India’s TReDS ecosystem crossed \u20b92 lakh crore in cumulative bill financing in 2024. That is not a small number. And yet, when you look at the buyer side of the ledger, the anchor corporates and large manufacturers who are supposed to be driving vendor participation tell a different story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As of early 2025, only around 2,500 buyers are registered across TReDS platforms, a figure significantly below the estimated pool of eligible entities<\/a>, even after the government lowered the mandatory registration threshold from \u20b9500 crore to \u20b9250 crore turnover. Registration compliance is one thing. Active, meaningful usage is another. Many corporates that have technically registered process little to no invoice volume, effectively treating compliance as a checkbox rather than a commitment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, the bill for inaction is mounting quite literally. An estimated \u20b98.1 trillion remains locked up in delayed MSME payments across the economy<\/a>, per India’s Economic Survey. That liquidity is not just sitting idle in some abstract sense. It is trapped inside the working capital cycles of vendors who supply to large manufacturers \u2014 vendors who, if pushed hard enough, will find a different buyer, cut corners on quality, or simply stop growing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So what is actually holding large manufacturers back? After working with anchor corporates across sectors on TReDS onboarding, here is what we see again and again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most large manufacturers run SAP, Oracle, or similar ERP systems that have been configured and customised over years, sometimes decades. The moment someone mentions “TReDS integration,” the conversation lands in the IT department’s backlog and that is roughly where it stays for several quarters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The concern is legitimate: ERP systems manage payment terms, invoice approval workflows, and auto-debit authorisations. Connecting them to a TReDS platform requires mapping, testing, and sign-off across finance, IT, and procurement. Nobody wants to break something that works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What often goes unexamined is that most TReDS platforms, including DTX by KredX<\/a>, offer ERP-agnostic integration frameworks and API-based connectivity that are far less disruptive than a full system overhaul. The integration lift is real, but it is also a one-time investment that, once done, reduces treasury and accounts payable workload considerably. The companies that have gone through it typically report that the process took weeks, not months, and that they wished they had started earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bigger issue is sequencing. Integration discussions need to start alongside the compliance conversation, not after the compliance deadline has passed<\/p>\n\n\n\n Corporate treasury in large Indian manufacturers tends to be optimised for stability. The team knows its payment cycles, has relationships with its bankers, and has a well-worn playbook for managing working capital. Introducing TReDS means changing that playbook, and unless treasury leadership is driving the change, it tends not to happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not about capability. Most treasury professionals understand what TReDS does. The resistance is more structural: a new platform means new reconciliation processes, new approval workflows, and a new counterparty in the financing chain (the financier on the platform). Unless there is a clear mandate from CFO level, the path of least resistance is to not change anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n State-run companies have been particularly slow to adopt<\/a>, with many registering on TReDS platforms as a formality rather than actually utilising the service. This pattern is not unique to PSUs. Private sector manufacturers with conservative treasury cultures exhibit the same behaviour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What tends to break this inertia is a combination of regulatory pressure from above and a credible business case from within, typically built around DPO optimisation, reduced vendor attrition, or Section 43B(h) tax implications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also read: From Compliance to Catalyst: Charting the Journey of TReDS in India Report<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the reason most corporates will not say out loud, but it shapes a great deal of the hesitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On TReDS, invoices are visible to financiers. Payment terms are documented. Approval timelines are on record. For large manufacturers that have historically managed vendor payment terms with some flexibility, stretching 30-day terms to 60 or 90 days during tight quarters, that kind of transparency changes the dynamic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Buyer resistance is frequently attributed to concerns about invoice transparency, auto-debit mandates, and exposure of supply chain data<\/a>. It is a rational concern from a short-term cash management perspective. But it conflates two things: the discomfort of transparency, and the actual business cost of maintaining opacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The business cost is significant. Over 60% of MSME payments are delayed beyond agreed credit periods<\/a>. Large manufacturers that stretch payment terms are, in effect, using vendor credit as an interest-free working capital facility. That works until a key vendor hits a liquidity wall, downsizes, or exits the relationship entirely at which point the supply chain disruption is far more expensive than any short-term float the manufacturer had been enjoying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n TReDS does not change payment terms. It just makes them visible and ensures vendors can access liquidity against those terms without waiting. That distinction matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a common scenario: a large manufacturer registers on a TReDS platform. Their procurement team is briefed. The IT integration is in progress. But nobody has had a structured conversation with the vendor base about how this works, what they need to do to register, or how to raise and get an invoice approved on the platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The result is low vendor uptake. With low uptake, there is little activity on the platform. With little activity, the business case for the integration investment starts to look shaky. A slow rollout becomes a stalled one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vendor education is not glamorous work. It requires dedicated outreach in regional languages, with simplified documentation, often through a mix of in-person sessions and digital walkthroughs. Small and medium vendors in particular tend to be unfamiliar with the mechanics of invoice discounting. Many assume it involves debt, a misconception that immediately puts them off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most successful TReDS onboardings we have seen at DTX by KredX<\/a> involve anchor corporates who treat vendor enablement as a programme, not an afterthought. They assign someone accountable for it, set a target for vendor registration, and communicate proactively. The difference in adoption rates is material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also read: The RBI Raised the Collateral-Free Loan Limit. The MSME Cash Flow Problem Still Remains<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Auto-debit is a core feature of how TReDS works: once an invoice is approved by the buyer and financed by a lender, the platform auto-debits the buyer’s account on the due date. This is what makes the financing risk-free for the lender, and therefore what enables the competitive interest rates that benefit vendors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For corporate treasuries, auto-debit feels like giving up control over cash outflows. The anxiety is understandable, especially in organisations where finance teams are measured on precise cash management and where any unanticipated debit can trigger internal friction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In practice, auto-debit on TReDS operates within terms that the corporate has already agreed to; the invoice approval is the commitment. There is no new financial obligation being created; there is just a more structured mechanism for meeting an existing one. The net impact on a company’s working capital is exactly what it would have been anyway, just with fewer manual steps and no room for informal extension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some corporates that have gone through this adjustment describe the initial resistance as significant and the actual operational impact as minimal. But getting there requires someone in treasury who has worked through the concern rather than around it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n TReDS onboarding is inherently cross-functional. It touches finance, treasury, procurement, IT, and sometimes legal. In large organisations, cross-functional initiatives without a clear internal sponsor tend to die quietly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The companies that move fastest on TReDS adoption almost always have someone – a CFO, a VP Finance, or a Head of Supply Chain Finance, who has decided this matters and is willing to absorb the friction of getting it done. Without that person, each team waits for the other to move first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is partly a structural problem with how compliance mandates land in large organisations. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs notification requiring registration is in effect. But notifications do not assign internal owners. Unless leadership has made a deliberate decision about who is responsible for TReDS implementation and on what timeline, it drifts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For TReDS platforms and intermediaries, this means that outreach to anchor corporates needs to target economic decision-makers, not just compliance teams. A compliance team will register. A CFO who understands the supply chain finance value proposition will build a programme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The final and perhaps most consequential reason large manufacturers remain on the fence is that the cost of inaction is largely invisible until it is not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An estimated \u20b97.34 lakh crore was tied up in unpaid MSME invoices as of March 2024<\/a>, with payment cycles in several sectors stretching to 90-120 days. Vendors absorbing this pressure are borrowing at 15-24% outside of TReDS versus 7-10% on-platform<\/a>. The difference in financing cost directly erodes the margins of the vendor, which, over time, erodes their capacity to invest, hire, and deliver quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Disruption to even the smallest supplier in a supply chain can cause disruption to the assembly line of a larger OEM<\/a>. This is not a theoretical risk. It is something procurement teams manage reactively, usually under pressure, when a critical vendor goes under, or a delivery falls through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there is the regulatory dimension. Section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, effective from AY 2024-25, requires companies to settle MSME vendor dues within 45 days to claim the payment as a tax-deductible expense. Non-compliance is a tax cost. The MSME Samadhaan portal is tracking delayed payments and publishing defaulter data. The direction of regulatory travel is clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Manufacturers who wait for enforcement to become punitive before acting on TReDS will find themselves onboarding under pressure, with less time, fewer options, and a vendor base that has already absorbed damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let’s make this concrete. A large manufacturer with 500 MSME vendors, an average invoice value of \u20b925 lakhs, and a 75-day payment cycle has a significant portion of its supply chain running on stressed credit. If 30% of those vendors are borrowing at 18-20% to fund the working capital gap, the aggregate financial cost to the supply chain is substantial, and that cost eventually finds its way back to the manufacturer in the form of higher input prices, supply disruptions, or vendor exits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n TReDS does not make payment cycles shorter (though better discipline often follows). What it does is ensure that the cost of waiting for payment is not borne entirely by the vendor. Financiers on the platform absorb that cost at rates far lower than the informal market, because the anchor corporate’s credit is backing the transaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The net result: a healthier vendor base, lower supply chain risk, and a manufacturer that is increasingly compliant with evolving regulations \u2014 without having to pay early.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The gap between where TReDS adoption stands and where it could be is not a technology problem. The platforms exist. The regulatory framework is in place. The financing liquidity is deep with over 80 financiers<\/a> are active on TReDS platforms, offering competitive rates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The gap is organisational. It is about internal champions, integration planning timelines, treasury culture, and a willingness to have honest conversations with the vendor base.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At DTX by KredX, we work with anchor corporates on exactly this and not just platform onboarding, but the change management, vendor enablement, and treasury alignment that turns a registration into a functioning supply chain finance programme. Because a TReDS registration that processes no invoices is not a programme. It is paperwork.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are a large manufacturer who has been meaning to move on this, the honest answer is that the window for a considered, well-structured rollout is narrower than it looks. The companies that have done this well started before they had to. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" India’s TReDS ecosystem crossed \u20b92 lakh crore in cumulative bill financing in 2024. That is not a small number. And yet, when you look at the buyer side of the ledger, the anchor corporates and large manufacturers who are supposed to be driving vendor participation tell a different story. As of early 2025, only around…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3898,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3897"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3897\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3899,"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3897\/revisions\/3899"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3898"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dtxindia.in\/knowledge-center\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}1. The Integration Question Gets Answered Too Late<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
2. Treasury Teams Are Running on Inertia<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3. Transparent Invoice Data Feels Uncomfortable<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
4. Vendor Education Gets Deprioritised<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
5. The Auto-Debit Mandate Triggers Disproportionate Anxiety<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
6. There Is No Internal Champion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
7. The Cost of Waiting Is Underestimated<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What It’s Actually Costing<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Path Forward<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
DTX by KredX is an RBI-regulated TReDS platform. To learn more about enterprise onboarding and vendor enablement programmes,<\/em> <\/em>reach out to our team<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n