“I’m attending a Swift meeting for direct connectors, such as my company, that possess a Swift code in London, UK, on 10th December 2025,” says Royston DaCosta, Assistant Treasurer at Ferguson, when discussing the readiness of financial institutions (FIs) or otherwise for ISO 20022. Ferguson is the largest distributor of water and air specialisation products and services in the commercial and residential North American construction sector.
“I look forward to hearing that all the remaining banks, remembering that there are 14,000 of them out there, that still needed to migrate to ISO 20022 have now done so. Ditto any treasury management system (TMS) providers that have corporate clients. Speaking just before the migration deadline, I think there is still a bit of confusion out there to put it mildly.”
“I’d like to see that all resolved before I attend that December 2025 meeting. By the way, I take it as a good sign that Swift at least wants to meet in London to understand any remaining corporate pain points.”
ISO 20022 messaging needed to connect to global interbank platform
However, it is a fact that Swift is a bank-owned collective that must necessarily do their bidding to some extent, whatever their own wishes, so how hard will it push any recalcitrant banks? This is why the original 2023 migration deadline was delayed for two years until now and the CBPR+ coexistence period was instigated. Making adherence to the new ISO 20022 messaging standard a requirement by 22nd November 2025 for participation on the global interbank payment platform has forced the laggards to comply.
“I’ve heard of some banks saying, ‘don’t worry we’ve got you’, there is no need for your corporate to worry about complying, which is great,” continues DaCosta. “But others are saying your corporate treasury should really adopt ISO 20022 messaging [natively] yourself to take full advantage of its more character-rich and data-carrying capabilities. That might be OK for a large corporate with investment budget, but not necessarily for a smaller one that just needs Swift connectivity,” he says.
“For example, I spoke to one treasury colleague recently in this position and she was being pushed from pillar to post by her TMS provider and her bank – neither of which was taking responsibility for her firm that is only a host-to-host connector, not a direct Swift participant. That is not on, in my opinion. She is the customer and should be treated as such, with her partners ensuring ISO 20022 compliance for her smaller firm.”
“I advised her to approach Swift themselves to see if they could help, which in fairness I think they try to do. But perhaps they should be independently run as an organisation, without the bank ownership? We’ve all been waiting too long for ISO 20022 compliance.”
Swift help and compliance
Swift has a dedicated landing page for ISO 20022 and in particular an information page for corporates, all of which is in an effort to help ensure full compliance with its final 22nd November 2025 connection compliance deadline – no-one wants any more delays.
As Nicolas Stuckens, Head of ISO 20022 Adoption and Data Quality at Swift, argues: “Swift has supported the migration to ISO 20022 at every step since the community made the decision in 2018 to move to the richer standard. Since the beginning of co-existence [CBPR+] in March 2023, we have played a key role in defining industry standards and also in offering services that support institutions during the transition.”
Stuckens also argues CBPR+ has provided important business continuity, allowing all Swift participants to navigate the change at a pace that is appropriate to their business. Naturally, some of the smaller banks may have taken longer, but it is well worth the effort in Stuckens opinion as, “ISO 20022 brings richer, better structured data, enabling greater operational efficiency and straight through processing (STP).”
Stuckens also says the ISO 20022 XML-based messaging format additionally offers:
-
Improved analytics capabilities.
-
Compliance and customer insight enhancements., and,Opportunities for innovation and enhanced customer experiences (CX).
“Already, many FIs across the world are seeing the benefits of adoption,” he says. “The standard supports easier connectivity with application programming interfaces (APIs) and aligns with the G20’s push for faster, more transparent payments [see the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-border Payments project for more –Ed.]. ISO 20022 is fundamental to a future-proofed financial ecosystem characterised by greater interoperability.”
Is ISO 20022 still relevant?
Universal adoption is necessary to get the full STP and data-carrying benefits of more character-rich ISO 20022 messaging. But is it still relevant in a world where alternative technologies are advancing so rapidly? Is the push towards ISO 20022 messaging across financial services (FS) and in payments, in particular, already being superseded by the rise of stablecoins and many other forms of digital money transfer cross-border?
“I think stablecoins do hold promise. But they are not the magic wand that they are being positioned as – nor is every project focused on the same thing,” says Gareth Lodge, Principal Analyst, Payments at the analyst firm, Celent, as he cautions not to get ahead of ourselves – and to pick the low hanging beneficial fruits.
“I think it’s also worth noting that stablecoins add complexity, not reduce it,” adds Lodge, while stressing that all the usual regulations still apply and extra complexity is a given – and an enemy of STP. “That’s before you have the challenge of which stablecoins to choose (there are presently 120+); how they will interoperate; how the FX works precisely; and so on.”
“Corporates shouldn’t need a PhD in payments to figure out what is best – ensuring we take the customer along with us will be key.” This is achievable with the near-term push towards ISO 20022 universal adoption, across many FS sectors, so it is a project worth preserving with.
“I think there are various levels of readiness for the banks on Swift. Swift launched a transition service months ago. I think it’s telling in a few ways,” says Lodge, pointing out its:
-
Very cheap, which some have pointed out doesn’t really punish laggard banks for being late.
-
The price list is valid for three years. “Again, some have highlighted that this as a sign that it will be around for at least three years,” adds Lodge, referencing the transition service.
“No migration has ever happened 100% by the original deadline and this will once again be no exception,” he adds. “I think by volume we’ll likely be at mid-80% levels, by Swift Bank Identifier Code (BIC) lower. Some banks have done the absolute minimum migration, which will limit the benefits for them but also for their customers.”
“The deadline is the start, not the finish line in my opinion,” continues Lodge. “There are more deadlines to come like address fields, let alone how the format itself will evolve over time.”
“The big challenge will be getting corporates interested and ready. This isn’t going to happen overnight but some of the other deadlines – addresses in particular – are likely to force corporates to prepare.”
“It is likely the biggest corporates will have the biggest challenges and benefits. Rather than Swift or regulation, it will be their purchasing power that will force the enterprise resource planning (ERP) and other vendors to make the necessary changes.” It is not just banks that need to get with the adherence programme.
If a bank or vendor isn’t ISO 20022 ready, then it might cause a corporate to swap their provider. Frustration levels are already high with this long-running project because corporate treasurers can see the benefits that extra characters and data-rich messaging could bring to the Swift platform and to their businesses overall if it was universally available.
