Payment Economics for Manufacturing

A $180 million manufacturer allocates capital through its supplier base every day of the fiscal year. Payment terms, methods, discount windows, financing programs, and supplier renewals together determine whether the capital that flows from the firm to its suppliers leaves as cost only or returns, in measurable basis points, as yield. In many mid-market manufacturing environments, supplier spend carries 65 to 75 percent of revenue. The range reflects PEI analysis across mid-market manufacturing engagements. In the reference firm used throughout this issue, addressable supplier spend is $130 million against $180 million of revenue, or roughly 72 percent. The decisions that govern that capital flow run through AP, Treasury, Procurement, and contract operations on every transaction. A single line of measurement consolidating the yield those decisions produce is the missing return-side instrument in the supplier-base reporting stack.

Manufacturing already measures the supplier base across cost, capability, continuity, and working capital. Finance reads what the supplier base costs, how it performs, how it affects working capital, and where it creates risk. Payment Yield completes the return side of that measurement set. The return the supplier base produces through payment terms, methods, discount capture, supplier financing, and acceptance reads on a single line beside the existing instruments.

Manufacturing has built deep traditions for reading the supplier base. Skinner (1969) framed manufacturing capability as a source of competitive position. Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) extended manufacturing strategy into a compounding operating asset. Womack, Jones, and Roos (1990) showed how supplier relationships create cost differential through lean production. Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh (1997) integrated the supplier base into the broader supply chain management system. Lee, Padmanabhan, and Whang (1997) quantified information distortion through the bullwhip effect. Shin and Soenen (1998) and Deloof (2003) connected working capital discipline to profitability through the cash conversion cycle. These traditions made the supplier base measurable as strategy, cost, continuity, capability, inventory flow, and working capital. Payment Economics supplies the return-side line.

Issue 2 introduced the formula (Jasinski, 2025a). Issue 23 established the Payment Yield line as a CFO-level measurement consolidating returns across AP, Treasury, and Procurement (Jasinski & Yana Mbena, 2026b). Issue 24 walked through Treasury’s four moves on the payment modality stack (Jasinski, 2026c). Issue 25 walked through Procurement’s four moves at the contract level (Jasinski, 2026d). This issue takes the manufacturer’s perspective: the supplier base, the Kraljic segmentation, and the full activation surface read on a single line.

What manufacturing already manages

A $180 million manufacturer with $130 million in addressable supplier spend reads the supplier base through five existing instruments. Total landed cost sits on the procurement scorecard. Supplier capability ratings sit on operational reviews. Lean-process metrics sit on the manufacturing dashboard. Supply chain integration metrics sit on the supply chain executive’s report. The cash conversion cycle sits on the treasurer’s report. Each instrument tracks a real and important aspect of the supplier relationship. The CFO sees these instruments every quarter.

Specific yield instruments live in adjacent traditions. The supply chain finance literature (Wuttke, Rosenzweig, and Heese, 2019) measures buyer-anchored financing economics. The factoring literature (Klapper, 2006) measures the supplier-anchored equivalent. The trade credit literature (Ng, Smith, and Smith, 1999; Klapper, Laeven, and Rajan, 2012) measures discount-capture economics. Each tradition consolidates one yield instrument inside its own methodology. The firm-level measurement that pairs those yield instruments with the cost-side stack represents the next construction.

The firm already has the data. The AP file records every payment. The contract file records every term and method specification. The supplier master records every program enrollment. The bank statements record every fee, rebate, and float position. The reporting architecture that pairs supplier cost with supplier yield on the same financial line represents the missing construction. The measurement runs against records the firm already maintains. A new line of sight, rather than a transformation project, brings the work into reach.

The supplier base distributes across roughly 800 active suppliers. The Pareto distribution holds. The top 50 suppliers carry 70 percent of spend. The top 200 carry 90 percent. The long tail carries the remaining 10 percent across hundreds of low-value relationships. The AP function processes between 18,000 and 25,000 invoices a year against this base. The Hackett Group’s 2025 Procurement Agenda and Key Issues Study, whose respondent base was 46% manufacturing companies, identifies improving spend cost reduction as procurement’s top 2025 priority for the second consecutive year (Hackett Group, 2025). The 2025 AFP Digital Payments Survey documents that electronic payment migration remains incomplete across the B2B landscape (AFP, 2025).

The operational picture is detailed. The financial reporting against this picture covers cost, capability, and working capital. Yield against the same supplier base sits across multiple separate reports. Payment Yield consolidates them onto one line.

Why manufacturing is the structural site for Payment Economics

The supplier base in manufacturing is large enough to matter and financially segmentable in ways other operating models are not. Direct materials, indirect inputs, bottleneck components, and routine suppliers accept different payment instruments for different reasons. That variation makes the Payment Yield line useful. A flat supplier-base measurement misses the economic structure. A segmented Payment Yield line captures it.

Three structural features make manufacturing the operating model where the full Tier 1 and Tier 2 instrument set maps across the supplier base. Other operating models often reach partial activation. Manufacturing offers the clearest path to full activation across the four-quadrant supplier map.

Large and distributed addressable surface. Manufacturing carries 65 to 75 percent of revenue as addressable supplier spend across direct materials, indirect spend, and capital equipment. The distribution matters as much as the size. A $180 million manufacturer with $130 million in addressable spend reads roughly $58 million in strategic direct materials, $42 million in leverage indirect spend, $11 million in bottleneck critical-path inputs, and $19 million in routine long-tail spend. Each segment supports a different yield instrument. The surface area is large enough for every instrument to produce meaningful absolute dollars.

Durable supplier relationships. Direct materials suppliers in manufacturing operate under multi-year agreements with quarterly volume commitments. Strategic supplier relationships measured in years, rather than months, create the conditions where Tier 2 activation through buyer-anchored supply chain finance, receivables-based financing, and embedded virtual card with funding produces compounding return across renewal cycles. The bottleneck quadrant in this issue’s case study, where supplier-development investment produces negative first-year yield in exchange for compounding returns across subsequent renewals, requires the relationship duration that manufacturing supplies. Verticals with shorter cycles or transactional supplier postures support narrower Tier 2 activation.

Four-quadrant supplier complexity. Manufacturing supplier bases span four genuinely distinct postures: tier-one direct materials, tier-two indirect inputs, single-source critical components, and long-tail routine suppliers. Manufacturing supply chains carry economic complexity in two dimensions. Lee, Padmanabhan, and Whang (1997) documented the bullwhip effect as a manufacturing-specific loss running vertically across multi-tier supply chains. Kraljic’s segmentation reads the same supplier base laterally by impact and risk. Each quadrant accepts a different yield instrument because the structural relationship between buyer and supplier varies that widely. Distribution typically carries two to three distinct postures. Professional services and SaaS carry one to two.

The structural fit varies across major operating models. Manufacturing carries 65 to 75 percent of revenue as addressable supplier spend, distributed across direct, indirect, and capital equipment, with four distinct supplier postures and strong Tier 2 instrument fit given durable agreements that support full SCF and embedded financing. Distribution runs higher on absolute spend share at 70 to 85 percent of revenue but concentrates in inventory suppliers across two to three postures, with moderate to strong Tier 2 fit narrowed by shorter cycles. Healthcare runs 30 to 50 percent of revenue with regulated, mixed concentration across two to three postures and limited Tier 2 fit because payer-reimbursement structures constrain financing. Professional services carries 15 to 30 percent with a labor-led, light supplier base across one to two postures and limited Tier 2 fit given fewer durable input relationships. SaaS runs 10 to 25 percent concentrated in cloud infrastructure across one to two postures, with limited Tier 2 fit because infrastructure runs on prepaid or subscription models.

The advantage compounds. A 65 basis point Payment Yield against $130 million in manufacturing produces roughly $850,000 of annual return. The same 65 basis points against the $40 million addressable spend typical for a SaaS firm at $180 million revenue produces $260,000. Same instrument, same discipline, three times the absolute return because the surface is three times larger. Distribution carries a larger absolute spend share than manufacturing yet sacrifices instrument breadth because the supplier base concentrates around two postures rather than four. Healthcare carries strong indirect-spend yield potential and limited Tier 2 fit because the regulatory structure constrains financing instruments. Professional services and SaaS support method standardization and card-program activation on indirect spend with limited surface for Tier 2 activation.

Manufacturing is the clearest operating model for Payment Economics because the supplier base is large enough to matter, complex enough to require segmentation, durable enough to support financing instruments, and already measured enough to install Payment Yield without inventing a new operating system.

How manufacturing moves Payment Yield

Issue 2 introduced the formula that organizes the line (Jasinski, 2025a):

Payment Yield = Capital Return × Supplier Acceptance

The construction pairs with the cost-side measurement and gives the supplier base a return-side line that reads beside the existing cost, working-capital, and performance instruments. Capital Return reads the basis points the firm captures from each unit of activated payment volume across Tier 1 instruments (early-payment discounts, virtual card rebates, ACH float improvements) and Tier 2 instruments (supply chain finance, receivables-based financing, embedded virtual card with funding, B2B trade-credit instruments), net of program fees, banking spread, supplier price response, and implementation cost. Supplier Acceptance reads the share of the firm’s addressable spend that flows through channels capable of producing those returns, against the actual acceptance rate the firm achieves rather than the theoretical eligibility ceiling. The product is the firm’s total yield against its supplier base, in basis points against addressable spend.

Control definition. Payment Yield enters the line only when the economic benefit shows up in payment records, contract terms, bank statements, supplier enrollment files, or GL-supported cost reduction. Yield that lacks tie-out to one of these source records stays out of the line. This rule keeps the measurement audit-traceable, so Controllership, Treasury, FP&A, and external audit can review it alongside the existing supplier-base instruments.

Payment Yield changes the structure of three categories of capital allocation decision a manufacturing CFO makes regularly. The first category is the supplier-development versus capital-equipment tradeoff. The CFO chooses each year how to allocate discretionary capital between investments that improve supplier capability (training, technical support, integration infrastructure) and investments that improve internal capability (new equipment, automation, capacity expansion). Krause and Ellram (1997) and Krause, Handfield, and Tyler (2007) show that supplier-development relationships produce social capital and measurable performance improvement across the relationship. Payment Economics extends that channel: the relational integration the development work produces lowers the friction of every subsequent integration, including payment activation. Under fragmented measurement, the financial return on that integration sits outside the capital allocation comparison. Under paired measurement, the supplier-development investment carries both a capability return from the operations literature and an activation return from the Payment Yield line. The CFO compares two investments where both carry quantified financial returns.

The second category is the DPO-extension versus discount-capture tradeoff. The treasurer evaluates whether to extend payment terms, which improves the cash conversion cycle and float yield, or accelerate payments to capture early-payment discounts, which forgoes float in exchange for direct yield. The existing instruments quantify both moves separately, against different reporting structures. Under paired measurement, both moves report into the Payment Yield line as components of Capital Return, and the comparison runs in a single set of units. The treasurer’s decision becomes a portfolio question, with both alternatives in the same yield language.

The third category is the term-compression versus term-extension tradeoff at the contract level. The procurement leader negotiating supplier renewals chooses whether to push for shorter terms, which potentially earns a price concession, or longer terms, which potentially funds an SCF program. The two moves activate different yield instruments. Under paired measurement, the price concession and the SCF-activation yield read against the same line, and the renewal decision becomes a comparison between two structural moves rather than a default to the savings-discipline frame.

Kraljic (1983) provides the structural map. The supplier base segments by profit impact and supply risk into four quadrants: strategic, leverage, bottleneck, and routine. The quadrants describe the structural relationship between the buyer and the supplier in each segment. Each quadrant therefore carries a different Payment Yield activation profile because the supplier’s posture toward financial integration varies with the structure of the relationship. Strategic suppliers, high in both impact and risk, accept Tier 2 activation because the relationship is durable and the integration is mutual. Leverage suppliers, high impact and low risk, accept Tier 1 method specification because acceptance forms part of remaining competitive on the bid sheet. Bottleneck suppliers, low impact and high risk, require development investment before activation becomes available because their capability gap operates as the binding constraint. Routine suppliers, low impact and low risk, accept method standardization because the long-tail relationship operates on default settings rather than negotiated terms. The Kraljic map, originally a procurement strategy instrument, becomes a Payment Yield activation map when finance reads it from the yield side.

Case study: a $180 million manufacturer

The reference manufacturer is the same firm Issues 24 and 25 worked through. Annual revenue is $180 million. Cost of goods sold runs at 65 percent. Total addressable supplier spend is $130 million across 800 active suppliers. The supplier base distributes across the Kraljic quadrants as follows: 80 strategic suppliers carrying $58 million in annual spend, 220 leverage suppliers carrying $42 million, 24 bottleneck suppliers carrying $11 million, and 476 routine suppliers carrying $19 million.

The numbers in this case study come from a model calibrated to typical mid-market manufacturing structure, not from a single named firm. All yield figures run net of program fees, supplier price response, banking spread, and implementation cost. Acceptance rates reflect the levels a disciplined Procurement and AP function achieves on a coordinated rollout, rather than the theoretical eligibility ceiling. Card-eligible spend covers only indirect categories where the supplier’s margin profile and AR process accommodate card acceptance. Float and processing gains run net of bank fees and the operational cost of supplier enablement. Firm-specific calibration adjusts the parameters while preserving the structure of the measurement. Read the model skeptically. The case study serves the measurement instrument; the precise dollar contribution serves the demonstration.

Issue 24 documented Treasury’s four moves on the payment modality stack at this firm, producing $216,000 of incremental annual yield (Jasinski, 2026c). Issue 25 documented Procurement’s four moves at the contract level, producing $196,000 of incremental annual yield in year one (Jasinski, 2026d). This issue takes the operator’s view of the full supplier base across the Kraljic segmentation, reading the line as a single firm-level measurement.

Strategic quadrant: $64,800

The strategic quadrant carries 80 suppliers and $58 million in annual spend across direct materials with multi-year agreements. Under the prior measurement, the manufacturer reads 24 of these suppliers inside the SCF facility Treasury restructured in Issue 24’s Step 3 and the remaining 56 outside it. The cost side of the relationship sits fully accounted for. The yield foregone on the unserved 56 contracts sits outside the financial statement.

The Payment Yield line makes the foregone yield readable. Procurement opens the SCF program inside the next renewal cycle on 32 of the 56 unserved contracts. Twenty-two enroll at signing. The incremental program volume rises by $9.8 million in average outstanding obligations. The buyer’s Tier 2 yield, at 45 basis points on the strategic-tier pricing and net of program funding cost, produces $44,100 of annual yield. The 24 suppliers already inside the facility receive renewed pricing as part of the same cycle; twelve expand their utilization in response, adding $4.6 million in average outstanding obligations and $20,700 of annual yield. Strategic-quadrant Payment Yield contribution: $64,800. The activation moves run on standard procurement discipline. The reconciled return view makes the activation visible to the capital allocation conversation in the first place.

Leverage quadrant: $241,400

The leverage quadrant carries 220 suppliers and $42 million in annual spend across MRO, packaging, professional services, and competitive commodity inputs. Current virtual card coverage runs at 38 percent of quadrant volume. The yield measurement reads the remaining 62 percent as a surface for activation and quantifies the opportunity.

Procurement and AP run a coordinated outreach across 140 of the 220 suppliers, covering the population where the supplier’s margin profile and AR process accommodate card acceptance. Acceptance runs at 66 percent of the contacted population (92 of 140), reflecting the realistic conversion rate a disciplined enablement program achieves rather than the theoretical eligibility ceiling. The incremental card volume rises by $14.2 million annualized. The card program earns at the blended 1.7 percent buyer rebate rate, net of program fees and the supplier rebate share the offer specifies, producing $241,400 of annual yield. Suppliers who decline due to surcharge concerns or AR friction continue on ACH and pick up activation through the routine quadrant migration logic in Step 4. The leverage quadrant is the segment where supplier acceptance friction sits structurally lowest while still requiring disciplined enablement.

Under fragmented measurement, the manufacturer reads the conversion as an AP operations project. Under paired measurement, the manufacturer reads it as a yield position with a quantified expected return that competes for capital allocation against alternative uses of the same internal effort.

Bottleneck quadrant: negative $112,700 in year one

The bottleneck quadrant carries 24 suppliers and $11 million in annual spend across low-volume but critical-path components: specialized fasteners, custom tooling, regulatory-controlled inputs, single-source ingredients. The development relationship between the firm and these suppliers carries operational risk that exceeds the dollar weight of the quadrant on the spend curve.

Krause, Handfield, and Scannell (1998) document strategic supplier development as the buyer-led work that converts capability gaps into long-run performance. Krause, Handfield, and Tyler (2007) extend the finding through the social capital channel. Direct involvement, where the buyer sends technical staff to work alongside the supplier, produces measurable performance improvement beyond what arms-length monitoring delivers. Payment Economics extends the literature one step: relational integration of that depth lowers the friction of payment-related activation in subsequent renewal cycles.

The manufacturer launches a strategic development workstream covering the top eight suppliers in the bottleneck quadrant. The investment runs $120,000 in internal Procurement and Operations time and $60,000 in external technical support across twelve months. Six of the eight suppliers complete the readiness work. Their renewals close on virtual card terms for the indirect-eligible portion of their spend ($3.4 million annualized, $57,800 in annual yield) and on SCF terms for the contract-anchored portion ($2.1 million in average outstanding obligations, $9,500 in annual yield). Quadrant Payment Yield contribution in year one: $67,300, against a development investment of $180,000. Net first-year contribution: negative $112,700.

This is the most important number in the case study. Under fragmented measurement, the development investment reads as cost without quantified return. The investment loses to alternative uses of the same capital because the comparison sits between a quantified equipment IRR and a qualitative capability story. Under paired measurement, the investment reads as a deliberate acceptance of negative first-year yield in exchange for compounding return across subsequent renewal cycles. The decision becomes evaluable in the same units as the alternatives. The literature on supplier development has carried the qualitative case for this investment for thirty years (Krause and Ellram, 1997; Krause, Handfield, and Scannell, 1998; Krause, Handfield, and Tyler, 2007). The Payment Yield line operates as the instrument that lets the qualitative case carry quantified weight in a CFO’s capital review. Payment Yield works as a capital allocation framework that makes a previously unmeasurable investment evaluable, including when the first-year answer is negative.

Routine quadrant: $51,900

The routine quadrant carries 476 suppliers and $19 million in annual spend across the long tail. Volume per supplier averages $40,000. Current method distribution runs heavily to check ($8.6 million), ACH ($7.4 million), and wire ($1.2 million), with virtual card coverage at $1.8 million. The 2025 AFP Digital Payments Survey reports that checks accounted for 26% of B2B payments in 2025, down from 33% in 2022 (AFP, 2025). Manufacturing’s long-tail segment runs higher than the cross-industry average because the small-volume relationships have stayed below the migration threshold under fragmented measurement.

The manufacturer runs a method standardization initiative across the quadrant: ACH as the default for sub-$2,500 invoices, virtual card for indirect-eligible vendors, and check usage only for suppliers who decline electronic methods after a documented offer. Year-one outcomes: 280 suppliers migrate from check to ACH, moving $5.4 million of annualized spend off check-program economics; 48 suppliers convert to virtual card, adding $2.1 million to the card program at the blended rebate rate. Combined yield, net of bank fees and the operational cost of supplier enablement: $35,700 in card rebate, $16,200 in float and processing yield from the check-to-ACH conversion. Routine quadrant Payment Yield contribution: $51,900.

Under fragmented measurement, the long tail looks like a cost-to-clean. Under paired measurement, the long tail operates as a yield surface waiting for activation. The operational steps stay the same. The capital-allocation framing transforms.

Reconciliation and double-count control

Treasury’s $216,000 from Issue 24, Procurement’s $196,000 from Issue 25, and the operator-view contribution from this issue touch the same supplier base. Without reconciliation, the stacked view sits exposed to a double-count objection. The Payment Yield line draws from transaction-level payment records, contract-level activation flags, and supplier-level program enrollment data, reconciled at the dollar of addressable spend. Each dollar receives one primary yield classification at the time of measurement. Treasury-led modality changes, Procurement-led contract activations, and AP-led method standardization show up as three operating motions against one measurement line.

Specifically: Treasury’s modality-stack restructuring in Issue 24 created the SCF facility that the strategic quadrant in this issue activates against. The facility is one program. Treasury’s restructuring produced the $216,000 Issue 24 reports through cost-of-capital methodology improvements and modality reallocation on the existing program footprint. The strategic quadrant move in this issue produces $64,800 by extending the same program to suppliers Treasury’s restructuring left unenrolled. The two figures are additive because they operate on different supplier populations within the same program. Procurement’s contract-level moves in Issue 25 produced $196,000 by activating method specification, SCF eligibility, and supplier development inside the renewal cycle. The leverage and bottleneck quadrant moves in this issue produce yield by completing those activations across populations that fell outside Issue 25’s renewal-cycle scope. The reconciled total reads as the program’s full year-one Payment Yield contribution against the firm’s $130 million addressable spend.

Stack and full-firm reading

The reconciled view stacks as follows. Treasury’s modality stack from Issue 24 contributed $216,000. Procurement’s contract activation from Issue 25 contributed $196,000. Strategic quadrant expansion contributed $64,800. Leverage quadrant activation contributed $241,400. Bottleneck quadrant net contribution was negative $112,700 in year one, net of the $180,000 development investment that sits inside the same period. Routine quadrant standardization contributed $51,900. The reconciled year-one total reads $657,400.

Reconciled year-one Payment Yield contribution: $657,400 against $130 million in addressable spend, reading 50.6 basis points against the addressable base. The total runs net of the $180,000 bottleneck-quadrant development investment, which sits inside the same period. By year three, with the development investment retired and the renewal pipeline matured, the line crosses 65 basis points and the firm captures roughly $850,000 annually. The Payment Economics Index for the program reaches 11.1x against a steady-state Payment Cost Ratio.

The number matters because it is reconciled, net, and visible on one line. Before the Payment Yield line entered the supplier-base measurement set, the firm captured $850,000 of annual yield only partially. Treasury, Procurement, and AP accounted for the components separately and reported them against three distinct operating views, without aggregation onto a financial reporting line a CFO could read alongside the cost-side measurements that have lived on the page since the operations discipline began. The capital allocation decisions from earlier in the issue now run against paired measurement. Capital allocation against the supplier base becomes a formally two-sided decision.

The implication

Manufacturing carries one of the largest addressable supplier-spend surfaces across major operating models, with the added advantage of supplier-base complexity, relationship durability, and instrument breadth. The Payment Yield line at the manufacturer reaches its richest measurement instance because the supplier base produces the richest instrument coverage. The structural argument extends beyond manufacturing. Distribution, healthcare, professional services, and SaaS each carry a version of the same return-side gap, scaled by addressable spend and shaped by supplier-base concentration, durability, and complexity. Issue 27 takes the distribution operating model, where inventory turns are faster and gross margin runs thinner, and the line produces a different shape of decision-relevance. The Phase 3 arc takes the work across additional empirical sites.

Payment Economics in Practice

Advisory: The Payment Economics Institute works with finance leaders to measure and govern Payment Yield. Manufacturing engagements install the return-side line on the firm’s supplier base, run the activation moves the case study walks through, and align the operating chain across CFO, Treasury, Procurement, and AP onto one Payment Yield measurement. See engagement models →

AP Copilot: The AP platform built for AP teams. AP Copilot turns accounts payable into a profit center through workflow tools designed for the people actually processing payments. The platform achieves 50% virtual card acceptance, 10x the industry average, by making supplier conversion and daily payment work visible, collaborative, and rewarding. 1% of all revenue goes to planting trees. Learn more: apcopilot.com

About The Payment Economics Journal

The Payment Economics Journal examines how organizations measure and capture economic return from payment operations. Published weekly by the Payment Economics Institute. The complete framework lives at payment-economics.org.

Suggested Citation

Jasinski, D. (2026). Payment Economics for Manufacturing: How Manufacturing Completes Supplier-Base Measurement With Payment Yield. The Payment Economics Journal, Issue 26. Payment Economics Institute.

Authorship & Editorial

Author: Daniel Jasinski

Editorial Advisor: Jacques Yana Mbena, PhD

References

AFP. (2025). 2025 AFP Digital Payments Survey: A Triennial Publication. Association for Financial Professionals. Underwritten by J.P. Morgan. Available here.

Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J. D. (1997). Supply chain management: More than a new name for logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1), 1–14. Available here.

Deloof, M. (2003). Does working capital management affect profitability of Belgian firms? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(3-4), 573–588. Available here.

Hackett Group. (2025). 2025 Procurement Agenda and Key Issues Study. The Hackett Group, Inc.

Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1984). Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing. Wiley.

Jasinski, D. (2025a). Why payment economics is the missing discipline. The Payment Economics Journal, Issue 2. Payment Economics Institute. Read here.

Jasinski, D., & Yana Mbena, J. (2026b). The CFO measurement problem in enterprise payments: Governing payments as a return-bearing layer. The Payment Economics Journal, Issue 23. Payment Economics Institute. Read here.

Jasinski, D. (2026c). Payment economics for Treasury: How Treasury produces financial return from payments. The Payment Economics Journal, Issue 24. Payment Economics Institute. Read here.

Jasinski, D. (2026d). Payment economics for Procurement: How Procurement activates Payment Yield at contract signing. The Payment Economics Journal, Issue 25. Payment Economics Institute. Read here.

Klapper, L. (2006). The role of factoring for financing small and medium enterprises. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(11), 3111–3130. Available here.

Klapper, L., Laeven, L., & Rajan, R. (2012). Trade credit contracts. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(3), 838–867. Available here.

Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 109–117. Available here.

Krause, D. R., & Ellram, L. M. (1997). Critical elements of supplier development: The buying-firm perspective. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(1), 21–31. Available here.

Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. (1998). An empirical investigation of supplier development: Reactive and strategic processes. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), 39–58. Available here.

Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 528–545. Available here.

Lee, H. L., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (1997). The bullwhip effect in supply chains. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 93–102. Available here.

Ng, C. K., Smith, J. K., & Smith, R. L. (1999). Evidence on the determinants of credit terms used in interfirm trade. The Journal of Finance, 54(3), 1109–1129. Available here.

Shin, H. H., & Soenen, L. (1998). Efficiency of working capital management and corporate profitability. Financial Practice and Education, 8(2), 37–45.

Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing—Missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 47(3), 136–145. Available here.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World. Rawson Associates.

Wuttke, D. A., Rosenzweig, E. D., & Heese, H. S. (2019). An empirical analysis of supply chain finance adoption. Journal of Operations Management, 65(3), 242–261. Available here.