business
To create a concrete overview of EIPP solutions currently operating in Europe, the

Working Group conducted a survey targeting the organisations represented in
ERPB. The survey aimed to collect data regarding the current coverage as well as
information about the main characteristics of the solutions. The results of the survey
are not exhaustive – more solutions exist than the number of responses received –
but the members of the Working Group believe that it gives a broadly accurate view
on the state of play of e-invoicing solutions. The respondents to the survey were
service providers or PSPs that have implemented solutions. A question regarding the
current coverage of the solution revealed a wide dispersion of the relative degree of
maturity in the implementation of EIPP by country, especially since transaction
volumes also widely vary.
Countries Number of EIPP solutions*
Sweden, Finland, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, > 8
United Kingdom
Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, 7 or 8
Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia
Poland, Slovakia, Czech republic, Hungary, 5 or6
Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg
Greece, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, < 5
Cyprus, Malta

ERPB/2016/017
* As obtained from the survey. The value may not represent the exact number of solutions operating
in the country. Some of the solutions were counted as operating in multiple countries, as per their
responses which were for example “all EU countries”, regardless of the volumes they are processing.
Another view of the responses regarding coverage reveals a clear pattern of

domestic centricity. This generally follows the retail banking and supplier industry
structures by country. Not surprisingly interoperability outside a number of mature
markets is limited.
Half of the solutions analysed are implemented in only one country and three-quarter
cover either only 1 country or a group of regional countries (e.g. Nordics). Even if the
solutions have the capacity to operate in many sectors and target multiple business
segments, in practice they remain geographically very limited.
Number of analysed solutions by number of covered countries
[PERCENTAGE] (5)
[PERCENTAGE] (1)
[PERCENTAGE] 1 country
(5)
2‐5 countries
> 5 countries
[PERCENTAGE] [PERCENTAGE]
(23) EU/SEPA/Europe
(11)
EU/SEPA/Europe + others
Nevertheless, many providers have expressed a strong willingness to expand: 80%

of the respondents are decided to expand their coverage. As already measured by
EESPA (ref. [7.3]) the market is rapidly evolving, even if the volumes processed are
currently relatively low:
Annual volumes (number of e-invoices) Estimated growth per year
Number of suppliers already onboarded Number of payers

ERPB/2016/017
The Survey shows that half of the solutions expect more than 15% p.a. growth and
for more than 80% the expectation is above 5% p.a. in the coming years.
Main characteristics of current solutions3
 Currently, the majority of market solutions are offered by PSPs (through their
online banking environments), or through internal solutions, or through
integrating third party e-invoicing solutions. Often a PSP will use the services
of a third-party provider to deploy/operate solutions at the technical level
whilst retaining the customer relationship and its marketing brand together
with the underlying payment business. There are also numerous e-invoice
service providers (not integrated with PSPs) offering services on a direct
basis.
 EIPP solutions are used by corporates/large billers as well as SMEs and

microenterprises to send e-invoices in various sectors such as utilities,
telecommunications, retail, insurance, healthcare. Nevertheless, most of the
solutions are not limited by sector as consumers expect to be able to pay both
regular invoices and invoices for one-off transactions.
 The preferred payment means are SEPA SCT and SDD or the equivalent
credit transfer and direct debit instruments in non-Euro countries. Card
payments have a relatively low penetration which contrasts with payment
solutions for on-line e-commerce transactions, where card payments are more
common. The pattern of payments in EIPP mainly results from its explicit
integration into e-banking environments in order to add value to the on-line
channel The enhanced reachability within SEPA based on the use of IBANs
could also explain this pattern coupled with the lower effort in setting-up the
acceptance of SEPA payment means compared to payments by card.
 Many solutions are using accepted structured invoices based on technical

syntax formats in electronic invoice exchanges. There is no clearly dominating
standard, all 4 proposed in the survey (ISO 20022, EDIFACT, UBL,
UN/CEFACT Cross Industry Invoice) are well supported. Nevertheless,
various domestic standards are used in certain markets (e.g. Finvoice in
Finland, Facturae in Spain, ebInterface in Austria) and some solutions are
using vendor specific formats like SAP IDoc. PDF is also common either as
the solo invoice or as a human readable complement to the structured e-
invoice
3
The full analyse of the survey responses related to the current landscape can be found in the Annex
8.3

ERPB/2016/017
 Whilst common syntaxes and technical interoperability could simplify the

exchanges at the operational or technical level, in terms of governance we
can notice that many solutions are based on bilateral agreements or informal
schemes or on a one-provider model. This aspect has been mentioned as an
issue by respondents representing both the supply-side and demand-side.
Possible evolution of the landscape
Through an analysis the Survey’s findings and an estimation of the influence of

market trends, customer expectations and regulation, the Working Group considers
that the future evolution of the solutions landscape could be influenced by the
following factors:
 Improving the coverage of the countries where the current penetration of EIPP
solutions is low will be probably a natural business goal of the solutions
providers, but this will be strongly dependent on the future financial and digital
inclusion.
 Currently solutions are mainly bank and large biller centric. The interests of
consumers needs to be better recognized and in the context of the high
adoption of the digital technologies by the young generation, it is expected
that solutions will need to evolve to address this segment. These “new
consumers” will require a better value proposition and user experience than is
the case including the convenience of availability on any type of device
including smartphones and tablets. Such consumers may demand the ability
to meet other payment needs including for on-line e-commerce and even
residual paper invoices through such services.
 The B2C and B2B/B2b segments have different requirements. Solution
providers will increasingly need to take into account these differences and
reconcile them with their understandable preference for common systems and
interfaces.
 The large scale adoption of the SEPA Direct Debit method as well as the
historic use of Direct Debits in various countries for recurrent payments may
represent an alternative for EIPP and slow down the adoption of e-invoicing
based on 'Straight through Processing' EIPP solutions'. This aspect needs
further investigation because EIPP and DD do not necessarily need to be
seen as in conflict with each other. However, in some markets, e.g. Finland,
EIPP has been successful in displacing the direct debit. From a certain point
of view the end-users may consider the direct debit sufficient, but they then
may need to make some sacrifice in terms of the visibility of e-invoices which
may remain only in biller portals or received in email form. With EIPP, users
receive a secure flow of automated invoices and can closely control payment
flows. Clearly the value proposition of EIPP will need to be better articulated.
 The upcoming take up of the new SEPA Instant Credit Transfer (SCT Inst)
payment scheme could make the straight through processing (STP) even
faster. Business processes where the near real-time execution of the payment
is relevant could be optimised and a convergence with e-commerce
processes could be possible. The emergence of P2P payments could also
influence EIPP in some use cases.

ERPB/2016/017
 An invoice is more and more often also a support for other types of
communication between the supplier and the buyer. Marketing campaigns,
cross-sell actions, personalised messages can find their place into an e-
invoice document when it is presented in a human-readable format.
Therefore, solutions will likely propose a variety of value added services on
top of their core features to render the process attractive to billers, which wish
to retain and develop customer intimacy.
 A recent report published by EESPA (ref. [7.3]) shows the important growth
(+67% in B2C) in the last year of the volumes of invoices delivered to other
service providers destined for their customers. This trend probably anticipates
the central role of interoperability and a possible more significant role for the
4-corner model in the coming years.
 New regulations (e.g. PSD2 EU directive) will undoubtedly influence the future
landscape by allowing new operators to be associated in payment flows in
EIPP. E-invoicing providers and non-bank PSPs have a major opportunity to
take advantage of Access to Account and payment initiation services to
develop full EIPP services, but will require the development of a ‘level playing
field’ to aid such a development.
3.3. Critical success factors
The Working Group carefully analysed the information submitted by the demand and
supply-sides in response to the Survey questions, and was consequently able to
identify the critical success factors that successful EIPP solutions typically need to
display. These are:
3.3.1. Compelling value proposition for all actors in the EIPP chain
There are clear benefits of using EIPP for overall cost reduction, faster processing
cycles, transparency and improved cash management (ref. [7.4]), and these benefits
are expected to outweigh the costs of implementation for the various actors:
 Businesses on the payee and payer sides (B2b) benefiting from EIPP
services and a positive return on investment, together with benefits for
consumers
 ERP providers successfully adapting their commercial strategy to the
opportunities of e-invoicing and adding e-invoicing modules to their software
packages.
 PSPs adapting their platforms, and their payments back-end systems and
their e-banking environments, to support EIPP solutions to generate revenue
and defend/grow their payment franchise.
 E-invoicing solutions providers to build solid, secure, interoperable and easy
to use solutions generating a positive return on investment.
3.3.2. Customer centricity
The Survey responses reveal the perception that current solutions could do more to
offer customer convenience, and the providers of such solutions need to pay more
attention to the needs of their customers- in short to embrace customer centricity.

ERPB/2016/017
Combined with the avoidance of the lock-in effect (burdensome provider changes),
customer-centric solutions help to improve the quality of the relationship between the
user and the provider and create further business opportunities.
Customer expectations from EIPP solutions are:
 Ease of use of core features such as visualisation and payment initiation

 Extended and value added features such as archiving and document sharing
 In line with the technology trends including provision over multi-channel and
mobile devices
 Convenient on-boarding to dramatically improve the number of payees
registered in EIPP services and the number of payers becoming regular
users.
 The potential use of EIPP services for on-line e-commerce purchases and for
claims for payment from public administrations (e.g. taxes, fines, public
services etc.).
 Neutrality for the payment instruments used and adopting an inclusive
approach. Habits in using current payment instruments should be respected.
3.3.3. Achieving critical mass and network effects
The figures on volumes processed and geographic coverage show that, with notable
exceptions in countries with the highest E-invoicing penetration, critical mass in
Europe is not yet achieved in the B2C and B2b segments. This can be explained by
the low number of consumers using EIPP solutions, or the low number of e-invoices
processed. Clearly small billers produce a low number of e-invoices, but even large
billers may process a low number of e-invoices if their customer base is not using
EIPP services.
Success factors for the achievement of critical mass are:
 A strategy targeting high volumes from the best placed user segments with
digital familiarity and financial sophistication.
 More traction from public administrations in the role of payee and legislator.
 As volume builds, business opportunities will expand and competition will
become more intense. In such an environment, reachability and
interoperability between billers and buyers is key success factor. This is first
important in national markets, in which most EIPP traffic is based today, but
will extend over time to the whole EU Single Market.
 This is related to the need for a network model for transporting EIPP data at a
national and cross-border level. This network model should be a set of
underlying technical means and standards rather than a unique or dedicated
infrastructure
3.3.4. Security and trust
To preserve the trust in the trading relationship between the payee and the payer,
solution providers should ensure the service is secure throughout the presentation
and payment flows.

ERPB/2016/017
The elevated level of security of EIPP solutions should offer the guarantee that they
respond better than manual and paper based systems to the traditional security
threats. In the same time, as any other digitization initiatives, EIPP may introduce
new threats such as exposure to the alteration of data, identity theft, etc. Solutions
should respond to these threats by implementing robust security measures.
The main directions the factors related to security and trust need to take are:
 Preserve confidentiality of data for consumers within the service provider

environment
 Satisfy data protection requirements and implement measures to respect
customer privacy
 Guarantee of a 'clean' network through avoiding fraudulent invoicing and
billers (fake billers, fraudulent modification of payment recipient details, use of
fraudulent payments, etc.)
 Leverage “Know Your Customer” processes established by PSPs and billers.
3.3.5. Other success factors
Besides the above mentioned critical success factors, other more contextual success
factors were identified:
 An addressable market with maturity levels in the use of financial services and
digital technology.
 A mature and growing adoption of the e-invoicing habit across society.
 A solutions industry with the governance cooperation to establish
interoperability and reachability.
All these factors are present in many EIPP solutions in operation today especially in
those markets where EIPP is a mature service. Nevertheless, as the next section will
show the factors are not sufficiently present or pervasive to guarantee success, It is
clear to the Working Group that causes of the past failure or under-achievement of
EIPP initiatives can often be ascribed to the absence of these critical success
factors.
4. Barriers to the uptake and development of integrated EIPP

services
Associations representing the demand-side revealed in their answers to the Survey a

set of barriers inhibiting consumers and businesses from starting to use e-invoicing
solutions. In general, the opinions of the associations have confirmed the previous
analysis of the ERPB Secretariat expressed in the Note of November 2015 (ref.
[7.4]).
Solution providers were also asked in their respective Survey to point out the
perceptions they and their customers have on the topic of issues and barriers to
adoption. The full analysis of these perceptions can be found in the Annex 8.4.

ERPB/2016/017
Working Group members also shared the feed-back from their organisations with
regard to the issues and barriers standing in the way of EIPP development.
Based on the survey results and from this direct inputs from the organisations
represented in the Working Group, the following main issues and barriers can be
highlighted:
4.1. Cost and complexity of current solutions
About 80% of the respondents from the supply-side (solution providers) felt that their
customers from the SME and microenterprise segments consider current solutions to
be too expensive or too complex.
For businesses acting as supplier or buyers the components of the platforms or

operations that are evaluated as too costly or too complex can be different. However,
the implementation mode (SaaS4 mode or internally hosted) was not detailed by
respondents. For SMEs and microenterprises the business case to support the use
of current solutions are often not felt to be sustainable.
Related to this, solution providers perceive a lack of demand which was confirmed
by the demand-side organisations as well. But in this case the root cause seems to
be the lack of analysis of the consequences and risks of still using paper invoices
and an under-appreciation of the benefits of EIPP.
4.2. Reachability not easy to achieve and diverging business rules
The lack of EU-wide network model for connectivity or of more interoperable

standards supporting the reachability between payees and payers is perceived by
the solution providers as a relatively important issue hindering the integration of the
solutions on a European scale.
Diverging business rules are also seen as a hindrance as are administrative barriers,
such arises in the case of countries where the paper invoice is mandatory in specific
circumstances.
4.3. Financial and digital inclusion
The penetration of EIPP solutions is strongly dependent on underlying accessibility

of banking services, telecommunication and general digital technologies. There are
important differences between countries and between categories of population with
regard to the access to these services.
Some statistics show the reality of these disparities (sources Eurostat, European
Commission):
 Digital inclusion: level of access to Internet (% of households):
4
Software as a Service

ERPB/2016/017
 Digital inclusion: use of Internet banking (% of individuals ):

ERPB/2016/017
 Financial inclusion: consumers without a payment account*:
* The data are from 2012. The positive impact of the Payments Account Directive aiming removes any
barrier to opening a bank account is not taken into account.
4.4. Other barriers
The survey shows other barriers pointed out by the respondents. Not among the
most important but combined, they may explain the existing reluctance to the
adoption of EIPP services:

ERPB/2016/017
 “Lock-in” effect. The users, both businesses (on the supplier side in B2B/B2C
and buyer side in B2B/B2b) and consumers may find it difficult to move from
one provider to another without losing their data and without high
organisational effort. However, this effect is expected to be mitigated in the
coming years by the right to data portability as defined by the EU General
Data Protection Regulation.
 The power of current habits and strong inertia when facing changes. Often
semi-digital solutions, like sending scanned paper invoices by email and using
SDDs for collecting funds (payees’ perspective) / automated payment (payers’
perspective), are considered sufficient for the current needs.
 Some feed-back from the demand-side point out there are still concerns
regarding data privacy.
 Related to the previous point, lack of knowledge of e-invoicing and its
advantages has been reported as an issue by solution providers.
5. Options on how to tackle the identified barriers to support take-

up and integration of EIPP services
As set out in the previous chapter, a number of important issues and barriers are
preventing or slowing down the adoption and large scale development of EIPP
solutions. It is critical to encourage the success factors detailed in the chapter 3.3
above and overcome these barriers if the benefits of EIPP are to be realised.
Based on the results of the Survey undertaken by the Working Group and the
feedback from its members, the Working Group concluded that there are two
alternative strategies that could be followed:
 Take no action and let the market evolve, based on market forces and driven
by supply and demand.
 Consider a number of options for action through inclusive cooperation, which
would address market barriers and facilitate the take-up and integration of
EIPP solutions in Europe.
The Working Group recognises that substantial progress has already been made in
certain regions and market niches, but this it is likely to be insufficient on its own to
drive market development. There remain uncertainties as to the direction in which
EIPP solutions could evolve on a broad-scale basis. Market forces alone may not be
able to overcome some of the identified barriers, both in relation to take-up generally
and certainly in relation to the emergence of a Pan-European interconnected
landscape.
Therefore, the Working Group considers that there could be scope for cooperative
work by market stakeholders on EIPP. The Working Group identified a number of
options for further action, which could form a basis for discussion and decisions on
the next steps needed to overcome some of the issues and barriers highlighted in
this report.
It is the view of the Working Group that there is an inherent attractiveness in EIPP for
billers and consumers alike, but there are substantial network issues that need to be

ERPB/2016/017
addressed by the relevant market stakeholders to support take-up and integration of

EIPP solutions and services at the pan-European level.
The following conclusions and options for next steps are therefore set out for
consideration by ERPB:
5.1. Need for a well-articulated value proposition
The customer value proposition for the user on both sides of the market requires
further development so as to provide tangible benefits, full needs satisfaction,
customer relevance, ease of use, multi-channel availability and for the biller no loss
of client intimacy.
The payee and the payer need to have a clear view on the business benefits that
they can anticipate if they adopt an e-invoicing solution integrated with retail
payments. The payee expects a positive impact on its whole supply-chain including
savings relative to paper invoices, acceleration of cash flow, fraud and error
reduction, and optimised reconciliation between invoices and payments in accounts
receivable systems. Further value may be obtained through the use of dynamic
discounting and other supply chain finance techniques. EIPP solutions need to give
billers wide reachability of their customers and full visibility with them if they are not
to steer them towards promotion of their own customer portals and payment
solutions.
On the payer side, the advantages of ease of use could be better reflected and
promoted, especially the 'whole' picture and reducing the need to always go to biller
web-sites. The requirements of B2C and B2B/B2b segments are different, therefore
the value proposition should be adapted to each segment. In the case of SMEs or
microenterprises acting as payers, the return on investment is of key concern as
volumes are often too low to justify the move toward EIPP solutions without a
stronger value proposition. For payers, consideration also needs to be focused on
other means of payments such as direct debits and cards.
Payment service providers, e-invoicing service providers and ERP providers also
need a compelling business case to justify their investment and ongoing operational
costs.
The Working Group estimates that the realisation of a solid business case and value
proposition could materially improve the business perspectives of all actors involved
and remove a significant barrier to adoption. This would clearly respond to points
arising in the Survey results regarding cost and the complexity concerns with current
solutions as well as the lack of sufficient current demand, as detailed in the chapter
4.1. This area is a critical success factor identified by the Working Group as captured
in chapter 3.3.1 above.
5.2. Improving customer centricity and the trust equation
Current solutions are perceived as too biller-centric or bank-centric. For achieving

success solutions should better respond to consumers (payer) expectations. Besides

ERPB/2016/017
the issue of value proposition for the consumer as discussed above, solutions need
to be better articulated in terms of the user experience and their quality features, in
terms of:
 Convenience
 Ease of use
 On-boarding
 Access through mobile technology
 Minimal proneness to error
 High but usable security
 Customer data confidentiality
Based on these features the level of acceptance and trust will encourage a
readiness to adopt and more intensively use EIPP solutions.
A promising idea being pursued by some market operators is to include within such
solutions additional features such as the integration of on-line e-commerce
processes for purchases and ticketing; currently these are often housed in separate
payment portals. A further extension could be to allow payers to identify other
payment obligations that they currently have, for example through the upload of the
PDF or scanned paper invoices, and then paying them through the EIPP solution.
The user would then combine 'traditional' EIPP with other payment needs and use a
single interface as a “One-Stop-Shop”.
Many suppliers/billers are using their paper invoices as vehicles for information,
marketing and commercial proposals. EIPP solutions should appropriately integrate
these types of additional features.
As financial and digital inclusion are critical pre-conditions for the use of EIPP solid
actions in this direction are required to overcome resistance and spread digital habits
and more advanced financial services. EIPP is a clearly sophisticated solution and
will thrive best among communities with well-established use of payment accounts
and on-line banking/ e-commerce. Actions such as realisation of the benefits of
PSD2 are also important.
Trust in solutions is key to EIPP take up. This extends to more than just 'security' but
also the creation of a bundle of positive perceptions that 'my interests are well
protected and my data is secure'. In short there needs to be a set of best practices
aiming to establish a high level of trust between all the entities involved in the digital
chain created through EIPP. Such practices should however not be too complex to
avoid putting off users and their providers.
This trust equation starts with the technical and organisational security related
measures taken by the payee to protect invoice data, extends through the security of
transmission channels, and ends with the security and trust criteria that payer
environments should fulfil. The PSPs, by leveraging their knowledge base and
record of implementation, their customer relationships, and their “Know Your
Customer” processes, have a vital role to play in achieving these requirements.
Collective action can support these processes by developing industry accepted best

ERPB/2016/017
practices. This dimension of the business also requires strong communication to

create a high level of customer trust.
The Working Group considers improvement of the customer centricity based on

features/ functionality, wider awareness of financial and digital services and high
level of trust and security are vital to the future success of EIPP. Promoting
'customer centricity' would help to overcome the issues and barriers revealed by the
Survey and summarised in the chapter 4 above, including critical success factors no
2 (“Customer centricity”) and 4 (“Security and trust”) identified by the Working Group.
5.3. Facilitating adoption through better targeting of defined customer

segments
Mass adoption of E-invoicing could be achieved by the priority targeting of the two
key categories of potential users of EIPP solutions.
 On the payee side, the big billers, typically larger enterprises, are key
segments especially those with mass billing activities and a motivation to
improve acceleration of receivables and an improved customer experience.
Public administrations could also play an important role as important payees
for transactions similar to invoicing, such as claims for tax, penalties, public
services etc.
 On the payer side the young generation is a key segment being highly
comfortable with new technologies and should be targeted, although other
demographic categories such as 'silver surfers', digital adopters and business
owners etc. are also interesting potential EIPP users.
More effort on communication could be foreseen targeting these user groups and
aiming to explain the benefits and advantages of the EIPP services. Efforts are
needed to present the generic benefits of EIPP in appropriate business and
consumer forums and industry associations.
The Working Group supports the need for a more targeted set of initiatives towards
larger billers on the payee side and high potential end-users on the payer side.
Adopting this strategy of targeting 'First movers' could address the perception of low
demand, expressed in the Chapters 4.1 and 4.4 above as well as critical success
factor 3 (“Achieving the critical mass and network effect”).
5.4. Improved standards for interoperability
The Working Group has identified the need for a limited number of well thought out
standardization initiatives covering: e.g. a semantic lexicon, a set of key standards
and the integration of means of payment, including PSD2 interfaces.
A common set of business rules and a semantic lexicon for EIPP could be created
and promoted as an enabler to allow conversations to take place using common
terms and definitions.

ERPB/2016/017
Other standards activities should focus on a number of common key areas. The
selection process for standards activities should emphasise business priorities and
avoid a proliferation of standards initiatives A promising list would include:
 request to pay and payment proposal messages

 Payee and payer on-boarding
 Addressing and authentication
 Reachability
 Interfaces for access to account supporting EIPP
 Reconciliation
 Archiving and document sharing
There is no need to duplicate work on e-invoice standards already ongoing. Nor is it

essential to privilege one of the existing standards in order to mandate a unique
technical syntax for the exchange of e-invoices. Likely work by the CEN Technical
Committee 434 (CEN/TC 434) on a version of the core invoice standard for the
B2C/B2b market is to be welcomed.
STP especially in B2C and B2b segments cannot be enabled without the
optimisation of payment initiation. In this respect an option could be to create a
common semantic and syntactical standard for a message encapsulating the
information needed for initiating a payment – a 'request to pay' message referred to
above. A SEPA-wide definition for the ‘request to pay’ using for example a subset of
ISO 20022 standards could be considered.
The Working Group supports the need to establish a common set of minimum
requirements at business rules/terms’ and technical standards’ level that would
improve interoperability and pan-European reach when implemented. This option
would address the issues revealed by the survey regarding the lack of common
standards and of an EU-wide network, detailed in the chapter 4.2 above, and
address the critical success factor the Working Group and expressed in the section
3.3.3 above (point on Reachability).
6. Conclusion
The Working Group recognises that the components for pan-European EIPP
solutions have been already built and are integrated into solutions to date on an ad
hoc basis. This has been highlighted in the description of the current landscape.
The next generation of EIPP solutions ideally need to be created through careful
design and the use of well accepted standards, targeting the objective to overcome
the current obstacles in their take-up and pan-European integration.
The Working Group believes that the options proposed above would be the most
efficiently applied in supporting the delivery of further EIPP solutions at country,
community and Pan-European level, if they were linked together in the aim to
develop and implement cooperation among actors. This will be essential to address
network issues, to create network effects and promote best practices and common
standards.

ERPB/2016/017
The cooperation should be inclusive for all existing and future actors and create a
level playing field. It needs to balance national Member State activity, where most
consumers and micro-businesses are active for the vast majority of their invoice
payments, with an emerging Pan-European overlay.
7. References
1. ERPB: Mandate of the working group on E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments
2. Bruno Koch - Billentis: E-invoicing / E-billing Digitisation & Automation - 27 May 2016
3. EESPA: Report on E-invoicing - July 2016
4. ERPB: E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments - the way forward in SEPA
5. ECB: Payment statistics - full report - 26 September 2016

ERPB/2016/017
8. Annexes
8.1. Glossary of terms
Term Definition Remark/background*

E-invoice/bill solutions related to E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments are This is in the scope and focus of work by the
retail payments generally defined as E-invoice or Bill Presentment ERPB WG on e-invoicing solutions related to
and Payment solutions (EIPP/EBPP). retail payments.
These solutions combine e-invoicing services and In short, the EIPP/EBPP solutions primarily
payment services. They are facilitated cover packaged e-invoice/bill payment
directly/indirectly by payment service providers services offered to the payers.
and/or e-invoicing service providers, enabling: In some cases where the payee is incapable
 The Payer to flexibly receive and manage e- of integrating e-invoicing into its internal
invoices/bills and to pay them with existing systems, the solution may also cover e-
payment instruments (i.e. credit transfers, direct invoicing/billing services for compiling and
debits, card payments) or even e-money sending the electronic invoice/bill envelopes.
transactions, without the need to manually copy
paste or type in data for initiating the payment;
and in some cases
 The Payee to digitalise processing of its
invoices/bills and to send/route them to the
payers.
Supplier/Payee/Sender/Issuer/ In the e-invoicing/e-billing presentment and In the questionnaire that will be distributed to
Creditor payment context it is the originator of the e-invoice the Solution Providers these terms may be
or the e-bill. It is also the provider of the goods interchanged, although the term Supplier is
and services and the beneficiary of the funds the most used.
transferred in the payment flow.
Consumer/Payer/Receiver/Debtor/ In the e-invoicing/e-billing presentment and In the questionnaire that will be distributed to
Buyer payment context it is the recipient of the e-invoice the Solution Providers these terms may be
or the e-bill. It is also the party receiving the goods interchanged
and services and the originator of the funds
transferred in the payment flow.
PSP Payment Service Provider
B2C Business To Consumer B2B and B2b are here differentiated with
B2B/B2b Business To Business respect to the size of the beneficiary of the
goods and services part. In both cases they
B2G Business To Government are companies.
In a B2B (B to “uppercase B”) relationship the
In the current context, these terms represent the 2 beneficiary is a large company.
parties involved in the e-invoice/e-bill presentment In B2b (B to “lowercase B”) relationship the
and payment as a process in the trading beneficiary is an SME or a microenterprise.
exchange.
Electronic invoice (e-invoice) An invoice that has been issued, transmitted and E-invoices must be machine readable and
received in a structured electronic format which enable fully digital / automatic processing,
allows for its automatic and electronic processing. without any need for manual intervention for
(Directive 2014/55/EU) inserting or amending data – i.e. copy-
pasting or typing in data. This term is used in
the business-to-business (B2B) and
business-to-government (B2G) context.
Electronic bill (e-bill) A term of convenience and common usage used This term is used if an e-invoice is sent to a
to describe an e-invoice presented in EIPP/EBPP consumer (i.e. business-to-consumer, B2C).
solutions. Technically, from the businesses’ The payer must be able to see/read the bill,
perspective, the definition of an e-invoice applies but there mustn’t be a need for manually
(see above). copy pasting or typing in data for initiating the
payment.
E-bill visual presentation A representation of an e-bill in a human readable It is also often the sole version of the invoice
format (e.g. PDF) presented to payers. It is also possible,
although not optimal that the visual

ERPB/2016/017
representation is the sole version of the

invoice created in the issuer's system.
Another variation is a visual presentation in
which a structured electronic format is
embedded (see below “E-invoice layers”)
Request To Pay A subset of the e-invoice information extracted This forms a message to the payer in an
from an e-invoice or its visual representation EIPP/EBPP solution giving the minimum
information for payment initiation with a link
to the underlying invoice. It usually doesn’t
contain details about taxes and lines
describing the invoice items.
European Standard on e- It establishes a semantic data model of the core The standard should set out and describe the
invoicing elements of an electronic invoice. (Directive core elements which an electronic invoice
2014/55/EU) must always contain, thus facilitating the
sending and receipt of electronic invoices
between systems based on different
technical standards (syntaxes).
This will be developed by the European
Committee of Standardisation (CEN).
Semantic data model A structured and logically interrelated set of terms This will be defined by CEN.
and their meanings that specify the core elements The semantic model focuses on public
of an electronic invoice. (Directive 2014/55/EU) procurement invoicing by public and private
sector organizations. It may be used for
invoicing between private sector enterprises
and it also enables harmonisation of the
basic elements for e-billing in the B2C
domain.
Core elements of an electronic A set of essential information components which This will be defined by CEN.
invoice an electronic invoice must contain in order to Including also fiscal compliance.
enable cross-border interoperability, including the
necessary information to ensure legal compliance.
(Directive 2014/55/EU)
Syntax / syntax bindings Syntax is the machine readable language or The syntax bindings relevant for the
dialect used to represent the data elements European Standard will be defined by CEN.
contained in an electronic invoice. Syntax bindings Syntaxes widely used:
are guidelines on how a semantic data model for
- UN/CEFACT Cross Industry
an electronic invoice could be represented in the
Invoice
various syntaxes. (Directive 2014/55/EU) - UBL
- ISO 20022 Financial Invoice
- EDIFACT
E-invoice layers Groups of functions and representations of the 4 layers may be defined :
information contained in an e-invoice used by - Full format (includes all elements
actors having different levels of understanding needed for electronic processing,
(machines or persons) printing and reading in human
readable format observing a
standard syntax and semantic)
- PDF (binary representation in a
PDF file allowing the information
reading, printing, display, storing
and sending)
- Data only (formats allowing
electronic processing, storing and
sending, but not represented in
human readable format or printed)
- PDF+XML (enhanced PDF format
allowing both electronic treatment
by extracting the data from the
PDF document and presentation
as a common PDF for reading and
printing use. The data are
embedded in the PDF file and are
mostly structured in XML)
E-invoicing models In the current context, the categorisation of e-  Supplier Direct. The Supplier
invoicing solutions based on the number of creates, stores and manages the
intermediary platforms involved in the presentation entire lifecycle of the e-invoices.

ERPB/2016/017
and payment processes. The Payer must access the

Supplier platforms in order to get
access to its invoices. There is no
intermediary in the presentation
flow. Typically the e-invoicing
solutions embedded in the Supplier
web portals belong to this
category.
 Buyer (Receiver) Direct. The
Suppliers post the invoices into
platforms on Buyer side. There is
no intermediary in the presentation
flow.
 Network model: 3 corners.
Between the Supplier and the
rd
Buyer a 3 platform exists, E-
invoicing service provider. Both the
Supplier and the Buyer have
access to this platform.
 Network model: 4 corners. Each
participant in the flows (Supplier
and Buyer) have their own E-
invoicing provider. The e-invoicing
flows are routed between the 2
platforms.
SCF Supply Chain Finance Use of financing and risk mitigation practices

and
techniques to optimise the management of
the working capital and liquidity invested in
Supply chain processes and transactions.
8.2. Surveys methodology

As required in the mandate received from the ERPB, the Working Group agreed to make a survey to
gather and analyse the information related to E-invoicing from the Demand and Supply sides of the
market. Therefore the following actions were undertaken:
 As of the beginning of the Working Group activities, the members decided to launch the
survey under 2 forms: 1 addressing the Supply-side and 1 addressing the Demand-side.
 The form and content of the 2 surveys were iteratively developed in March and April 2016 and
the agreement on the final content of the survey addressing the Supply-side was given after
the 2nd meeting (28 April).
 The survey circulation procedure as well as the “umbrella” organisations that distributed the
survey were decided in the 1st week of May 2016
 The package addressing the Supply-side was distributed to the members of the Working
Group on 11 May. This package contained the following items: cover letter introducing the
survey and explaining the process, a glossary of terms commonly used in the E-invoicing
domain, the Survey in MS Word format and the address where the survey was available
online. The use of the online version of the questionnaire and the tool used for the set up
were approved by the Working Group.
 The survey addressing the Supply-side was progressively distributed among the members of
the organisations represented in the Working Group. This activity has been led by the
Working Group members using the internal procedures and contacts of their respective
organisations. The final respondents, as indicated in the cover letter, were expected to send
the responses either by email either using the online version directly to the Secretariat of the
Working Group.
 The initial period allowed for sending responses was until 20 June. In the Working Group
meeting of 26 June it was decided to extend this period until 1 August.
 The package addressing the Demand-side was distributed to the members of the Working
Group on 27 May. This package contained the following items: letter introducing the survey,
explaining the process and containing the specific questions for Demand-side in MS Word
format and the address where the survey was available online.
 Like for the Supply-side, the Working Group members representing the Demand-side
distributed this package toward their respective organisations as from 31 May.

ERPB/2016/017
 The initial period allowed for sending responses by the Demand-side was until 24 June. In the
Working Group meeting of 26 June it was decided to extend this period until 1 August.
Structure of the surveys:
The survey addressing the Supply side contained 2 sections:

A. Description of the Solution
B. Issues, barriers and opportunities from the perspective of the Solution provider
The section A. contained a set of 44 questions aiming to gather information about the Solution
provider and the characteristics of the solution, grouped in the following subsections:
 Submitter identification
 Solution identification
 Solution coverage
 Solution operational status
 Solution description: Supplier side, Payer side and General and technical aspects
 Enrolment
 Reachability and interoperability
 Business model
The respondents were asked to give their feed-back either by choosing predefined choices (“multiple
choice questions), either by entering their own response in free-text fields, depending on the question
content.
The section B. contained 3 subsections:

 Issues and barriers influencing the general take-up and implementation of EIPP/EBPP
solutions
 Issues and barriers influencing EU integration of EIPP/EBPP solutions
 Other issues and barriers
The answers to the questions of these sections were expected to be given either by assigning
rankings to predefined identified issues and barriers or by entering free answers.
The Secretariat collected 47 answers from the Supply-side and 8 answers from the Demand side. 1 of
the answers from the Demand-side grouped feedback from 5 entities. Thus 13 distinct answers were
collected from the Demand side.
Regarding the Supply-side, it has to be highlighted that the survey targeted not only platform vendors
or integrators but also institutions like banks that implement solutions built internally or provided by
external vendors. Therefore in some cases multiple inputs were received describing the same solution
in section A of the questionnaire. Nevertheless section B contained separate responses as they came
from different visions on what are the relevant issues and barriers for the respondent.
2 responses from the Supply-side actually didn’t describe any solution but chose to fill in only the
section B.
To summarise, with regard to the Supply-side, 36 distinct E-invoicing solutions have been described
by the 47 respondents.
8.3. Details on the current landscape

The Working Group addressed the following organisations in order to collect information about the E-
invoicing solutions from the perspective of the Solution providers (Supply-side):
 EPC: European Payments Council

 EACB: European Association of Co-operative Banks
 ESBG: European Savings and Retail Banking Group
 EBF: European Banking Federation
 EPIF: European Payment Institutions Federation
 EMA: Electronic Money Association
 EESPA: European E-Invoicing Service Providers

ERPB/2016/017
 Some EACT (European Association of Corporate Treasurers) members
Out of the total number of responses received from the Supply-side (47), 2 responded only to the
section B (Issues and Barriers). Therefore 45 responses described E-invoicing solutions. As some of
the respondents provided information about solutions provided by other respondents, 36 distinct E-
invoicing solutions were described.
Statistical figures about the solutions and their coverage:
Solution provider category (45 responses):
5, 11%
Credit or Payment institution
21, 47% E‐invoicing service provider
19, 42% Other Service Provider or
institution
Business segmentation (45 responses):
In the graph above, the colours marked from 0 to 4 are the rankings given to the segments and the
vertical axis the number of responses. Example: 23 respondents have given the ranking 4 to the B2C
segment.
Regardless of the rankings the following figures may be noticed:

• 21 solutions cover all segments
• 5 solutions cover only B2C or B2b segments
• 9 solutions cover other only not-B2C segments (B2B/b or B2G)
• 12 solutions don’t cover B2G segment
• Only 1 solution reported covering only 1 sector (B2C)

ERPB/2016/017
These figures shows as expected that the solution are present in both B2B and B2C/B2b. This is an
effect of the double type of actors in the E-invoicing chain: the Supplier and the Consumer. Besides of
this we can notice that a significant part of the solutions don’t cover the B2G segment meaning the
public e-procurement is not a driver for these providers. The high rankings (4 or 3) given to B2C by 27
and to B2b by 28 respondents reflect the general orientation toward the consumers and to SMEs or
Microenterprises of an important number of providers.
Commercial sectors (45 responses):
In the graph above, the colours marked from 0 to 4 are the rankings given to the sectors and the
vertical axis the number of responses. Example: 20 respondents have given the ranking 4 to the
Telecom sector.
Regardless of the rankings the following figures may be noticed:
 41 solutions operate in all sectors proposed as answer. Out of them, 23 are not linked to any
particular sector
 16 solutions operate also in at least another sector (services, car leasing, tourism, etc.)
This spread of the solutions usage demonstrate there is a trend of E-invoicing to become present in
many sectors and there is no visible preference for a particular sector, even if some of them have
particular requirements in the content and presentation of invoices (e.g. telecommunications,
healthcare)

ERPB/2016/017
Type of Suppliers (44 responses):
Remarks:
- 15 solutions can be implemented to all type of Suppliers
- 21 others to enterprises (not public administrations)
- 5 can be implemented to large entities (Large companies and public administrations)
- 2 reported to be dedicated to SME/Microenterprises
Type of Payers (45 responses):
It can be noticed that the Solutions are generally ready to be used by consumers as well by small
businesses. Almost half of the solutions can be used in public e-procurement.
- 5 solutions can be used by all type of Payers (including Public administrations, for public
procurement)
- 31 solutions can be used by Consumers, SME or Microenterprises
- 3 solutions are exclusively dedicated to individual Consumers
Willingness to expand the solution in other countries (44 responses):

ERPB/2016/017
9, 20%
Yes
No
35, 80%
Current coverage (45 responses):
1, 2% 5, 11%
1 country
5, 11% 2‐5 countries
> 5 countries
23, 51%
EU/SEPA/Europe
11, 25% EU/SEPA/Europe + others
Figures regarding the volumes processed by the solutions already implemented (43
responses) and launched.
Annual volumes Estimated growth per year

ERPB/2016/017
Number of suppliers already onboarded Number of payers
General description of the solutions
1. Characteristics related to the payment
a. Accepted payment instruments (38 responses):
As expected the most used instruments are SEPA instruments, SCT and SDD. As many solutions are
integrated (or closely linked) to the e-banking environments, the use of SCT and SDD is expected.
The SCT is widely used, given its general acceptance and its simplicity. It is more used than SDD as it
doesn’t require prior agreements between Payer and Payee like the mandate. It is noticeable the
limited presence of the payments by cards (debit or credit) in the landscape of E-invoicing. Other
interesting facts about the payment instruments:
- All 14 solutions accepting SDDs accept also SCT
- Some domestic instruments (especially domestic non-euro direct debits schemes) are still
used (6 cases)
- Some responses reflected the approach assuming that the payment is not part of the E-
invoicing flow thus considering all means mutually accepted between Payee and Payer.
- Cards payment are in general alternative means besides SCT or SDD. Only 2 solutions
accept only cards payments.
b. Type of payments (39 responses):

ERPB/2016/017
Most of the 20 solutions accepting recurring payments accept also One-Off payments. Only 3 accept
only recurrent payments and are more specialized in B2C segment.
c. E-invoices vs. Requests to Pay (41 responses)
As explained in the glossary, a Request To Pay is a subset of information allowing the payment
initiation, but it is not itself an E-invoice. It can propose a link to the underlying invoice. A solution may
propose to the Payers this type of message in order to ease the payment initiation and to highlight the
main data of the invoice. From 41 solutions, 20 propose the Requests To Pay.
d. Payment related information that can be modified by the Payer (41 responses)
These figures show the flexibility of the solutions in terms of separation of the payment data of the
invoice and the action of payment effectively executed by the Payer. Payment amount, date, the IBAN
of the Payer (if it is necessary in the payment) or the payment instrument can in general be modified
by the Payers.
2. Characteristics related to the standardisation and interoperability
 Data formats supported (44 responses)

ERPB/2016/017
As described in the glossary, there are different form to electronically represent the invoices.
“Structured electronic format” and “PDF+data (in XML)” are actually the formats allowing complete
electronically processing. Comments on these figures:
- Among the solutions which support Structured electronic formats or PDF+Data(XML), i.e.
which allow to electronically process the files representing the invoices, 25 operate
significantly in B2C context (ranked 3 or 4)
- 2 solutions reported supporting only simple PDF format, thus cannot be consider as E-
invoicing solutions in the sense as defined in the glossary and widely accepted. These 2
solutions operate mostly in B2C context.
- 15 solutions support PDF+data, simple PDF and electronic format. They operate in all
segments (B2C/B2B/B2b/B2G) in various degrees
 Syntaxes (42 responses)
Other interesting figures resulted from the analyse: from the 25 solutions working with other formats
than the four major proposed, 11 are using exclusively a proprietary format. The other 14 are using at
least 1 of the 4 standards proposed beside their own format.
16 solutions can use at least 2 format from the 4 major proposed.
 E-invoicing model (42 responses).

ERPB/2016/017
The models are described in the glossary. It is important to note than 40 solutions are designed to fit
into at least one of the “Network models” (3 corners or 4 corners).
The figures in the graph above show how many solutions are based on each model, but many
solutions can be considered as following multiple models. For example a network based solution
when the Supplier and the Buyer E-invoicing flows enter into or go out from the same platform can be
seen as a 3-corner solution. When these flows are routed to other platforms, the solution can be seen
as 4-corner solution. There is no solution reporting to use only the Payer direct model. This means the
solutions analysed are giving more importance to the networking or to the Supplier-based model.
Nevertheless Payer-direct model is also supported by 10 solutions but always besides at least
another model.
 Interoperability (43 responses).
Interoperability is a broader topic, exceeding the purpose of this analysis. To accurately evaluate the
degree of interoperability, multiple angles should have been taken into account: legal, operational,
technical, etc. In the current analysis the respondents have been asked if their solutions are able to
communicate with other E-invoicing services in order to evaluate their readiness to send or receive E-
invoicing flows from a technical perspective and the coverage of this interoperability in the same
country where the E-invoicing service is operating, or cross-border.
A majority of the solutions are technically interoperable, but however an important percentage
reported non-interoperability (23%).
 Payer identity (43 responses)

ERPB/2016/017
These results show the 2 types of Payer identity are predominant: based on bank account number
(IBAN) and CustomerID, a generic term meaning any model where the Payer is identified by the
Supplier, in its own internal platforms. “Citizen Identity”, like eIDs (Electronic Identity Cards issued by
the governments) or VAT Id are also used in some markets. That offers an independence of the
Payer, especially in B2C, from its bank and from its Suppliers in terms of identification and access to
E-invoicing platforms.
 Governance scheme (41 responses)
This question aimed to find out if the Solutions, in their execution of E-invoicing processes, follow a
scheme i.e. is a set of rules, practices, implementation guidelines and/or standards.
 Multiple formats of invoices on Supplier side (44 responses)
Support for multiple format on the Suppliers side means the capacity of the solution to process and
send invoices in other existing formats. This would allow the solution to become a “Single Point of
Entry” for all, including legacy, invoicing processes.

ERPB/2016/017
3. Other characteristics
 Digital signature (43 responses) :31 solutions propose digital signature for E-invoices
(72% of the respondents)
 Support for e-commerce (43 responses): 22 solutions provide support for E-
commerce processes, for example if the Solution supports the generation of the E-
invoice after online payment or the generation of purchase receipts.
 Payer access to the E-invoices (43 responses):
In this question the providers were asked to specify the platform where the Payer can retrieve the
documents representing the E-invoices received from the Suppliers. “Open channels” in this context
means for example email or storage in third party cloud platforms (e.g. Dropbox, Google Drive). A low
number of solutions allow the use of this type of channel, many of them use the Payer e-banking
environment (preferred channel) or the Service provider’s own platform. The supplier web portal (often
in case of “Supplier-direct” model) is also used.
 Human readable format of the E-invoices (44 responses):
As expected, PDF is largely used (98% of the solutions) but also the presentation in HTML bringing
the advantage of the universal access, from any device.
 Compliancy with EU or national VAT regulations (44 responses): 42 are compliant but
from the remaining two others, 1 is still in Pilot mode (not yet launched) and 1
provides only Requests To Pay, addressing the B2C market, thus the VAT rules may
not apply.
 Intention to make the solution compliant with the European directive 2014/55/EU on
e-invoicing in e-procurement (43 answers): 35 responses were affirmative meaning a
majority of the solutions target or will target in the future the public E-procurement
(B2G segment).
 Business model (43 responses). This question aimed to find out which party is
charged for the ownership and use of the E-invoicing service. In 42 cases, the
Supplier is charged, in 23 the Buyer. But 22 out of 23 when the Payer pays, actually
the Supplier pays too, thus the solution having a shared pricing model. Only 1
solution – which is not yet launched - reported to charge the Payer only.

ERPB/2016/017
8.4. Details on the perception of the Supply-side on the issues and

barriers
Analysis of the 1st set of answers (related to the predefined questions)
The answers were expressed under the form of a ranking starting from 0 (this is not an issue) to 4 (the
most important issue) expressing the weight of the proposed issue or barrier.
We can notice that more than 50% of the respondents estimate this issue as important or very
important. When looking to the category of the providers, both PSPs (Credit/Payment institutions) and
E-invoicing Solutions Providers (or other providers) see this issue as important.
An even more visible trend toward high rankings (about 80%) can be seen with regard to the opinion
of the providers about how the SMEs and micro-enterprises perceive the cost and complexity of the
solutions.

ERPB/2016/017
There is a relatively medium and low importance given to the issues related to the reservations that
the users may have when using E-invoicing solutions. That points out the readiness of the potential
users in accepting these solutions. Of course this is the opinion of the Solutions providers about the
behaviours of their customers.
29 respondents ranked with 2 or 3 this issue meaning the lock-in effect after the implementation of an
E-invoicing solution may be an issue but it isn’t the most important. It is likely that the switching
between E-invoicing solutions is not fundamentally more complicated than switching other business
support applications (ERP, Accountancy) or for a consumer switching for example from an E-banking
environment to another.
It’s interesting to notice that this ranking was given almost equally by Payment or Credit institutions
and E-invoicing solutions providers (or other providers proposing also E-invoicing).

ERPB/2016/017
The lack of EU-wide network supporting the reachability between Suppliers and consumers is
perceived by the solution providers as a relatively important issue hindering the integration of the
solutions on a European scale.
More important than the lack of a European network is the co-existence of multiple and non-
interoperable standards.

ERPB/2016/017
Beyond the divergent standards, it has been highlighted by high rankings that the diverging business
rules and practices are also very important barriers in the European expansion of the solutions. More
than 70% of the respondents consider them as important or very important.
Other issues and barriers expressed by the solutions providers:
Besides the above-mentioned points the survey invited the respondents to express other issues they
have faced. The most relevant specific ones are:
 Market foreclosure instead of open access, dominant actors operating domestic solutions
 Risk of over-regulation, targeting all markets whilst not one single specification suits every
market
 Willingness to address cross-border before intra-border maturity
 Lack of solutions for Digital identity, as enabler for reachability

ERPB/2016/017
8.5. Composition of the Working Group
CO-CHAIRS
Mr Massimo Battistella EACT
Mr Jussi Snellman EPC
MEMBERS
Ms Sarah Hysén ESBG
Ms Ana Climente Alarcon EPC
Mr Georg Thoma Ecommerce Europe
Mr Pascal Spittler EuroCommerce
Mr Michael Salmony/Mr Pablo Lahoz EACB
Ms Pirjo Ilola EBF
Mr Farid Aliyev/Mr Jean Allix BEUC
Ms Anne-Sophie Parent AGE
Mr Stefan Engel-Flechsig EACT
Mr Michael Taggart/Mr Liam Morris Public Administrations
Mr Gregorio Rubio NCB (Banco de Espana)
Mr David Ballaschk NCB (Bundesbank)
Mr Michiel van Doeveren NCB (Nederlansche Bank)
Mr Rainer Olt ECB
Ms Irena Rivière Osipov Observer (EC)
Mr Charles Bryant/Mr Marcus Laube Relevant External Party (EESPA)
SECRETARIAT
Mr Valentin Vlad EPC
Mr Etienne Goosse EPC

Electronic Invoicing Solutions Related To Retail Payments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronic Invoicing Solutions Related To Retail Payments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronic Invoicing Solutions Related To Retail Payments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERPB/2016/017

ERPB WG EINV 043-16

Euro Retail Payments Board (ERPB)

Report from the ERPB Working Group on E-

ERPB Meeting 28 November 2016

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 1/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 2/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 3/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

 EIPP solutions and services need a well-articulated value proposition: all

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 4/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

2. Introduction and background

It should be mentioned that other European bodies are currently undertaking

- The European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on E-invoicing (EMSFEI), set up by

- The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) is working on a

An initial analysis undertaken by ERPB Secretariat in 2015, was reflected in the

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 5/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

and demand-side, based on content, distribution procedures and methods of

3. Overview of the current and future landscape of EIPP solutions

E-invoicing can be defined as the set of processes exclusively based on automated

A typical process for an EIPP solution is illustrated above. This process is a

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 6/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

1. Direct Connect to Supplier: in this model, the presentation is implemented on

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 7/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

mechanism allows the presentation flow to reach multiple buyers regardless

The diagram below graphically represents these models:

Supplier/Buyer direct model Network model

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 8/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

Businesses can choose

Consumers can choose

3.2. State of play – uptake of e-invoicing and EIPP services in Europe

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 9/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

Segment Increase (2014-2015)

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 10/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

To create a concrete overview of EIPP solutions currently operating in Europe, the

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 11/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

Another view of the responses regarding coverage reveals a clear pattern of

Nevertheless, many providers have expressed a strong willingness to expand: 80%

Annual volumes (number of e-invoices) Estimated growth per year

Number of suppliers already onboarded Number of payers

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 12/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

Main characteristics of current solutions3

 EIPP solutions are used by corporates/large billers as well as SMEs and

 Many solutions are using accepted structured invoices based on technical

ERPB EINV 043-16 Report_v_1_0 13/45

ERPB WG E-invoicing solutions related to retail payments

 Whilst common syntaxes and technical interoperability could simplify the