Since 1 September 2026, every French business subject to VAT must be able to receive electronic invoices. The Ministry of Finance announced a tolerant rollout without penalties during 2026, but this is not a postponement: SMEs must issue electronic invoices and meet their e-reporting obligations from 1 September 2027, according to the official reform timetable and the Ministry’s statement of 1 September 2026.
For a company director, the decision is therefore no longer limited to selecting an approved platform. We have already covered that question in our comparison of the six criteria for choosing a dematerialisation platform. The current decision is how to receive invoices now, issue them in 2027 and protect the integrity of accounts receivable processes.
The choice you need to make
Should your company work directly in an approved platform, retain its current software and add a connector, adopt an all-in-one suite, or use the reform as a reason to redesign its ERP?
Before choosing, management should ask the finance manager, accounting lead and IT representative to create a shared invoice-flow register. The deliverable must identify:
- Invoice sources: ERP, industry software, accounting application, spreadsheet or manual input.
- Recipients: French businesses, consumers, public-sector customers and foreign customers.
- Payment data: deposits, instalments, credit notes, schedules and VAT collected on payment.
- Internal processing: approval, posting, bank reconciliation, reminders and dispute management.
- Available interfaces: APIs, structured exports, accounting files and banking connectors.
The purpose is not to produce a broad map of the entire organisation. It is to document how data must travel between sales, invoicing, the approved platform, accounting and collection. Our process-mapping playbook provides a practical method for formalising those exchanges.
The regulatory baseline is identical for every option. An ordinary PDF sent by email is not a compliant electronic invoice. The document must contain structured data and be exchanged through an approved platform, previously referred to as a PDP. The French tax authority’s definition of an electronic invoice makes this distinction explicit.
The available options
Option 1 — Manual use of an approved platform portal
Employees view supplier invoices and enter customer invoices directly in the platform portal. The French administration confirms that businesses without dedicated invoicing software may create invoices directly through their selected approved platform.
This path can address the immediate reception obligation with limited initial IT work. It is primarily suitable where billing rules are straightforward and data can be transferred to accounting without creating extensive duplicate entry.
Option 2 — Existing software connected to an approved platform
The ERP, industry application or invoicing system remains the system of record. A compatible solution converts the data, generates the required format and exchanges information with an approved platform.
The administration distinguishes these roles: only an approved platform can officially exchange invoices and transmit tax data, while a compatible solution may integrate existing business software with that platform.
This is the model supported by e-Factu, our electronic invoicing application. It generates Factur-X, prepares regulatory flows and connects to an approved platform without forcing the immediate replacement of the company’s operational software.
Option 3 — An all-in-one invoicing suite
The approved platform also becomes the daily interface for creating, receiving, approving and monitoring invoices. This reduces the number of applications, but transfers a larger part of the billing process to a single provider.
It is a coherent option when the existing invoicing application is weakly integrated and does not manage complex pricing, contractual rules or industry-specific data.
Option 4 — ERP and billing-process redesign
The company combines regulatory compliance with the modernisation of its ERP, customer records, approval workflows and accounts receivable operations. The approved platform becomes one component within a broader target architecture.
This may solve structural problems, but it does not remove the immediate requirement to receive electronic invoices. Minimum compliance and ERP transformation must be managed as coordinated yet separately testable workstreams.
The criteria that really matter
| Criterion | Manual portal | Existing tool + e-Factu or connector | All-in-one suite | ERP redesign |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial cost | Low | Moderate | Moderate to high | High |
| Implementation time | Short | Short to medium | Medium | Long |
| Provider dependency | Concentrated on the platform | Shared across software, connector and platform | High dependency on one provider | Shared across vendor, integrator and platform |
| Internal skills | Administrative processing | Business owner and integration capability | Change management | Project management, data and integration |
| Reversibility | Good if exports are complete | Good with standard formats and documented APIs | Contract-dependent | Architecture-dependent |
| Accounts receivable automation | Limited | Strong if statuses are reintegrated | Depends on suite coverage | Strong but delivered later |
| Main risk | Duplicate entry | Responsibility gaps | Vendor lock-in | Missing the deadline through excessive scope |
These assessments must be supported by evidence. For each shortlisted solution, request a sample export, a data schema, the incident-responsibility matrix and the procedure for moving to another platform.
The selected architecture must also return useful lifecycle statuses to the accounts receivable system. The French tax authority identifies at least the statuses “submitted”, “rejected”, “refused” and “collected”. A technical rejection should not trigger the same action as a customer refusal, while a collected invoice should leave the reminder workflow. This connects directly with our guide to automating overdue-invoice reminders.
When to choose each option
Use the manual portal as a temporary measure if the company is not yet correctly registered to receive invoices. The accounting manager should arrange the designation of an approved platform, verify the receiving address in the directory and document who monitors incoming invoices. This resolves the immediate issue but does not replace the target decision for 2027.
Retain the current application and add a compatible layer when it already manages customers, invoice lines, VAT, credit notes and payments reliably. Ask the vendor for a written statement identifying the approved platform, exchanged formats, lifecycle-status integration and e-reporting coverage. If those answers can be tested, replacing the ERP purely because of the reform is unlikely to be justified.
Adopt an all-in-one suite when current billing is isolated or largely manual and employees can move their daily activities to a new interface. Before signing, the finance manager should test deposits, credit notes, partial payments, supporting documents and accounting exports.
Redesign the ERP when multiple entities, business applications, sales channels or tax treatments generate different invoice flows and the current architecture already requires frequent corrections. This path needs formal IT project management, business acceptance criteria and an interim solution that maintains compliance throughout the project.
Whichever option is selected, do not restrict the specification to Factur-X. E-reporting, payment information and lifecycle statuses must also be covered. Our article on the essential electronic-invoicing vocabulary explains how these elements differ.
The traps hidden in each option
The manual portal appears inexpensive until the company measures the repeated entry of customers, invoice lines, payments and statuses. Its hidden cost emerges during closing and collections, when the portal and accounting records no longer provide the same information.
The connector model may conceal unclear responsibilities. A “compatible solution” label does not mean that the software provider is itself an approved platform. Verify the transport provider in the tax authority’s official list of approved platforms.
The all-in-one suite may make a later migration difficult if documents, statuses, histories and exchange logs cannot be exported. The reversibility clause should specify which data will be returned, in what format and under what conditions.
The ERP redesign may expand into an open-ended transformation programme. The main trap is postponing invoice reception until the new ERP is available, even though reception has been mandatory since 1 September 2026. The regulatory work package must remain identifiable and deployable independently.
How D1 Consulting approaches the decision
Our electronic invoicing reform service begins with a flow matrix covering the source, recipient, tax treatment, format, platform, expected status and corresponding accounting entry. Finance validates the business rules, while IT confirms interfaces and technical responsibilities.
We then produce a decision note comparing the available scenarios against the criteria in this article. It describes both the target architecture and the temporary arrangement. The purpose is to give management a decision that can be approved, rather than another catalogue of software features.
When the company retains its existing environment, e-Factu provides the operational layer between the billing process, Factur-X and the approved platform. Acceptance testing covers a complete cycle: creation, transmission, returned status, accounting entry, payment, accounts receivable update and applicable reporting data.
Production approval requires a resolved anomaly register, a responsibility matrix and an operational procedure for accounting staff to follow when an invoice is rejected, refused or delayed by a provider incident.
👉 Book your free 30-minute diagnostic to compare your compliance paths and receive a practical list of the flows and interfaces that must be secured before 2027.
