Context
Visy had an established virtual card payments approach, but the traditional execution model required suppliers to handle one-time card numbers manually. That manual step created operational overhead, introduced avoidable risk, caused delayed payments when Virtual Card Numbers (VCNs) expired, and limited how flexibly card rails could be used across a diverse supplier base.
The challenge
Supplier execution friction
Under a traditional virtual card model, card numbers are issued and sent to suppliers for manual processing. In practice, this created overhead on both sides. Visy's finance team managed issuance; suppliers handled card numbers manually; that handling introduced administrative burden alongside avoidable exposure to fraud and data leakage.
Constraints on payment strategy
Visy was not trying to move every supplier onto card terms. Some suppliers did not need it; some did not want it. The constraint was practical. Card rails could only be applied where supplier capability allowed, making it difficult to use card funding selectively as working capital needs changed without imposing a single approach across the board.
"Issuing VCNs created overhead on both sides. Our team was managing the issuance process, suppliers were handling card numbers manually, and that manual handling introduced both administrative burden and fraud exposure that didn't need to be there. When VCNs expired, it caused additional workload for the team and delays to the supplier."
Richard Xuereb · General Manager Finance, Visy
The approach
Visy implemented Flow to introduce a secure, automated payment execution layer for approved invoices. Invoice submission and approval remained unchanged. Once an invoice was approved and due for payment, the virtual card number was issued to GlobalFinex B2B rather than being passed to the supplier. GlobalFinex B2B handled the processing within a secure environment, and suppliers received settlement directly to their bank accounts via EFT. Supported by remittance advice for reconciliation.
"Moving to Flow: ePayment was a deliberate decision. We wanted a secure processing environment where sensitive card data didn't need to change hands and the execution was automated. It removed a layer of risk and administration that neither we nor our suppliers needed to carry."
What changed in practice
Existing VCN suppliers moved to secure Flow execution
Suppliers already receiving card-funded payments were transitioned to Flow so that payment execution no longer depended on suppliers receiving and processing card numbers. This removed a layer of operational handling and risk from both parties while preserving the funding approach Visy wanted.
Flow used selectively as needs changed
Visy did not adopt Flow as a universal programme. With supplier execution no longer the limiting factor, Visy could apply card-funded payments selectively. With specific supplier groups, at specific times. Without requiring permanent structural change or forcing suppliers into new processes. Card rails could be used when it suited Visy's working capital position, while leaving the rest of the supplier base unchanged.
"We were never trying to move every supplier onto card terms. That's not the point. Some suppliers don't need it and some don't want it. What we needed was the ability to use card rails when it suited our working capital position, without having to impose a single approach across the board. GlobalFinex B2B gave us that. We can apply it where it makes sense and leave the rest of our supplier base exactly as it was."
Richard Xuereb · General Manager Finance, Visy
Why this matters
Many organisations treat payment as a fixed outcome once invoices are approved. Visy's experience shows the leverage is often in execution. By changing how payments are made after approval, Visy retained the benefits of card funding while removing the supplier-side and operational constraints that had previously limited its use.
The result was a cleaner, more adaptable payment model. Suppliers receive straightforward EFT settlement, Visy retains the funding model it wants and payment decisions can be adjusted as conditions change.
"There's now a genuine decision point between invoice approval and payment that we actually use. Previously, approval essentially meant the payment was fixed. Method, timing, everything. That's less true now, and that flexibility has been more useful than I expected, particularly when conditions change quickly and you want options that don't require renegotiating terms."