Collections Best Practices for Multi-Entity Businesses

Running collections across one entity is manageable. Running collections across five, ten, or twenty entities is a different challenge entirely. What begins as a straightforward AR process can quickly become fragmented once multiple business units are involved, each with its own leadership team, customers, and operational habits.

Multi entity structures introduce layers of complexity that most standard collections playbooks do not account for. Different payment terms, different ERP configurations, different escalation cultures. Without alignment, DSO becomes inconsistent across the group and exposure quietly builds in the background.

Improving collections in this environment requires governance, shared standards, and visibility at both local and group levels.

Create a Group Wide Credit Policy First

The most common breakdown in multi entity environments is policy drift. One subsidiary tightens credit. Another extends terms to win deals. Over time, inconsistency becomes embedded.

A group wide credit policy should clearly define:

• Standard payment terms by customer category

• Approval thresholds for credit limits

• Escalation timelines for overdue accounts

• Conditions for placing customers on credit hold

• Authority levels for write offs

This does not eliminate local flexibility. It creates a baseline framework so performance can be measured consistently across entities.

Without this foundation, collections become subjective. What qualifies as acceptable risk in one entity may be considered excessive in another.

Consolidate Visibility Across Entities

One of the biggest risks in multi-entity businesses is hidden exposure. A customer may owe money to three different subsidiaries. Each finance team sees only its own ledger. At group level, the combined risk may be far higher than anyone realises.

Best practice involves building consolidated reporting that rolls up:

• Total outstanding balance by customer across all entities

• Ageing distribution by entity and at group level

• Concentration risk among top debtors

• Cross entity payment behaviour trends

This consolidated view often reveals patterns local teams cannot see. It also supports smarter credit decisions. If a customer consistently pays one subsidiary late, that behaviour is likely to repeat elsewhere.

Standardise Reminder Cadence Without Removing Flexibility

Reminder timing is often inconsistent across subsidiaries. One team may send pre due date reminders. Another may wait until invoices are thirty days overdue.

Establishing a consistent cadence improves predictability. For example:

• Friendly reminder three days before due date

• Formal reminder on due date

• Escalation notice at seven days overdue

• Phone follow up at fourteen days overdue

• Credit hold review at thirty days overdue

That said, strategic accounts may require tailored handling. The objective is consistency in structure, not robotic uniformity.

When reminder workflows are documented and aligned, collections move from reactive chasing to controlled progression.

Clarify Ownership and Escalation Paths

In multi-entity structures, accountability can blur quickly. If a customer trades with multiple subsidiaries, who owns the credit relationship? Who decides when escalation moves beyond routine reminders?

Define clearly:

• Which entity owns primary credit risk

• How intercompany communication occurs when payment issues arise

• Who has authority to escalate group wide

• How disputes are shared across subsidiaries

Without clarity, customers can exploit internal confusion. They may delay payment by citing disputes in one entity while continuing to transact with another.

Clear escalation pathways protect against this fragmentation.

Integrate Systems Thoughtfully

Technology becomes more complex when subsidiaries operate different ERP systems or have inherited systems through acquisitions. Some groups standardise. Others operate mixed environments.

In these cases, finance leaders may evaluate an account receivable automation platform to overlay consistent workflows across multiple systems. The objective is not to replace entity level financial systems, but to:

• Standardise reminder logic

• Centralise communication tracking

• Enable consolidated reporting

• Apply uniform escalation rules

When considering such technology, focus on integration depth and reporting accuracy. Poor integration creates more reconciliation work, not less.

Systems should simplify coordination, not add another administrative burden.

Treat Disputes as a Structured Process

Disputes can easily slip through the cracks in multi entity setups. A dispute raised with one subsidiary may not be visible to others. Meanwhile, automated reminders continue, damaging relationships and undermining credibility.

Best practice involves:

• Logging disputes in a shared or centralised system

• Assigning clear resolution owners

• Tracking dispute ageing separately from invoice ageing

• Pausing reminders automatically while disputes are active

• Reporting on recurring dispute themes across entities

If the same issue appears repeatedly across subsidiaries, it may signal a systemic billing or contract problem rather than isolated errors. Addressing root causes reduces friction across the entire group.

Monitor Performance at Both Local and Group Levels

Collections metrics should operate on two layers.

At the entity level, each team should monitor:

• DSO

• Percentage of invoices over thirty days overdue

• Promise to pay fulfilment rates

• Dispute turnaround time

At the group level, leadership should track:

• Consolidated DSO

• Exposure to top ten customers across entities

• Bad debt provisions by subsidiary

• Working capital impact of overdue receivables

This dual lens ensures local accountability while maintaining group oversight.

Manage Intercompany Dynamics Carefully

Collections in multi entity businesses are not purely technical. They are organisational.

Entity leaders often protect autonomy. A central finance function may face resistance when attempting to standardise practices.

To navigate this:

• Share performance metrics transparently

• Compare DSO trends by entity

• Highlight improvements achieved through alignment

• Position collections discipline as risk management rather than control

Peer comparison often drives improvement more effectively than mandates.

Build a Culture of Consistency

Ultimately, sustainable collections performance depends on culture.

Encourage:

• Regular cross entity AR review meetings

• Shared best practice discussions

• Quarterly improvement targets

• Open discussion of recurring customer issues

Consistency compounds. A few days reduction in average payment time across multiple entities can release significant working capital at group level.

Conclusion

Collections best practices for multi entity businesses revolve around governance, transparency, and structured coordination. Without shared policies and consolidated reporting, exposure accumulates quietly across subsidiaries. With alignment and disciplined processes, receivables become predictable and manageable.

Technology can support that discipline, whether through ERP optimisation or the addition of an account receivable automation platform. What matters most is intentional design. Clear ownership, consistent escalation logic, and group level visibility turn multi entity complexity into a controllable process rather than an ongoing risk.

Business