# 72% Are Moving to Connected Compliance. Only Proof Gets Them There

**Analyst:** Anubha Garg

G2 AI Custom Research for Fintua, October 2026. Connected compliance means running VAT reporting and eInvoicing for every jurisdiction on one platform and one data layer, instead of a separate tool per country. In G2's October 2026 study of 102 tax, finance and IT leaders at multinationals, 72% are either consolidating onto a connected platform or already run one, and 77% say fragmented, country-by-country compliance creates material manual effort, cost or control risk. Continuous Transaction Control (CTC) mandates and the EU's VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package, which makes digital reporting of intra-EU B2B transactions mandatory from July 2030, are turning that cost into a decision. The spine of this report is a tension. Most of the market is already moving to one platform, yet nobody moves on a promise. Buyers want regulatory depth in the countries that matter before a long country list, direct ERP integration with VAT-field mapping, human sign-off on filings and exceptions, and a parallel run on their own data before they step back. The business case that wins approval pairs total cost of ownership with compliance risk. Proof, in other words, decides which platform gets them there.

## Key findings

- **The shift to connected compliance is under way.** 72% of organisations are either actively consolidating onto a connected platform (46%) or already run one across most or all markets (27%). Only 22% still run fully separate country-by-country tools.
- **Fragmentation has a price tag.** 77% say managing VAT and eInvoicing through separate country tools creates material manual effort, headcount or adviser cost, errors or audit risk. Just 7% report no material cost at all.
- **Any data, any system is a requirement.** 69% say direct ERP integration with source-to-VAT-field mapping is essential for automation and compliance. Only 1% treat it as a secondary requirement.
- **Automation earns trust on the buyer's own data.** 36% say pilots, parallel runs and testing on their own transaction data are the proof that would let them rely on a provider's automated tax logic, ahead of track record (22%) or explainable rules (20%).

## Themes shaping the market

- **Consolidation is a project most are already running** (The shift). 72% are moving to one platform or already there. The hybrid estate is the starting point, not the destination.
- **Reconciliation is where fragmentation bills first** (Cost of fragmentation). 77% feel the cost of separate country tools, and reconciling VAT returns to eInvoices is becoming a live control rather than a month-end task.
- **A mandate opens the decision; cost plus risk closes it** (Triggers and the case). A regulatory deadline moves 30%. The business case that passes pairs total cost of ownership with compliance risk (49%); savings alone rarely carry it.
- **Depth in key countries and the ERP come before coverage** (Expertise and ERP fit). 64% rank local regulatory expertise above breadth, and 69% call direct ERP integration with VAT-field mapping essential.
- **Buyers test providers because they have been burned** (Implementation). 44% hit data and integration problems last time; 30% now run their own countries and transactions through a provider before contracting.
- **Automate the routine, keep the signature, prove it side by side** (Automation and proof). People keep sign-off on filings and exceptions (32%), and 36% want a parallel run on their own data before they step back.

## What the interviews show

### Chapter 01: How far along are multinationals in moving to connected compliance?

Nearly three in four are consolidating VAT and eInvoicing onto one platform or already run one. The hybrid estate they run in the meantime is the starting point for everything that follows.

Asked to place their organisation on a scale from fully separate country-by-country tools to one connected platform across most or all markets, 46% said they are actively in the middle of consolidating and 27% said they are already there. Only 22% still run fully separate tools. The transition is rarely a clean switch. 71% describe their current estate as a hybrid: a central ERP or compliance platform for the core, with local middleware, government portals or outside advisers covering the countries with their own clearance regimes. Consolidation moves those local pieces onto the central layer one jurisdiction at a time, which is why respondents talk about parallel running and two-year horizons.

- **Hybrid estates are the starting point.** 71% combine central systems with local tools, advisers or government portals; 14% already run a centrally managed platform and 12% rely on fragmented country-level tools (base: 100). The hybrid is rarely by design. A global controller at a US software company described one tax engine attached to the ERP for North America, an accounting firm for the UK and local firms everywhere else, each inherited with an acquisition. Respondents describe the central core as the thing they trust and the local pieces as the thing they manage.
- **The ERP is the anchor, not the whole answer.** Of the 84 who named their setup, 29% run an SAP-led stack, 21% a named non-SAP platform or adviser, and 21% a mix of local providers, portals and regional tools. Even the SAP-led group rarely runs SAP alone: a head of finance and tax for EMEA and the Americas described extracting from SAP to hand to external providers who prepare the returns, while a new eInvoicing platform is "in the implementation phase". The ERP holds the transactions; something else has to turn them into compliant filings in each country.
- **Consolidation runs country by country.** Respondents describe one platform for the biggest markets with legacy tools migrated as eInvoicing mandates arrive. A global purchasing lead said the group is "already benefiting from a unified platform across all European markets" but is "still in the process of running in parallel the country by country solutions" elsewhere, and a head of group controlling expects to "complete the project" in one or two years. A single global cut-over was the exception, and parallel running was the norm.

**What this means for providers.** Sell the transition, not the end state. The largest segment is mid-consolidation, so position the platform as the central data, workflow and control layer that absorbs local tools and advisers one jurisdiction at a time, with parallel running built in. Lead with the roadmap from hybrid to connected and the milestones along it, because that is the project the buyer is already running.

### Chapter 02: What does fragmented, country-by-country VAT compliance actually cost?

Three in four say it costs real money, time and audit exposure. Reconciliation between VAT return data and eInvoice data is where the bill lands first.

The hybrid estate most respondents still run has a price. 77% say running compliance through separate country tools creates material manual effort, headcount, tool or adviser cost, and control risk; only 7% report no material cost or audit problem. The examples are concrete: two senior tax analysts and an ERP developer tied up for two weeks on manual clean-up and resubmission and a reconciliation performed differently in two geographies that internal audit raised as a major finding. Reconciliation between VAT return data and eInvoice data is the pressure point. 77% say it is a growing priority as compliance goes digital and real-time. At transaction level, the gap between what was invoiced and what was returned becomes a live control.

- **Reconciliation is becoming a control, not a chore.** 77% say reconciling VAT return data against eInvoice data is a growing priority: 41% because of regulatory scrutiny and penalties, 36% because of fragmented data and manual work (base: 95). A global controller described the two speeds inside one company: where the tax engine syncs to the ERP, "it does a reconciliation automatically"; for the smaller locations that do not sync, "we have to do a manual reconciliation" every quarter and again for the audit.
- **Regulation is raising the bar.** 57% say regulatory change, alone or with internal change, has recently made transaction-level reporting more of a priority; 13% see no increase (base: 95). The triggers respondents named are specific: continuous transaction controls, ViDA, the French mandate, Poland's clearance system, HMRC's Making Tax Digital. A retail CFO's trigger was an error: "in one country, Germany in particular, we were out of compliance. We had our percentages wrong", which forced an update to the central platform.
- **Local controls contain it for a few.** 10% say local expertise and controls keep the coordination cost manageable, and 7% report no material cost or audit problem (base: 97). This group tends to be smaller or more vertically integrated; a healthcare-adjacent group with 11 territories on one accounting suite said digital, real-time reporting has made things "slightly more straightforward" rather than harder. For everyone else the cost is in time: a director of group transformation at a financial services group estimated that "about 20%" of the group's year-on-year investment goes on managing compliance, country by country.

**What this means for providers.** Lead with reconciliation. Buyers already feel the cost of fragmented data, so the opening move is to put a number on it with them: manual reconciliation hours, exception volumes, missed deadlines and audit findings by jurisdiction. Then show VAT-return-to-eInvoice reconciliation running inside the filing workflow. That is the control layer the market is asking for, and a more credible entry point than a generic automation pitch.

### Chapter 03: What triggers organisations to consolidate their eInvoicing and VAT compliance providers?

A regulatory deadline is the clearest trigger, named by 30%. A fifth are already moving without one, and a hard core will not move until something breaks.

A cost that is felt every month still needs an event to become a decision. Asked what would move consolidation to the top of the list, 30% named a regulatory deadline, compliance exposure or an audit failure. A new eInvoicing mandate that the current patchwork cannot handle is the common version of that story: it turns a tolerated cost into a board-level risk. A further 20% said consolidation is already a strategic priority and needs no trigger. The rest split between a quantified efficiency or ROI case (15%), leadership sponsorship, budget or transformation timing (8%), and a group of 13% whose current tools are, as one CFO put it, humming along, so only a significant error or audit risk would make them move.

- **Mandates convert cost into urgency.** 30% say regulatory deadlines, compliance exposure or audit failures would push consolidation to the top of the agenda (base: 97). The mandates respondents cite are the ones with clearance built in: a senior accountant at a UK university said a firm deadline from the UAE or the next phase of Making Tax Digital "moves it from nice to have to a must to do", and the tax technology lead whose invoices were rejected "at the tax platform clearance level" after a minor field-mapping error now treats every schema update as a risk event.
- **For one in five, the decision is made.** 20% say consolidation is already a strategic priority, with budget and programmes in motion. These are the organisations in the previous chapter's 46%: a head of group controlling with most functions consolidated and a two-year horizon, a tax technology lead "working to bring those disconnected local solutions into a unified, centralized compliance architecture". For them the trigger was a pattern of local failures rather than one deadline.
- **Adequate tools breed inertia.** 13% say their tools are adequate, so change would need a major failure or capability gap. 15% would move on a quantified ROI case and 8% on sponsorship, budget or transformation timing. A finance manager at an IT services firm described the gap between the two: the company "suddenly grew in the last three to four years", outgrew "proprietary old pattern tools", and now needs top management to "do one time investment" before anything changes.

**What this means for providers.** Work the regulatory calendar. Approach organisations ahead of the mandates in their key markets with a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction readiness assessment and a quantified exposure scenario, and position connected compliance as the risk-control investment that gets executive approval. For the group whose tools are humming along, benchmark their current-state gaps so the latent risk is visible before a mandate failure forces a reactive replacement.

### Chapter 04: How do tax teams build the business case for a connected compliance platform?

Half frame it as economics plus risk. Savings alone rarely carry it, and the people who approve it are the CFO and CIO.

Once a trigger lands, the case has to clear the CFO and CIO. Half of those who discussed the investment decision (49%) frame it as a combined economic and risk case: total cost of ownership and implementation effort set against exposure to penalties, audit failures and disruption. Approvers want to see that the recurring cost of point solutions and manual reconciliation exceeds the implementation and subscription, and that doing nothing carries the higher risk. A pure savings argument carries less weight on its own. 21% lead with quantified time, headcount or ROI savings, and 13% lead with compliance, audit and penalty-risk reduction. Several respondents said hard numbers satisfy the finance team but do not get the decision through; the risk story, backed by numbers, is what lands.

- **Economics plus risk is the winning frame.** 49% set total cost of ownership and implementation effort against compliance and operational risk, more than twice the share leading with savings alone (base: 85). The TCO line is specific: a corporate finance lead at a conglomerate benchmarks "statutory non-compliance fines against the one time implementation and recurring platform subscription costs" and shows "the elimination of expensive local point solutions and redundant IT maintenance overhead".
- **Savings alone rarely carry it.** 21% lead with quantified time, headcount, cost or ROI savings and 13% with risk reduction. Both groups said the other half of the argument is needed to get approval. A digital lead in Poland said the organisation talks "mostly" about cost savings, but on regulation the decision is forced: "we have to implement something new because we are missing some of the parameters".
- **Strategic cases are a minority.** 9% say approval rests on scalability, a mandatory requirement, provider proof or an executive sponsor rather than a quantified case. Where the mandate does the arguing, as with the French reform for an e-commerce finance project manager, the case writes itself: regulatory requirements "pushed us to move faster", and the efficiency and fraud-control benefits followed.

**What this means for providers.** Hand the buyer both columns of the business case. Pair a total-cost-of-ownership model that retires local point solutions, adviser spend and manual reconciliation with a costed view of avoided penalties, audit findings and filing disruption. Tailor it to the CFO and CIO, who are the approvers respondents named, and treat the ROI calculator as the start of the conversation rather than the whole of it.

### Chapter 05: Should a multinational choose one global eInvoicing provider or local specialists?

Buyers answer a different question first: can the provider prove depth in the countries where the exposure sits? 64% rank that above the length of the country list.

The first proof buyers ask for is local. Asked to weigh breadth of country coverage against depth of regulatory expertise, 64% put expertise in their key jurisdictions first. The logic is risk-weighted: most of a multinational's VAT exposure sits in a handful of countries, so a provider must be unarguably right there, and breadth is added gradually. 16% said they need both, and 15% put coverage first, because they want one provider everywhere and will buy in specialist knowledge where needed. The same ranking holds for the requirement buyers find hardest to compromise on: regulatory expertise and compliance reliability (37%) edges ERP fit and data quality (31%), with coverage alone at 13%. Coverage only counts when it comes with proven local depth, tested in the buyer's biggest markets first.

- **Expertise is the hardest thing to compromise on.** Asked which requirement they would find hardest to give up, 37% of 94 said regulatory expertise and compliance reliability, ahead of ERP fit and data quality (31%) and coverage (13%); 9% said several are jointly non-negotiable. A financial controller at a technology consultancy explained the ranking: with expertise "you could explain the information" to a regulator even on a manual process, whereas without it "there's no point having a fancy system or coverage because everything will just be wrong".
- **A sizeable minority refuse the trade-off.** 16% want broad coverage and strong local expertise from one provider, and they check that depth market by market rather than take it on trust. A gear manufacturer's compliance lead warned that broad coverage with expertise that is "a kind of a shallow thing" creates a risk of clearance failures and local audit penalties, while deep expertise in only a few countries leaves "a fragmented vendor track".
- **Coverage-first buyers back it with people.** 15% prioritise broad coverage and supplement it with in-house or local specialists; for them a territory the software cannot support is the harder gap. An IT lead in chemical logistics said the group tends to go for "the big well-known global brands" and still relies "more heavily on internal in-house knowledge", which "can be quite costly".

**What this means for providers.** Prove local depth in the buyer's biggest markets before talking about the size of the country list. Lead evaluations with jurisdiction-specific regulatory expertise, the people behind it and the track record of keeping rules current, then present global coverage as the layer that lets the buyer expand without adding another vendor. Coverage without demonstrated depth is the claim this market discounts most.

### Chapter 06: How important is ERP integration in an eInvoicing and VAT compliance platform?

Close to a universal requirement. 69% call direct integration with VAT-field mapping essential, and the 1% who call it secondary are the exception that proves it.

Local depth gets a provider onto the shortlist; the ERP decides whether it stays there. 69% say direct ERP integration, including mapping source data to VAT return fields, is essential for automation and compliance, and only 1% treat it as a secondary requirement. Without the mapping, the process collapses into manual extraction, offline spreadsheets and days reconciling line items, tax codes and credit notes before submission. The remaining 28% say integration is important but accept APIs, custom builds or manual workarounds. That tolerance comes from teams that have not yet hit mapping problems. The teams that have treat integration as a delivery risk to be tested rather than a feature to be ticked.

- **Essential for seven in ten.** 69% say direct ERP integration and source-to-VAT-field mapping are essential. With the 28% who call it important, 97% rate integration as essential or important (base: 98). A sales director at an IT services company tied it to the regime itself: in "a continuous clearance environment", compliance "is no longer a periodic report exercise. It's a live cooperation".
- **Workarounds are tolerated, not preferred.** 28% accept APIs, custom builds or manual workarounds, but describe them as a phase to get through. A staff software engineer described adapters sitting between SAP and the compliance layer that work but add a hop; several linked a past workaround to the clean-up and audit exposure they now want to remove.
- **The audit trail is the point.** Those who called integration essential described the benefit as a clean trail from transaction to return: no re-keying, no reformatting, and reconciliation that works because both sides share a source. The senior accountant summed it up: pull the data "straight from our ERP", map it "to the VAT returns field automatically", and "we get a clean audit trail" from each transaction to the return.

**What this means for providers.** Make ERP-native connectivity the front of the offer: prebuilt connectors for SAP, Oracle and Microsoft Dynamics, jurisdiction-specific mapping templates and auditable data lineage from source transaction to VAT return. Treat API-led and managed-workaround options as a phased migration path for organisations still on fragmented tools, not as a permanent alternative. Any data, any system is the claim this market wants demonstrated in its own ERP.

### Chapter 07: What goes wrong when implementing an eInvoicing and VAT compliance provider?

Data and integration, for 44%. The technology was rarely the surprise; the effort to get clean data into it was, and buyers now test providers on their own scenarios before they sign.

Buyers test ERP fit because they have been burned. Asked what went differently than expected the last time they implemented or switched a compliance provider, 44% pointed to integration, data quality, master-data mapping or country-specific edge cases. The technology itself was rarely the surprise; the effort to get clean data into it was. The lessons are consistent. 30% now validate ERP integration, data quality and real scenarios through testing before contracting, asking providers to run their key countries and transaction types end to end rather than give a generic demo. Another 30% screen providers harder on expertise, support, uptime, track record and references. 20% report no material regret, and most attribute it to having done that diligence first.

- **Data and integration are the usual surprise.** 44% hit integration, data quality, master-data mapping or country-specific edge cases. 11% found provider capability or sales claims fell short; 18% underestimated effort, timelines or change management (base: 87). One finance executive expected tax-code mapping to take a week; "it took 3 weeks", and "60% of the time was spent cleaning master data" such as missing tax IDs and incomplete addresses.
- **Testing on real scenarios is now standard.** 30% would validate ERP integration, data quality and real scenarios through testing before choosing, and 30% would screen expertise, support, track record and references harder (base: 83). A tax manager asks providers to demonstrate "actual scenarios that will be relevant to our company rather than just give us a generic demo", and to test the integration within the company's own ERP; a compliance lead checks track record, uptime and whether there is "a 24 by 7 support team".
- **No regret usually means diligence was done.** 20% report no material regret, and describe long vendor analysis, reference calls and proof on their own data before committing. A head of IT and procurement at an investment bank said the team does "a lot of analysis" of vendors and only chooses "once we're comfortable that it is the right platform", because "there's a big cost for that". A global purchasing lead was satisfied with the provider and the implementation; the only regret was that the provider could not extend the same service beyond Europe.

**What this means for providers.** Put implementation proof at the centre of the sale. Offer scenario-based evaluations on the buyer's own countries, transaction types and ERP data instead of a generic demo, and package data transformation, mapping and parallel running as a defined onboarding workstream with named support and uptime commitments. The buyers with no regrets are the ones who tested first, so make testing easy to say yes to.

### Chapter 08: Which VAT compliance tasks can be automated, and where is human review still required?

Routine work goes first: invoice generation, transmission, validation and matching. People keep the final filing and the exceptions, because someone has to be able to explain what went out.

Having tested the platform, buyers draw a clear line on what it is allowed to do alone. 32% are comfortable automating invoice generation, transmission and standard tax calculations without a person checking each one, and 24% extend that to rule-based extraction, validation, matching and reconciliation. 16% describe broad straight-through automation, while 19% allow only limited autonomy or keep routine pre-checks. Where people stay is equally consistent. 32% keep the final filing, payment or external release with a person, and another 32% reserve review for exceptions, high-value items and regulatory judgement. The concern is accountability: someone has to be able to explain what went out and why. The operating model that results is controlled automation, which suits Fintua's workflows and validations better than any claim of autonomous compliance.

- **Routine work goes first.** 32% automate invoice generation, transmission and standard calculations and 24% rule-based extraction, validation, matching and reconciliation; 16% describe broad straight-through processing (base: 91). The tasks named are the same across companies: VAT number validation, schema checks, format conversion, transmission to the tax portal, and a reconciliation that compares the VAT data to the general ledger and "identify discrepancies" without someone checking every transaction.
- **Final release stays human.** 32% want a person to approve final filings, payments or external submissions even where the software could do it, and 32% reserve review for exceptions, high-value items and regulatory judgement (base: 92). A finance manager said he is "very much sure" the tax logic is automated properly, but when it comes to "making a payment on the portals, I would expect that a human will do that thing".
- **Oversight is moving from checking to monitoring.** 11% oversee mainly through sampling and audit checks, 10% keep preventive review of inputs and master data, and 1% limit people to incidents and audits. A product manager at a consultancy described the double check as "quite quick", a sanity check that the right code was selected, and the direction of travel is from checking every line to governing the process.

**What this means for providers.** Design the platform around controlled automation, not autonomous filing. Automate generation, validation, transmission and reconciliation end to end, and make the human points visible: configurable approval of final submissions, exception queues, rule-change review and an audit trail that explains every decision. Position intelligence as the thing that lets a tax team move from checking every transaction to governing the process.

### Chapter 09: What proof should buyers ask for before trusting tax automation?

A parallel run on their own data, over several filing cycles, with an audit trail of every decision. Track record and transparent rules support that proof; they do not replace it.

This is where the report's spine pays off: the evidence that moves the human line. Asked what would let them rely on a provider's automated tax logic for something a person currently double-checks, 36% named demonstrated accuracy through pilots, parallel runs and testing on their own transaction data. The bar is specific: run the automated logic side by side with the manual review over several filing cycles, show a near-zero error rate, and produce a complete audit trail of the checks and decisions. Test data and generic benchmarks do not clear it. Track record, customer references and local regulatory credibility come next (22%), followed by transparent, explainable tax logic with auditable transaction trails (20%). Contractual liability or regulatory acceptance matters to 7%, and 8% say a human double-check stays regardless of the evidence. The market is telling providers how to sell automation: as a parallel run the buyer watches, not as a promise.

- **Proof on their own data, over several cycles.** 36% want pilots, parallel runs and testing on company data, compared against human checks across consecutive filing cycles (base: 87). An e-commerce finance project manager would start with "a pilot phase where we could compare the tool's results with human checks, then gradually expand automation if the results are satisfactory", with "complete traceability of transactions" in case of an audit.
- **Credibility and transparency support the proof.** 22% cite provider track record, references and local credibility, and 20% transparent, explainable tax rules with an inspectable audit trail. Neither replaces a pilot. An operational management lead said references "would help establish credibility, but I wouldn't rely on those alone"; the convincing proof is "demonstrated accuracy using our own transaction data", not test data.
- **Guarantees persuade few on their own.** 7% would rely on contractual liability or regulatory acceptance, and 8% say a human double-check stays whatever the evidence. A finance manager at an IT services firm is one of the 8%: the software may be "designed in a way that will handle everything", but "one human check is needed" before money moves.

**What this means for providers.** Make the parallel run the product's proof point. Offer a structured pilot on the buyer's own transactions across two or three filing cycles, with side-by-side results against their manual review, error rates and a full audit trail of every check. Back it with references in the buyer's key jurisdictions and inspectable rule logic. Buyers have described the evidence that moves them; give it to them in that order.

### The more countries a company files VAT in, the more proof it asks for before trusting automation

85 respondents told us how many countries their VAT and eInvoicing obligations cover. Grouped into three bands (1 to 4 countries, 5 to 25, and 26 or more), the main themes show one market at three stages of the same journey: 60% of those filing in 26 or more countries want a parallel run before they trust automation, against 26% of those filing in 1 to 4.

The nine chapters describe one market, but the respondents in it are not at the same point. Groups with obligations in one to four countries are the most likely to still run fully separate tools (43%), and they shop for depth: 70% put local regulatory expertise first and only 5% lead with coverage. Their proof is a track record and references, and their business case is payback. A finance director at a life sciences company was explicit that risk "has to be on hard numbers at the end of the day".
Groups in 26 or more countries have mostly made the move (77% are consolidating or connected) and their asks change shape. Two thirds argue the case on cost and risk together (67%), nearly half limit human review to exceptions and judgement (46%), and 60% will only trust automation after a parallel run on their own transactions: "an error free 3 to 6 months parallel run against our historic cross border edge cases" for one corporate finance lead, "a track record and then our own testing, heavy testing" for a PMO lead in technology consulting. Coverage starts to matter again at this scale (28%), because the long tail of countries is now theirs to run.
What does not move is the foundation. Expertise first, ERP integration essential and the share who hit integration or data problems last time sit within a few points across all three bands. The proof a provider has to show is the same everywhere; how much of it, and in what order, depends on footprint.

- Builds the business case on cost and risk together: 28% in 1 to 4 countries (base 18), 48% in 5 to 25 countries (base 31), 67% in 26+ countries (base 24)
- Wants a parallel run on its own data before trusting automation: 26% in 1 to 4 countries (base 19), 29% in 5 to 25 countries (base 28), 60% in 26+ countries (base 25)
- Still runs fully separate country-by-country tools: 43% in 1 to 4 countries (base 23), 14% in 5 to 25 countries (base 35), 19% in 26+ countries (base 26)
- Keeps human review for exceptions and judgement only: 20% in 1 to 4 countries (base 20), 26% in 5 to 25 countries (base 31), 46% in 26+ countries (base 26)
- Is consolidating onto a connected platform, or already there: 52% in 1 to 4 countries (base 23), 74% in 5 to 25 countries (base 35), 77% in 26+ countries (base 26)
- Puts breadth of country coverage first: 5% in 1 to 4 countries (base 20), 12% in 5 to 25 countries (base 34), 28% in 26+ countries (base 25)
- Puts local regulatory expertise first: 70% in 1 to 4 countries (base 20), 62% in 5 to 25 countries (base 34), 56% in 26+ countries (base 25)
- Calls direct ERP integration essential: 71% in 1 to 4 countries (base 21), 62% in 5 to 25 countries (base 34), 65% in 26+ countries (base 26)
- Hit integration or data problems last time: 45% in 1 to 4 countries (base 20), 41% in 5 to 25 countries (base 29), 42% in 26+ countries (base 24)

Source: G2 AI Custom Research, The Future of Connected Compliance, 2026. Based on the 85 respondents who said how many countries their remit covers; bases vary by question because percentages reflect the respondents who addressed each one. The 1 to 4 and 26+ bands are under 30 respondents and are directional. Values are percentages of each band.

**What this means for providers.** Sell by footprint. For groups in a handful of countries, lead with jurisdiction depth, references and a payback case; the parallel run is a reassurance, not the gate. For groups in 26 or more, the parallel run is the gate: structure the pilot on their own cross-border edge cases, show exception handling rather than sign-off screens, and build the case on total cost of ownership against compliance risk. The mid band is where most of the market sits, and it is still choosing which of those two buyers to become.

## Strategic recommendations

1. **Sell the transition to connected compliance, not a rip-and-replace** Most buyers are mid-consolidation and running a hybrid estate. Position the platform as the central data, workflow and control layer that absorbs local tools, portals and advisers one jurisdiction at a time, with parallel running built in and a visible roadmap from hybrid to connected.
2. **Lead with reconciliation and the cost of fragmentation** 77% feel the cost of separate country tools and 77% say VAT-return-to-eInvoice reconciliation is a growing priority. Put a number on that cost with the buyer, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, then show reconciliation running inside the filing workflow. It is the control layer the market is asking for and the most credible opening move.
3. **Prove local depth and ERP fit before you talk about coverage** 64% put regulatory expertise in their key markets ahead of breadth, and 69% call direct ERP integration with VAT-field mapping essential. Lead evaluations with jurisdiction-specific expertise and a live integration in the buyer's own ERP, then present global coverage as the layer that lets them expand without another vendor.
4. **Earn automation trust with a parallel run on the buyer's data** 36% want pilots and parallel runs on their own transactions before they step back from manual checks, and a third keep final sign-off on filings. Offer a structured pilot across consecutive filing cycles, keep human approval points visible, and sell intelligence as governed automation rather than autonomous filing.
5. **Hand the buyer both columns of the business case** 49% get approval on total cost of ownership and implementation effort set against compliance risk; savings alone rarely carry it. Give champions a TCO model that retires point solutions and adviser spend alongside a costed view of avoided penalties and audit findings, framed for the CFO and CIO.

## Frequently asked questions

### What is the future of VAT compliance for multinational enterprises?

Continuous, transaction-level and connected. 72% of the multinationals interviewed are consolidating VAT and eInvoicing onto one platform or already run one, as Continuous Transaction Control mandates and the EU's ViDA package move reporting from periodic returns to near real-time. Reconciliation between VAT return data and eInvoice data becomes a live control rather than a month-end task: 77% say it is a growing priority.

### How far along are multinationals in moving to connected compliance?

Further than the hybrid picture suggests. 46% are actively consolidating their VAT and eInvoicing tools onto a connected platform and 27% already run one across most or all markets, so 72% are on the path. 22% still run fully separate country-by-country tools. Day to day, 71% describe a hybrid estate with a central system plus local tools, advisers or government portals, which is what consolidation is working through.

### How will ViDA affect indirect tax operating models?

It turns reconciliation into a control. ViDA makes digital reporting of intra-EU B2B transactions mandatory from July 2030, so tax authorities will hold transaction data before the periodic return is filed. Respondents already feel that shift: 57% say regulatory change has recently raised the priority of transaction-level reporting, 77% say VAT-return-to-eInvoice reconciliation is a growing priority, and 69% call direct ERP integration with VAT-field mapping essential to keep the two in step.

### How should tax teams prepare for real-time VAT reporting?

Fix the data path before the deadline. The teams in this study start with ERP integration and source-to-VAT-field mapping (essential for 69%), automate reconciliation between VAT return and eInvoice data (a growing priority for 77%), and test any provider on their own transactions and key countries before contracting (30%). Readiness assessments ahead of mandates matter because a deadline is the single largest consolidation trigger (30%).

### What triggers organisations to consolidate their eInvoicing and VAT providers?

Regulatory deadlines, compliance exposure or an audit failure, named by 30% as the event that would move consolidation to the top of the list. 20% say it is already a strategic priority, 15% would move on a quantified ROI case, and 13% say their current tools are adequate so only a major failure would prompt change.

### How do enterprise organisations consolidate eInvoicing providers?

Country by country, with parallel running. Respondents describe one platform for the biggest markets first, legacy tools and local advisers migrated as eInvoicing mandates arrive, and a central data, workflow and control layer that absorbs the local pieces one jurisdiction at a time. A single global cut-over was the exception; two-year horizons were common. 46% are in that process now.

### What is the operational cost of fragmented, country-by-country compliance?

77% say it creates material manual effort, headcount, tool or adviser cost, errors and audit risk; only 7% report no material cost. Respondents described weeks of manual reconciliation to prove compliance to a tax authority, missed deadlines when a connector failed, and internal audit findings when the same reconciliation ran differently in two geographies.

### Should a multinational use one global eInvoicing provider or several local ones?

The research tested the trade-off buyers actually make, which is expertise against coverage: 64% prioritise depth of regulatory expertise in their key jurisdictions, 16% want both from one provider, and 15% prioritise broad coverage supplemented by specialists. A single global provider wins where it can prove local depth in the buyer's biggest markets first.

### Is an ERP's built-in capability enough for multi-country compliance?

The research did not test ERP-native tools against dedicated platforms directly. It did find that 69% treat direct ERP integration with source-to-VAT-field mapping as essential in any compliance platform, 28% accept APIs or workarounds, and only 1% call integration secondary. Among those who named their setup, 29% run an SAP-led stack that is often supplemented by other providers.

### What should organisations look for in an eInvoicing and VAT compliance platform?

In the order buyers rank them: regulatory expertise in the countries that matter (hardest to compromise on for 37%, ahead of breadth for 64%), direct ERP integration with VAT-field mapping (essential for 69%), proof on real scenarios and the buyer's own data before contracting (30%), and track record, support and references (30%). Automation should run routine work with visible human sign-off on filings and exceptions.

### Which eInvoicing and VAT compliance platforms do multinationals use today?

No single platform dominates. Of the 84 respondents who named their setup, 29% run an SAP-led stack, usually supplemented by other providers, 21% a named non-SAP commercial platform or adviser, 21% a mix of local providers, government portals and regional tools, 7% an in-house or manual solution, and 20% did not disclose. The research does not rank vendors; the criteria buyers use are above.

### How is AI and automation being used in eInvoicing and VAT compliance?

Today's automation is rule-based and applied to routine work: 32% automate invoice generation, transmission and standard tax calculations, 24% extend that to extraction, validation, matching and reconciliation, and 16% describe broad straight-through processing. Where respondents mentioned AI, it was as the next step for reconciliation and exception detection, under the same rule: a person keeps the final filing and the exceptions.

### Which compliance activities can be automated, and where is human review still required?

Invoice generation, transmission and standard tax calculations (32%) and rule-based extraction, validation, matching and reconciliation (24%) are the activities buyers are comfortable letting software run alone. People keep approval of final filings, payments and external releases (32%) and review of exceptions, high-value items and regulatory judgement (32%).

### What proof should buyers ask for before trusting tax automation?

A pilot or parallel run on their own transaction data across several filing cycles, compared against manual review, with a low error rate and a complete audit trail of the checks and decisions (36%). Provider track record and references (22%) and transparent, inspectable tax logic (20%) support that proof but rarely replace it.

### Will eInvoicing replace periodic VAT returns?

The study did not measure legal changes to periodic returns or make jurisdiction-specific predictions. What it shows is the operating reality behind the question: as eInvoicing and VAT reporting converge, tax authorities hold transaction data before the return is filed, so 77% now treat reconciliation between the two as a growing priority and organisations are changing their platforms, data and controls accordingly.

## Conclusion

The multinationals in this study are not debating whether to connect VAT and eInvoicing compliance. 72% are consolidating onto a connected platform or already run one, and the rest mostly describe a hybrid estate they expect to simplify. Continuous, transaction-level reporting is forcing the question, and fragmentation is answering it: 77% feel the cost of separate country tools in manual reconciliation, missed deadlines and audit findings.

What stands between a hybrid estate and a connected one is proof. Buyers want depth of regulatory expertise in the markets that matter before a long country list, direct ERP integration with VAT-field mapping before any promise of automation, and a parallel run on their own data before they take their hands off the controls. Implementations slip on data and integration, so the buyers with no regrets are the ones who tested first.

The operating model that emerges is connected and controlled. Software generates, validates, transmits and reconciles; people approve what leaves the building and handle the exceptions. The business case that funds it pairs total cost of ownership with compliance risk. Providers that show local depth, ERP fit and a clean audit trail in the buyer's own environment are the ones this market will consolidate onto.

72% are moving. Only proof gets them there: connect the data, run it side by side on the buyer's own transactions, and keep accountability visible.

## Methodology

**How was this research conducted?** This research draws on 102 in-depth interviews with tax, finance, IT and operations leaders responsible for VAT compliance and eInvoicing at multinational organisations, conducted in October 2026 as conversational, AI-led, open-ended voice interviews. Interviews ran up to 55 minutes, with an average of 23 minutes, and totalled 38.8 hours. The 18-question flow covered the current compliance operating model, the drivers of continuous reporting, reconciliation and the cost of fragmentation, consolidation triggers, provider selection and ERP integration, automation and human oversight, implementation experience, and the internal business case. Respondents answered in their own words rather than from preset options.

**Who we interviewed** Respondents were screened to work at organisations with 500 or more employees and to hold indirect tax or eInvoicing obligations in at least one region outside the United States (the UK, EU/EEA, Middle East, Asia-Pacific or Latin America); organisations with obligations in the United States alone were excluded. Just over half of those who described their organisation reported annual revenue above €500 million. Roles spanned heads of tax, VAT and indirect tax; tax technology and compliance leads; finance directors, controllers and CFOs; IT and ERP leaders; and operations, procurement and shared-services managers. Of the 85 who said how many countries their obligations cover, 23 file in one to four countries, 35 in five to 25 and 27 in 26 or more. Company names are withheld.

**How we analysed it** Each interview response was coded to a small set of labels per question by AI semantic analysis of the transcript, followed by validation and cross-verification, and every transcript was independently reviewed by G2's AI Custom Research team. Percentages are calculated on the respondents who addressed each question, and the base is stated with every figure. Every quotation is verbatim from the interview transcript, with light cleanup of transcription stutters and misheard product names only, and is attributed by role only. Fintua commissioned this research. The G2 AI Custom Research team conducted it, with Anubha Garg as research analyst; respondents were recruited through independent research panels rather than from the Fintua customer base, Fintua took no part in the interviews, and all analysis, figures and conclusions belong to G2.

**Limits** Not every leader answered every question, so each percentage is calculated only on the people who did, and that number is stated with every figure; it ranges from 83 to 101. Findings are cut by one self-reported attribute, the number of countries a respondent's obligations cover; where a band rests on fewer than 30 people, as the one to four and 26 or more bands do, the report says so and treats the figure as an indication rather than a precise measurement. Company size, industry and function were not linked to transcripts, so findings are not cut by those. All respondents hold obligations outside the United States and most are hands-on with multi-country compliance, so the findings describe these buyers rather than the whole market.

**Topics covered:** Software Buying, Systems Integration