Explore the Working Capital Leadership Report 2025 and discover how top performers are transforming their strategies

Get Started

Category: Connected Capital Blog

  • Alternative Capital in Working Capital and Trade Finance: Opportunity, Risk and the Infrastructure That Makes It Work 

    Alternative Capital in Working Capital and Trade Finance: Opportunity, Risk and the Infrastructure That Makes It Work 

    The conversation around alternative capital has been dominated by leveraged lending, software write-downs, and long-duration risk. Working capital and trade finance, as an asset class, is a different story. It is short duration, self-liquidating, and operationally intensive. The risks are real, but they are not the risks making headlines. Understanding the distinction matters, both for funders evaluating the space and for the corporates and suppliers that depend on it. 

    Working Capital Is a Different Asset Class 

    Alternative capital funding sources — whether private credit funds, alternative asset managers, or non-bank funders, built their reputations in high-yield and leveraged lending. Multi-year term loans, complex structures, sectors with limited bank access. Working capital and trade finance operates on entirely different terms. Most transactions run 90 to 120 days and self-liquidate. If a funder turns off the tap, capital returns within 60 to 90 days rather than waiting out a seven-year loan. There is no mark-to-market volatility. There is no duration mismatch of the kind driving recent Business Development Company (BDC) write-downs. 

    That short-duration profile is precisely why alternative capital has moved steadily into this space over the past five years. It is a natural hedge against longer-duration exposure. For institutional investors managing a mix of credit strategies, working capital is a portfolio complement, not a substitute. 

    Why Alternative Capital Is Expanding Access, Not Displacing Banks

    Working capital and trade finance has historically been a bank-only market. The return profile required by alternative capital funding sources means they are not competing for the same transactions banks have always done. The real opportunity is in white space: suppliers below investment grade that banks were not positioned to serve because of the capital charges those exposures carried. Alternative capital providers operate under a different regulatory framework, which means they can reach a broader universe of suppliers without the same balance sheet constraints. This is expansion, not displacement. 

    Optionality is a genuine benefit. More funding sources, more liquidity options for suppliers and corporates using working capital finance, often through multi-funder programs that layer several capital sources against the same receivables base. That is a good outcome, provided the controls and credit discipline are there to support it.

    The Infrastructure Gap Most Funders Underestimate 

    Alternative capital funding sources are not built to make tens of thousands of credit decisions a year. They are not set up to wire funds across the globe on a daily basis in multiple currencies. Deploying capital into working capital programs requires dedicated operational infrastructure: credit underwriting, payment operations, risk monitoring, portfolio oversight, capital markets facility management. Without it, capital cannot get into this space at all, let alone at scale. 

    GSCF was built specifically to provide that infrastructure. The platform services the full ecosystem – banks, alternative asset managers and non-bank funders – processing over $70 billion in invoice volume annually across buyers in 56 countries and 29 currencies. For bank partners, GSCF provides reporting, servicing and reconciliation. GSCF can also provide 100% of the operational, credit and risk management capability that most private credit organizations do not have internally for this asset class. What further differentiates GSCF is that the team also manages capital directly on behalf of Blackstone – making credit decisions, monitoring risk and managing the portfolio. Most platforms in this space act as facilitators between funders and corporates. GSCF does both. 

    What the First Brands Case Reveals About Trade Finance Diligence

    First Brands was a wake-up call – not as an indictment of the asset class, but as a reminder of what happens when diligence is treated as optional. During early onboarding diligence on First Brands, GSCF requested a forensic audit of a sample of invoices: validating that payments were made on the dates reported and routed to the correct bank accounts. The request was refused. GSCF did not proceed. 

    The red flags were there for anyone who looked. The GSCF credit team operates on a straightforward principle: if something looks unusual, ask the question, and do not proceed until the answer is satisfactory. That is not a policy document. It is decades of credit underwriting experience and local market knowledge built into the fabric of how the team works, managing portfolios across 56 countries. 

    The broader industry response has been constructive. GSCF is actively developing fraud detection capabilities – including double-pledging identification – using the scale of the platform’s $70 billion in annual invoice data. Appetite for stronger controls is real across the market, and the platform is positioned to make those capabilities available to funding partners across the ecosystem. 

    Why Funders Lack Aggregate Portfolio Visibility — and How C4 Solves It

    One of the more persistent operational gaps for funders with working capital programs across multiple sectors is the absence of aggregate portfolio visibility. A funding partner with programs across 15 buyers in the same industry may have no clear view of their total exposure to any one of them. Historically, that meant downloading data program by program and consolidating it in Excel – slow, error-prone, and not built for real-time risk management. 

    C4: Connected Capital Control Center is GSCF’s platform response to that problem. It gives funding partners and corporates a connected, portfolio-level view across programs, counterparties, and exposures in real time, replacing fragmented, siloed data with a single aggregated picture of where capital is deployed. The platform is designed for scale, with a servicing option for high-volume, lower-complexity transactions that is fully automated alongside a configurable option for more complex structures. 

    Learn more about C4.

    Looking Ahead in Trade Finance 

    Two trends are worth watching. The first is duration extension. Working capital has traditionally been 120 days and shorter. GSCF already operates up to 360 days for corpoates and is seeing genuine demand for multi-year structures, particularly around hardware-as-a-service contracts. That introduces duration risk, interest rate risk, and asset-liability mismatch considerations that do not historically exist in this space. The evaluation is underway, but approached carefully. 

    The second is portfolio performance. Despite the macro environment – geopolitical disruption, payment extension requests from certain regions, ongoing uncertainty across global trade corridors – performance across GSCF’s managed portfolio has remained stable. That reflects active daily monitoring: credit profiles, delinquency trends, roll rates, with credit line adjustments made proactively when buyer profiles deteriorate. Working capital is a necessary part of how global commerce functions. That structural role provides a resilience that longer-duration, discretionary credit does not have. 

    Alternative capital has a legitimate and growing role in supply chain finance, working capital and trade finance. The question is whether the infrastructure, the credit discipline and the operational depth exist to deploy it responsibly, and to scale it in a way that serves corporates and funding partners equally well.

    Interested in how GSCF supports working capital and trade finance funders at scale? Learn more.

  • Working Capital at Scale: Why Visibility, Not Liquidity, Is the New Bottleneck

    Working Capital at Scale: Why Visibility, Not Liquidity, Is the New Bottleneck

    Working capital finance has a new problem to solve – and it isn’t access to liquidity.

    That was the headline from Working Capital at Scale: Closing the Data, Efficiency and Risk Gaps, a Working Capital Forum webinar sponsored by GSCF, featuring voices from GSCF, Crédit Agricole CIB and Silver Birch Finance. As programs grow larger, span more jurisdictions, and pull in a wider mix of funders, the real challenge has shifted: it’s no longer about finding capital, it’s about managing increasingly complex portfolios with visibility, control and resilience.

    The data backs it up. In a live poll, more than half of attendees named data visibility — not technology integration, not funding diversification — as the single biggest obstacle to scaling their working capital programmes.

    Four gaps standing between corporates and scale

    GSCF’s Lori Sternola closed the discussion by naming the structural gaps every organization hits as programs mature:

    • Visibility: multiple programs, multiple providers, no consolidated view of exposure or pricing
    • Credit: strong, fast-growing companies still locked out by traditional bank criteria
    • Buyer adoption: even well-designed programs stall on slow supplier/buyer onboarding
    • Integration: working capital tools that still don’t talk to ERP and procure-to-pay systems

    The panel’s conclusion: the next wave of innovation isn’t about new financing products. It’s about connecting the ones that already exist.

    What’s driving the market’s growth

    Receivables finance is on track to be the fastest-growing segment of trade finance this decade — and digitisation is the reason why. Crédit Agricole CIB’s Mona Ghazzaoui pointed to API connectivity, ERP integration and digital onboarding turning what used to be a manual process into a real-time liquidity tool, alongside the rise of AI-driven credit assessment and portfolio-based underwriting.

    But more digitization doesn’t mean less complexity. Silver Birch Finance’s Matt Bullard argued the trade finance market is, by nature, fragmented – different counterparties, jurisdictions and risk profiles, every time. His take: stop trying to standardize every transaction, and start building infrastructure that can absorb the complexity instead.

    The bottom line

    Funding isn’t the constraint anymore. The advantage now goes to organisations that pick the right partners, build technology that scales, and get one unified view across every working capital programme they run.

    Missed the live session? Watch the full webinar recording here.

    Working capital is evolving from a funding challenge to a data and operational challenge. Organizations that invest now in visibility, automation and portfolio-level control will be better positioned to scale, adapt and compete. To learn more about GSCF’s approach to helping organizations modernize working capital management, visit GSCF.com.

  • The Basel IV Ripple Effect: What Corporates Need to Know 

    The Basel IV Ripple Effect: What Corporates Need to Know 

    Basel IV is widely framed as a banking regulation story. It is. But the implications for corporate borrowers are receiving almost no attention outside of bank risk committees and that asymmetry is worth naming. 

    With Basel IV already live in the EU, finalized in the UK and under active proposal in the US, banks across major markets are reassessing the balance sheet efficiency of certain lending categories. Capital requirements are increasing. That makes certain loan types more expensive for banks to hold. The adjustment will not arrive as a sudden policy shift. It will show up gradually in renewal conversations, covenant adjustments, and in pricing that moves just enough to be accepted rather than challenged. 

    The companies with the most exposure are mid-market borrowers in sectors banks have historically viewed as difficult to underwrite:  businesses running complex cross-border supply chains.  

    It Is Not Just a Mid-Market Problem 

    The pressure on investment grade corporates will be subtler but no less real. For larger borrowers the issue is less about access and more about terms, flexibility and the durability of relationships that have historically felt secure. 

    Basel IV makes visible something that has always been true but easy to defer: a debt capital structure that cannot adapt quickly is a liability. The ability to move between programs, adjust funding mix and maintain leverage with banking partners is becoming a strategic capability, not just a treasury preference. 

    Alternative Capital as a Strategic Advantage 

    The capital rules driving this shift apply to banks. They do not apply to non-bank lenders, and that distinction matters structurally. Institutional capital has been moving steadily into alterative capital structures for several years, and the private credit market is projected to nearly double in the years ahead. Alternative capital providers are not filling a gap out of opportunism. They are operating under a genuinely different set of constraints. 

    For mid-market companies and structurally more complex borrowers, building alternative capital funding relationships before a renewal cycle comes under pressure is the more resilient strategy. That requires more than identifying alternative lenders. It requires the systems, data and infrastructure to manage programs across multiple funding sources and maintain visibility across structures when conditions change. 

    Technology is Where the Operational Advantage Lives 

    Basel IV limits what a bank can hold on balance sheet regardless of how sophisticated its credit models are. But the constraints here are structural and that’s exactly where the opportunity lies. 

    Alternative capital platforms can deploy technology as a genuine operational advantage rather than a tool for managing regulatory overhead. And for borrowers, the more meaningful opportunity is upstream: real-time working capital visibility that gives CFOs the ability to see structural changes in their funding picture early enough to act, rather than discovering a facility will not be renewed when alternatives are already limited. 

    The Conversations Are Already Starting 

    The adjustment banks are making is already underway – partnering with alternative capital providers to manage working capital at the portfolio-level. Some corporate borrowers will find themselves navigating a shorter runway than they realize, particularly those approaching facility renewals in the next 12 to 18 months without a clear view of alternatives. 

    The most important question for any treasurer right now is not whether their current facilities are performing. It is whether their funding structure is resilient enough to absorb a shift in their primary lender’s appetite without disruption. 

    As capital markets continue to evolve, the companies best positioned for resilience will be those with the visibility, optionality and Connected Capital infrastructure needed to adapt with confidence. 

    Learn more about C4: Connected Capital Control Center, GSCF’s platform for working capital at scale, delivering portfolio-level intelligence, real-time decisioning and unified control across every working capital program. 

  • The Operational Side of Scaling AR Programs

    The Operational Side of Scaling AR Programs

    Every new client, insurer, or funding structure adds a layer. For banks running receivables and payables finance portfolios, those layers become the problem faster than you think.

    Receivables finance programs rarely fail because of a bad deal. They stall and can eventually break because the operating model underneath them was never built to scale.

    As banks grow their AR portfolios across clients, regions, funding structures and insurer relationships, friction compounds beneath the surface. Onboarding a new enterprise client brings its own insurance structure, approval hierarchy and limit logic. A new regional program means a new set of validation rules. A new capital participant adds another reconciliation touchpoint. Each addition feels manageable in isolation, but across 10 programs spanning multiple geographies, it no longer is.

    The result is predictable. Operational exceptions multiply faster than the deals generating them, onboarding timelines stretch, and analyst capacity gets absorbed by reconciliation work that adds no strategic value while creating blind spots where risk accumulates and decision-makers lose confidence.

    Program-by-Program Oversight Doesn’t Scale

    The core challenge for banks scaling receivables finance is that most operational models were designed for individual programs, not portfolios.

    When limit enforcement lives at the program level, concentration can build across parallel client structures without triggering a single alert; when onboarding logic isn’t standardized, each new client effectively rebuilds the control framework from scratch; when exposure definitions vary by program and risk takers use multiple insurance policy structures and syndications, consolidated portfolio views require manual reconciliation and are always a step behind.

    The Bank for International Settlements1 has flagged the structural dimension of this challenge directly: as banks’ linkages with non-bank financial intermediaries deepen, the ability to aggregate and monitor exposures across structures becomes both a supervisory and operational imperative. Without unified exposure frameworks, risk accumulates invisibly across programs and participants.

    What Portfolio-Level Control Actually Looks Like for Banks

    Scaling receivables finance with efficiency requires three things working together:

    • Standardized workflows across client structures. Exposure definitions normalized at intake. Limit logic applied consistently across all client programs, not rebuilt independently for each one. Exception management automated where risk is low, so credit and operations teams focus on decisions that actually require judgment.
    • Consolidated obligor visibility across programs, regions, and insurers. A single obligor appearing across three regional client programs may look within threshold in each and well above it in aggregate. That aggregation has to work across the full operating reality: group entities and geographies; country and political risk based on where trading actually happens; parental guarantees that change the credit picture; and the bank’s existing exposures to the same client across different financing structures and regional systems. Without seamless consolidation across those dimensions, true client and obligor risk stays fragmented and concentration breaches remain hidden until they surface in committee. With it, exposure is identified early and limit adjustments happen before thresholds are crossed.
    • Embedded decisioning, not periodic reporting. Reporting tells you what happened. Embedded decisioning changes what happens next. When concentration alerts trigger automatically before thresholds are approached, when a limit increase request can be validated against consolidated obligor exposure in minutes rather than days, origination teams move faster and with greater confidence. For banks competing on responsiveness, that difference is measurable.

    From Program Management to Portfolio Control

    GSCF’s C4: Connected Capital Control Center was built specifically for this transition – from program-by-program oversight to true portfolio management across a bank’s receivables finance book.

    Because GSCF manages the platform on behalf of banks and their corporate clients, the operational complexity sits with us, not with the bank’s internal teams. Banks get the portfolio-level visibility and control they need without taking on the servicing burden of managing it themselves. C4’s platform core capabilities include:

    1. Aggregated obligor exposure visibility across client programs, funders and counterparties, with normalized exposure definitions and built-in limit management and automated concentration controls
    2. Insured vs. retained vs participated exposure visibility across co-originated and participated positions
    3. Standardized global workflows with structured exception management
    4. A purpose-built control platform to handle structural complexity with standardized workflows, granular controls and a full audit trail for every change without needing to define workarounds
    5. Portfolio-level reporting and embedded decisioning that scale across regions and structures

    The result: new client programs scale within established parameters. Onboarding timelines compress. Cost-to-serve doesn’t rise proportionally with volume. And when a client requests incremental capacity or a new region is added, credit teams can validate impact against consolidated portfolio exposure and respond faster, a competitive advantage in a market where deal speed matters.

    GSCF’s C4: Connected Capital Control Center is our next-generation servicing platform purpose-built to help banks, asset managers and enterprise corporates originate, manage and analyze working capital programs with greater visibility, control and confidence. Learn more at www.gscf.com.1 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Banks’ interconnections with non-bank financial intermediaries, BIS, July 2025. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d598.pdf

  • The Working Capital Portfolio Problem No One Has Solved – Until Now

    The Working Capital Portfolio Problem No One Has Solved – Until Now

    For decades, working capital has been managed one program at a time.

    A payables finance program here. An AR factoring facility there. Distribution finance running in parallel across three regions, serviced by two different providers, funded by a mix of banks and alternative capital. Each one functioning. Each one optimized in isolation. But none of them connected.

    This is the reality for most enterprise corporates and their financial partners today. And it’s not a technology gap, it’s a strategic one. The tools that exist were built to run programs. No one built a platform to manage portfolios.

    From Program Management to Portfolio Intelligence

    When working capital lives program-by-program, the decisions that matter most – where to deploy liquidity, where concentration risk is building, which funders are underutilized, which markets need more capacity – can’t be made with confidence. Finance teams are working from fragmented dashboards, manual reconciliations and reports that are out of date before they’re read.

    The result isn’t just inefficiency. It’s a structural blind spot at the portfolio-level, at precisely the moment when CFOs and Treasurers are being asked to manage working capital not as an operational function, but as a strategic lever for growth. The demand for portfolio-level visibility and control is intensifying, and yet most platforms are still optimizing the transaction.

    Four Gaps. One Platform.

    Over the past several years, we’ve worked closely with enterprise corporates, banks and asset managers to understand where the real friction lives. Four structural gaps emerged consistently, across geographies, industries and program types.

    The Visibility Gap. Organizations running multiple working capital programs simultaneously have no unified view. No single place to see utilization, exposure, program cost and available liquidity across all of it in real time. Decisions get made on incomplete information or not made at all.

    The Credit Gap. Banks are well-equipped to serve investment-grade working capital. But most enterprise supply and distribution chains include a significant population of non-investment grade, middle-market companies that fall outside bank credit range, and outside most platform capabilities. That represents an enormous underserved opportunity.

    The Buyer Adoption Gap. Every working capital program lives or dies on enrollment. Historically, onboarding is slow, opaque and not user-friendly. Programs chronically underperform because the user base never fully activates – not because the program wasn’t well-structured, but because the experience made adoption too difficult.

    The Integration Gap. Working capital programs remain largely disconnected from the ERP and P2P systems where underlying transaction data lives. Finance teams are making working capital decisions on stale, manually reconciled information, a problem that compounds as portfolios scale.

    These are not new problems. The market has lived with them for years. What’s new is that a single platform now exists to close all four gaps.

    Introducing C4: Connected Capital Control Center

    Today, GSCF is launching C4: Connected Capital Control Center – our next-generation platform built to give enterprise corporates, banks and asset managers portfolio-level intelligence, real-time decisioning and unified control across every working capital program they run.

    C4 is not a reporting tool layered on top of existing infrastructure. It is the technology backbone of Working Capital as a Service – an end-to-end cloud-native control layer that integrates directly with the systems, funders and workflows that working capital programs depend on.

    For enterprise corporates, C4 delivers a single source of truth across all programs, regardless of funder or service provider. For banks and asset managers, it provides the portfolio-level visibility and embedded limit management needed to scale with confidence and discipline – shifting from program-by-program oversight to true portfolio governance.

    Working Capital as a Strategic Asset

    The evolution underway in working capital is not primarily about technology. It’s about how CFOs and Treasurers think about liquidity.

    The organizations that are ahead of the curve are not simply running better programs. They are orchestrating liquidity across funders, regions and program types as a source of competitive advantage. They are making proactive, data-driven decisions at the portfolio-level, managing concentration risk before it becomes a problem, and deploying capital where it creates the most value.

    C4 is built for that world.

    Greater visibility. Stronger control. Less complexity. That is what C4 delivers, and it is what working capital management has always needed.

    Explore C4

    Talk to an Expert

  • Why Data Integration Is the Hidden Constraint on Working Capital Performance 

    Why Data Integration Is the Hidden Constraint on Working Capital Performance 

    Across nearly every finding in GSCF’s Working Capital Leadership Report 2025, one theme stands out: data integration remains the primary bottleneck to working capital performance. 

    Only 10% of organizations report fully integrated, real-time data, while 50% describe their systems as only partially integrated, and 25% say they are not integrated at all. Even where automation exists, maturity remains limited: 40% report moderate automation, 36% basic and 23% none. 

    This fragmentation fuels manual processes, weak forecasting and limited visibility. The result is a growing gap between finance transformation and operational reality. 

    Leading corporates prioritize integration as the foundation of working capital performance. By connecting systems and aligning data, they transform reporting into real-time intelligence and liquidity into a strategic advantage. 

    Key Takeaways 

    • Fragmented data environments are the single biggest constraint on working capital performance. 
    • Automation without integration delivers limited value and often increases manual workarounds. 
    • Integrated data is the foundation that enables forecasting accuracy, funding optimization and cross-functional execution. 

    How GSCF Helps 

    GSCF aggregates transaction and program data to reduce manual processes and improve transparency and operational efficiency. 

    With C4 (Connected Capital Control Center) coming soon, this integration extends across the entire working capital portfolio, including programs and funders beyond GSCF. By consolidating data into a single, unified view, C4 enables organizations to manage working capital with greater control, consistency and confidence. 

    Learn more: Download the Working Capital Leadership Report 

  • Multi-Funding Solutions for Dynamic Liquidity

    Multi-Funding Solutions for Dynamic Liquidity

    The way corporates fund working capital is evolving rapidly. While traditional bank financing remains important, GSCF’s Working Capital Leadership Report 2025 shows a clear shift toward diversified funding structures.

    50% of respondents use receivables finance or factoring, 33% have adopted supply chain finance, and 24% now fund working capital programs through multiple sources. At the same time, 23% report using none of these tools — often due to execution and operational complexity rather than lack of awareness.

    Diversification brings flexibility. But it also introduces fragmentation.

    As organizations blend bank and alternative capital, the challenge shifts from access to liquidity to maintaining portfolio-level visibility, governance and control across multiple programs, funders and structures.

    Liquidity is no longer managed program by program. It must be managed at the portfolio level.

    The leaders are those who treat funding strategy as a lever but pair diversification with unified oversight. Without centralized visibility, multi-funding strategies can create blind spots in exposure, concentration risk and allocation.

    Key Takeaways

    • Diversified funding increases flexibility and increases structural complexity.
    • Fragmented ecosystems require portfolio-level visibility and governance.
    • Execution complexity, not lack of solutions, is what limits advancement.

    How GSCF Helps

    GSCF’s Connected Capital ecosystem simplifies access to both bank and alternative capital solutions within a unified platform.

    C4 (Connected Capital Control Center), coming soon, serves as the portfolio-level control layer across diversified funding programs — enabling real-time visibility into exposure, concentration risk and capital allocation across multiple funders and structures.

    This allows organizations to pursue multi-funding strategies with confidence, without sacrificing operational efficiency or governance.

    Learn more: Download the Working Capital Leadership Report 

  • Why 24% Are Pulling Ahead — The Rise of the Working Capital Champions

    Why 24% Are Pulling Ahead — The Rise of the Working Capital Champions

    Not all organizations are progressing at the same pace. The 2025 data from GSCF’s Working Capital Leadership Report identify a distinct group. 24% of respondents are classified as “Working Capital Champions,” and are setting a new standard for liquidity leadership. 

    What differentiates these leaders is not access to more tools and data, but how they use them. Champions are significantly more likely to report advanced automation, cross-functional ownership and executive sponsorship of working capital initiatives. 

    The impact is tangible. Champions consistently report stronger confidence in forecasts, faster cash conversion cycles and more resilient supplier relationships. Rather than relying on blanket term extensions, they segment suppliers and align payment strategies to risk and value. 

    For companies still early in their journey, the message is clear: progress does not start with perfection. It starts with leadership, collaboration and a commitment to treating working capital as a strategic asset. 

    Key Takeaways 

    • Working Capital Champions differentiate themselves through data, governance, leadership and collaboration rather than tools alone. 
    • Executive sponsorship and cross-functional ownership are consistent traits among high performers. 
    • Sustainable liquidity improvement is cultural as much as it is technical. 

    How GSCF Helps 

    GSCF provides a single platform to originate, manage and analyze working capital programs, replacing fragmented systems and data with connected operational insight. 

    With C4 (Connected Capital Control Center), coming soon, Working Capital Champions gain centralized governance and oversight across global working capital portfolios, supporting executive sponsorship and disciplined execution. C4 provides leadership teams with a consistent, portfolio-wide view of working capital performance and exposure, reinforcing data discipline and cross-functional alignment. 

    Learn more: Download the Working Capital Leadership Report 

  • From Balance Sheets to Business Strategy — Why Working Capital Is No Longer a Back-Office Metric

    From Balance Sheets to Business Strategy — Why Working Capital Is No Longer a Back-Office Metric

    Working capital has officially moved into the strategic spotlight. According to GSCF’s Working Capital Leadership Report 2025, 75% of companies review working capital metrics at least quarterly, and 38% now do so monthly, which is a clear signal that liquidity is becoming part of the management rhythm. 

    But reviewing metrics is only the first step. While 65% track Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) and 48% track Days Payables Outstanding (DPO), far fewer monitor integrated indicators such as the Cash Conversion Cycle (38%). These metrics tell the full story of how cash moves through the business, yet they remain underutilized. 

    The data highlights a growing divide between organizations that measure working capital and those that act on it. Fragmented systems remain a major barrier, with only 10% reporting fully integrated, real-time data across finance, procurement, and ERP platforms. 

    By contrast, advanced organizations embed working capital metrics into everyday decisions. Procurement policies and customer terms are all informed by cash impact. In these businesses, working capital has evolved from a set of ratios into a shared language across the enterprise. 

    Key Takeaways 

    • Reviewing working capital metrics more frequently has not automatically translated into better decision-making. 
    • Organizations that fail to track integrated measures like Cash Conversion Cycle are managing symptoms, not the system. 
    • Data integration, not metric availability, is the real barrier between visibility and action. 

    How GSCF Helps 

    GSCF provides a single platform to originate, manage and analyze working capital programs, replacing fragmented data, systems and processes with connected operational insight. 

    C4 (Connected Capital Control Center), coming soon, builds this foundation by standardizing portfolio-level monitoring and analytics across all working capital programs, including those outside of GSCF. By consolidating performance, exposure and utilization data, C4 enables working capital metrics to be used consistently across finance, treasury, procurement, channel sales and supply chain functions. 

    Learn more: Download the Working Capital Leadership Report

  • Only 4% Have Real-Time Forecasting – Why Visibility Is the New Battleground 

    Only 4% Have Real-Time Forecasting – Why Visibility Is the New Battleground 

    In an environment defined by interest-rate volatility and supply-chain disruption, forecasting accuracy has become a strategic differentiator. Yet the data from GSCF’s Working Capital Leadership Report 2025 reveals a stark reality: only 4% of organizations have fully automated, real-time cash forecasting. 

    The majority are still operating with limited visibility. 53% rely on semi-automated forecasting with manual inputs, while 34% continue to use spreadsheet-based models. These approaches may have worked in a more stable environment, but they struggle under today’s conditions of rapid demand shifts and rising funding complexity. 

    This data gap has real consequences. Poor visibility makes it harder to anticipate liquidity shortfalls, optimize funding decisions, or respond proactively to disruption. It also forces treasury and finance teams into a reactive posture, managing cash after the fact rather than steering it strategically. 

    What sets the small cohort of high performers apart is not just technology, but mindset. Organizations with advanced forecasting capabilities are far more likely to report confidence in liquidity planning and faster decision-making cycles across finance, sales and operations. 

    As the report makes clear, forecasting is no longer a technical nice-to-have. It is the foundation on which resilient working capital strategies are built. 

    Key Takeaways 

    • Real-time forecasting remains rare, creating a widening gap between organizations that can anticipate liquidity risk and those that can only react to it. 
    • Reliance on spreadsheets and semi-automated processes is no longer just inefficient, it actively constrains agility in volatile markets. 
    • Data-driven maturity is becoming a strategic differentiator, not a treasury capability. 

    How GSCF Helps 

    GSCF’s Working Capital as a Service model combines technology, expert services and a Connected Capital ecosystem of alternative and bank capital to deliver visibility across all your global working capital programs. 

    With C4 (Connected Capital Control Center) coming soon, GSCF extends this visibility to the portfolio level, aggregating data across working capital programs, regions and funders into a single source of truth. This consolidated view improves forecasting confidence and enables finance leaders to assess liquidity position and exposure across the full working capital landscape rather than program by program. 

    Learn more: Download the Working Capital Leadership Report