Digital services are central to how businesses manage finances, people, and operations. As reliance on software grows, and AI capabilities become embedded across more products, users need confidence that security is built into how the technology is designed, developed, and maintained.

At Sage, maintaining software security is part of our wider commitment to building trust and resilience.

As signatories of the UK Government’s Cyber Resilience Pledge and ambassadors of the Software Security Code of Practice, we’re committed to finding practical ways to test our security approach, learn from the process, and help promote stronger security across the wider software ecosystem, while encouraging our partners to do the same.

Here’s what we talk about in this article:

Why Sage supports the Cyber Resilience Pledge 

Cyber resilience is not only a technical priority. It is essential to business continuity, customer confidence, and responsible innovation. By supporting the Pledge and the Code, Sage is reinforcing its commitment to secure software practices and collaboration between government and industry. This collaboration helps translate shared security principles into practical action: government provides a clear and consistent framework, while industry applies it in real operating environments and shares practical insights to support its continued relevance and wider adoption.

Our involvement with the Code reflects our broader responsibility to contribute beyond our own organisation. By sharing practical experience, Sage can help other organisations understand how the Code can be applied, encourage partners to adopt stronger practices and provide constructive industry insight into how voluntary frameworks work in practice. This helps build a more consistent approach to software security across the wider ecosystem and keep the focus on sustained resilience rather than one-off compliance. 

The approach

Sage selected the Copilot Factory Framework (CFF) for assessment against the Software Security Code of Practice as it provides AI capabilities that can be used across multiple products. This made it a meaningful test of whether established security practices could be demonstrated consistently in a shared, fast-evolving technology environment.

The CFF provides a scalable foundation for delivering AI-powered experiences across Sage products, enabling teams to build and deploy AI capabilities using consistent governance, security controls, and approved technologies. Assessing a shared platform therefore offered value beyond a single service: it tested the foundations that product teams rely on when bringing AI capabilities to customers.

The assessment was not simply about confirming alignment with individual controls. It examined how security decisions, evidence, and responsibilities connect across the full lifecycle and whether that approach could provide clear assurance to the teams that depend on the CFF.

The assessment brought together colleagues from Security, Product, Engineering, Architecture and Cloud Operations.

A dedicated security lead coordinated the collection and validation of evidence, and an independent third party, NCC Group, reviewed the evidence against the Code’s controls.

The independent review confirmed established strengths and created a clear route for further improvement. In particular, it showed where greater clarity, formality, and consistency would make existing governance easier to apply, evidence, and understand across teams.

Key outcomes and lessons learned

Embedding security throughout design and development 

The review reinforced the importance of building security into design and development decisions for the CFF. This includes the consistent governance of third-party services, software components, dependencies, and licences from the outset, supported by clear and accessible evidence. Embedding these practices early strengthens traceability, supports compliance, and helps product teams identify and address software security risks before delivery.

Validating assurance around the build environment 

The review validated the controls that protect the integrity and security of the software build environment, including managed access, strong authentication, infrastructure-as-code, and audit logging. It also identified an opportunity to introduce greater formality and consistency through repeatable access reviews, providing ongoing assurance that access remains appropriate and aligned with business need.

Validating secure deployment and maintenance

The review considered how vulnerabilities are identified, prioritised, and managed throughout the software lifecycle. It validated the effectiveness of existing vulnerability management practices against the Software Security Code of Practice, including automated security scanning, penetration testing, and defined remediation targets. The outcome was stronger assurance that risks are addressed according to their significance and managed consistently throughout the lifecycle. For teams using the CFF, this provides greater confidence that vulnerabilities affecting a shared platform can be identified and acted on in a structured and timely way.

Clarifying service commitments

Because the CFF primarily provides AI services to other Sage products, some of the Code’s requirements needed to be considered in the context of internal product customers.

The review validated the service governance supporting the CFF, including established support and communication processes, lifecycle management, and commitments around service retirement. It also identified opportunities to express these practices with greater clarity and formality. This provides dependent teams with greater transparency and predictability, reduces operational risk, enables more effective planning, and supports reliable service delivery across the organisation.

Advice and insights for other organisations

For organisations considering using the Code, our experience highlighted four practical ways to gain greater value from the assessment:

• Use the Code as a catalyst for improvement. The greatest value can come from the conversations the assessment creates and the opportunities it reveals. Clearly expressed governance and ownership can deliver greater clarity, accountability, and assurance. 
• Formalise what already works. Strong practices may already exist, but clear ownership, documented commitments and accessible evidence make it easier to demonstrate that controls are operating as intended. 
• Bring the right people together early. Software security spans more than one function. Involving Security, Product, Engineering, Architecture, and Cloud Operations creates a more complete view of how security is applied across the lifecycle. 
• Share practical learning. Implementation experience can help other organisations apply the Code, support wider adoption, and strengthen resilience across the software ecosystem.

Final thoughts: Future commitments

The Software Security Code of Practice offers organisations a valuable opportunity to strengthen security, build customer trust, and demonstrate responsible leadership.

For organisations considering the Code, the first step is to assess how its principles align with existing practices, identify where ownership or evidence could be strengthened, and involve the right teams early. The wider opportunity is to use the assessment not only to improve internal assurance, but also to contribute practical insight that helps raise standards across the industry.

Sage continues to advocate for the Code beyond our own assessment by sharing practical expertise and encouraging participation across our partner ecosystem. This extends the value of government-industry collaboration: lessons learned from implementation can support wider adoption, strengthen collective resilience and demonstrate how common principles can be applied in different operating environments. Zynk’s adoption of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s Software Security Code of Practice shows how shared learning and advocacy can help extend common security principles through the wider partner ecosystem.

More small businesses are now recording income and expenses directly in the banking and business apps they use every day.

But that doesn’t remove the need for professional accounting advice.

In fact, it can create new opportunities to support clients, particularly those who are still building confidence with digital record-keeping.

Clients still need your expertise to assess what they’ve recorded, identify what’s missing, and understand what it means for their business.

This article breaks down what embedded accounting means for your practice, how to support clients using it and take advantage of its benefits, and how Sage is helping accountants and bookkeepers stay connected to the record.

Here’s what we’ll cover:

What is embedded accounting?

Embedded accounting means accounting features are built directly into the banking, fintech, and business software platforms your clients already use.

This could look like capturing receipts, categorising transactions, or creating invoices within the same app they use to manage their money, depending on their chosen platform.

Many small businesses want to manage more of their day-to-day administration from a single platform.

Embedded accounting responds to that need by bringing record-keeping into the places where they already manage business activity.

What embedded accounting could mean for your practice?

You know how much time it takes chasing receipts or getting a clear explanation from a client about a payment they made months ago.

Embedded accounting helps clients build cleaner, digitised records from day one, giving you a better starting point for review.

Capturing information as they go also helps establish healthy digital habits, with Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Income Tax readiness built into the process from the start.

That can mean less chasing at quarter or year-end, when clients may have forgotten the details.

Being able to review those records without learning a different process for every client’s app is another big benefit.

A consistent workflow gives you new visibility into what clients have recorded and a way to address errors or missing information.

Clients can handle everyday record-keeping while you retain the professional oversight they rely on.

Embedded accounting also creates an opportunity for you to support new clients through the platforms they already use.

Small businesses can be more comfortable keeping everyday records in their existing apps but still need an accountant’s help.

You can build a relationship around the support they need now and develop it as their businesses grow.

How to support clients already using embedded accounting

Your clients may not call it “embedded accounting.”

Instead, they may tell you they have already categorised transactions or uploaded receipts in their banking app. 

Start by asking which platform they use and how they’ve been using it.

That should give you an idea of what information is available and the support they may need.

Next, establish your access to their records.

You’ll need to agree on the appropriate permissions with your client and understand where their platform supports accountant access, or a connection to the tools you use.

Confirm what information is shared and whether amendments update the underlying client record, so you both understand how you will work together.

Then consider what the app hasn’t captured.

Has the client used other accounts or cards? Have they paid business expenses personally?

Are there cash payments? These questions help you establish whether the records reflect the wider business activity.

Reviewing the records brings it all together.

For the period you are reviewing, check that transactions are supported, categorisation is appropriate, and gaps have been addressed.

For example, a payment labelled as a business expense may need clarification about what was purchased and how it was used before you can make the correct adjustments.

Set a regular cadence for resolving queries with your client.

Get clear about responsibilities for supplying information, reviewing entries, and handling submission to keep the work moving throughout the year.

How Sage keeps accountants connected to the record

Sage’s role in the embedded accounting evolution is to connect the place your embedded accounting clients keep their records with the tools you use to support them. 

Sage for Accountants’ Period Review capability provides accountants with a single, unified workflow for reviewing client data and preparing records before filing.

It connects your review work to the records your client maintains in their connected partner app.

You can search, sort, and update records in bulk within one consistent review experience, whether records come from Sage ledgers or Sage’s embedded accounting partner apps.

Supported by Sage-backed accounting standards, this helps you improve data quality throughout the year and build confidence that records are ready for submission.

Even if you don’t use the full version of Sage for Accountants today, you can still support clients using embedded accounting and plug directly into their activity.

Sage’s Period Review is now available for free within the software.

You can leverage the same visibility, review, and correct records with speed, all without learning a new workflow or app for every client. Sage Period Review for Accountants was built for accountants, by accountants.

The connection and functionality available will vary depending on the platform your client uses.

You can access Period Review through Sage for Accountants.

A new start to a deeper connection

Embedded accounting allows your clients to keep the freedom of choosing the products that suit them without changing where they start.

Sage for Accountants keeps you connected to their records, so you can support them as their business develops.

And there will be opportunities to do more.

 Future integrations will mean more tools and capabilities as Sage continues to partner with more of the platforms your current and potential clients use to manage their money.

Football clubs are often measured by what happens on the pitch. But at AFC Wimbledon, some of the club’s biggest successes happen from the touchline.

These successes happen in food distribution hubs, local warehouses, small businesses and volunteer groups across south-west London. Together, they tell a broader story about the role a football club can play in its community, not simply as a sporting institution.

And that’s what we talk about in this article, as follows:

Most CFO dashboards report numbers. Very few drive decisions. The difference isn’t the software behind them, it’s what’s on the screen and how it’s framed: a dashboard that lists twenty metrics with no context tells a CFO what happened, but not what to do about it. 

For CFOs, FDs and FP&A leaders at UK mid-market businesses building or refreshing a board-level dashboard, the temptation is to include everything the finance system can produce. The better question is narrower: what does the person looking at this dashboard need to decide, and does each metric help them decide it? 

Each of the sections below covers one of the five metric categories and what makes it decision-ready, followed by how to structure the dashboard as a whole. 

Here’s what we cover:

Why most CFO dashboards fail to drive decisions

Operational dashboards and CFO dashboards answer different questions, and a lot of CFO-level reporting fails because it borrows the operational dashboard’s instinct: more detail, more granularity, more charts. A department head needs to see the transactions behind a number. A CFO needs to see whether the business can make payroll in eight weeks, whether one entity is quietly dragging down group margin, and whether the quarter is tracking to plan closely enough to leave the forecast unchanged. 

That’s a smaller, sharper set of questions, and a dashboard built to answer them looks different from one built to display everything the finance system can produce. The starting point isn’t a list of available metrics. It’s a list of decisions the CFO actually makes, worked backwards into the numbers that inform them. 

The five metric categories that belong at CFO level

Five categories cover most of the decisions a CFO dashboard needs to support. The table summarises each; the sections below go into what makes them decision-ready rather than just informative. 

Cash: a forward view, not a balance

A single cash balance answers almost nothing on its own. What matters at CFO level is a rolling forward view, typically 13 weeks, that shows whether the business can fund payroll, supplier payments and debt service without intervention. The dashboard should also make clear how current that number actually is: a cash position that’s five days stale because the close is still catching up is a different signal from one refreshed this morning. 

This is one of the reasons close speed matters beyond the finance team itself. See why UK finance teams can’t close faster for what typically slows this down. 

Revenue by entity: comparable, not just visible

Once a business operates across more than one entity, aggregate revenue hides more than it reveals. A CFO dashboard needs revenue broken out by entity, using a consistent definition of revenue recognition and reporting period across all of them. Without that consistency, an entity comparison looks like insight but is actually noise, since each entity may be reporting on a slightly different basis. 

This becomes harder as a group adds entities through acquisition or expansion. See multi-entity finance: acquire and expand for how that complexity typically arrives. 

Pipeline: weighted, not raw

A raw pipeline total tells a CFO almost nothing about how much of it will actually convert to revenue. A decision-ready pipeline metric is weighted by stage and adjusted using historical conversion rates by segment, so the number on the dashboard reflects a realistic range rather than an optimistic ceiling. Where sales and finance disagree on what the pipeline is worth, that gap is itself worth surfacing rather than resolving quietly before it reaches the dashboard. 

Working capital: trended against growth

Working capital shown as a single figure rarely prompts action. Shown as a trend alongside revenue growth, it answers a much sharper question: is growth consuming a proportionate amount of cash, or is the business quietly funding its own expansion through slower supplier payments and looser credit control? A lot of that pressure shows up first in accounts payable and receivable processes. 

For what tends to drive working capital strain in growing businesses, see our guides to accounts payable management best practices and what AP automation actually does. 

Variance-to-budget: material and persistent, not every line

Line-by-line variance-to-budget reporting overwhelms rather than informs. At CFO level, the useful version flags only variances that are both material in size and persistent across more than one period, since a one-off timing difference rarely needs board attention while a variance that’s widened for three consecutive months usually does. 

This connects directly to how the forecast itself is built and maintained. See our guide to budget and forecasting for the process behind a variance figure worth trusting. 

Structuring the narrative, not just the numbers

The same five metrics can sit on a dashboard as a data dump or as a set of signals, and the difference is almost entirely structural. Three elements turn a number into something a CFO can act on: trend, so a single data point sits against its recent trajectory rather than standing alone; threshold, so it’s visually clear when a metric has crossed from normal into a range that needs attention; and a short line of context, explaining why a number has moved rather than leaving the reader to guess. 

Reporting and analytics built into the core finance platform, rather than exported and rebuilt in a separate tool, make this structure far easier to maintain consistently. See how Sage Intacct’s financial reporting capabilities and platform capabilities support this kind of reporting. 

Common mistakes that turn a dashboard into a data dump

Here’s what people do wrong, and how it can be fixed.

Final thoughts

Businesses that get the most out of a CFO dashboard tend to treat it as a living document, revisiting and pruning as the questions the business needs answered change, rather than a template built once and left alone. 

For a broader look at what finance leaders weigh up when choosing a platform built to support this kind of reporting, see why finance leaders choose Sage Intacct, and explore Sage Intacct more broadly. 

Sage Intacct’s product pages describe consolidating hundreds of entities in minutes rather than days. For a finance team that still spends the best part of a week on group consolidation each period, that claim can sound like marketing exaggeration. It isn’t an exaggeration, but the reason it’s true has more to do with architecture than speed for its own sake, and it’s worth understanding where that time actually goes before looking at what removes it. 

This piece is for group finance leaders, FDs and consolidation managers running a manual or semi-manual process across multiple entities: where the time disappears, what changes structurally when it doesn’t have to, and what the finance team’s role looks like once consolidation stops being a manual assembly job. 

Here’s what we cover:

Where the time actually goes in a manual consolidation

Consolidation looks like one task from the outside: combine the entities, produce group numbers. In practice, most of the time sits in four distinct steps, each of which is manual by default unless the underlying system is built to automate it. 

Several of these steps compound the same underlying problem covered in why UK finance teams can’t close faster: manual, disconnected processes that scale badly as entity count grows. 

A worked example: Consolidating six entities the manual way

Take a UK group with a parent company and five subsidiaries across two currencies, consolidating on a spreadsheet-based process. Days one and two are spent waiting on entity-level trial balances, since each subsidiary closes on a slightly different timetable. Day three is spent identifying and matching intercompany transactions, a step that regularly surfaces mismatches from postings made on only one side of a transaction. Day four covers currency translation and the resulting adjustments. Day five is reserved for reconciliation, review, and fixing whatever didn’t tie out the first time. 

None of these five days involves analysis. All of them involve assembling data that, in an automated system, already sits on a single ledger in a consistent format. That’s the gap the architectural decisions below are designed to close. 

The architectural decisions that change the maths

Three structural choices account for most of the difference between a week-long consolidation and one measured in minutes. 

A standardised chart of accounts and shared ledger structure become more valuable, not less, as a group adds entities. See multi-entity finance: acquire and expand for how that complexity typically arrives, and how core financials built around a single ledger support it. 

What “minutes, not days” actually means

The specific claim, consolidating hundreds of entities in minutes rather than days, comes from how Sage Intacct’s architecture handles the four time-consuming steps above. Because entities sit on a single ledger with a standardised chart of accounts, intercompany transactions are matched as they’re posted rather than reconciled after the fact, and currency translation applies automatically using live rates. None of the manual assembly work in the worked example above needs to happen at all, which is the actual source of the time saved rather than the system simply running the same manual steps faster. 

This connects to reporting as much as processing speed. See how Sage Intacct’s platform capabilities support consolidated reporting once the underlying data no longer needs manual assembly. 

Final thoughts: What the finance team’s role becomes

When consolidation stops requiring five days of data assembly, the finance team’s time doesn’t disappear, it moves. Instead of matching transactions and chasing subsidiary data, the group finance function spends that time reviewing consolidated numbers for what they actually mean: which entity is under-performing, where working capital is building up, and what the board needs to know before it asks. 

Clean account reconciliation practices matter more, not less, in this model, since automated matching still needs a well-maintained ledger behind it. See what is account reconciliation and our guide to accounts payable management best practices for what underpins that shift. 

Explore Sage Intacct for how this architecture supports group consolidation as entity count grows. 

A single profit and loss account is a good measure of a business with one entity, one revenue stream, and straightforward ownership. It stops being a good measure the moment any of those things change. Add a subsidiary, launch a second revenue stream, or bring in a joint venture partner, and a single P&L starts to hide more than it shows, not because the numbers are wrong, but because they’ve stopped answering the questions the business now needs answered. 

This is written for FDs at growing UK owner-managed businesses and scale-ups approaching mid-market maturity. It recognises that their reporting has outgrown a single P&L and there’s a need to understand what replaces it. This is not for finance teams already running mature group reporting. 

Each of the three areas below maps to one of these complexity drivers, since treating them as generic reporting topics misses why they’re needed in the first place. 

Here’s what we cover:

Why a single P&L stops being enough

A single P&L aggregates everything into one set of numbers, which is exactly what makes it limited once a business is no longer a single, simple thing. Aggregated revenue can rise while the underlying business mix shifts unfavourably. Aggregated margin can look healthy while one entity subsidises another. A joint venture’s results can sit awkwardly inside consolidated figures that assume full ownership. None of these problems show up in a single P&L, because a single P&L isn’t built to show them. 

The table below sets out the three most common drivers of this shift and what each one requires from reporting. 

Consolidated reporting: Seeing the group, not just the parent

As soon as a second entity joins the group, the parent company’s P&L stops representing the business. Consolidated reporting brings subsidiary results together in a way that shows both the group total and the entity-level detail behind it, so a strong group number doesn’t quietly mask one underperforming subsidiary. This needs a consistent chart of accounts and reporting calendar across entities; without that, consolidated numbers look precise but rest on inconsistent underlying data. 

This reporting need often arrives alongside consolidation speed becoming a bottleneck in its own right, which is a related but separate problem covered in Group consolidation: Why it takes so long and how to fix it. See also multi-entity finance: acquire and expand for how this complexity typically arrives. 

Segmental analysis: Seeing performance by revenue stream

A business that launches a second product line, enters a new market, or adds a services arm alongside a product business will find that a single revenue figure increasingly hides the story. Segmental analysis breaks results down by revenue stream, showing which parts of the business are actually generating growth and which are being carried by the others. Done well, it uses the same underlying data as the P&L, just structured by dimension rather than collapsed into one total, so segment reporting doesn’t become a separate manual exercise from the core close. 

Reporting built to cut the same data multiple ways, rather than requiring a separate process per view, makes this far more sustainable. See how Sage Intacct’s financial reporting capabilities support segmental views without duplicating the reporting effort. 

Management accounts structure: Accounting for joint ventures

Joint ventures and shared ownership structures don’t fit neatly into either full consolidation or a simple investment line. Management accounts need to represent the group’s actual economic interest, typically through equity accounting or proportionate consolidation depending on the level of control, and that structure has to be built into the reporting process rather than adjusted for manually each period. Getting this wrong doesn’t just misstate one line; it distorts group margin and return metrics that depend on it. 

This level of structural flexibility depends on the underlying reporting platform, not just the accounting policy chosen. See how Sage Intacct’s platform capabilities support more complex ownership structures, and our guide to accounts payable management best practices for how clean transactional data feeds accurate management accounts at this level of complexity. 

Final thoughts: What a mature group reporting structure looks like

None of these three areas works well in isolation. Consolidated reporting without segmental analysis hides which parts of the group are actually performing. Segmental analysis without a consistent chart of accounts produces numbers that don’t tie back to the consolidated total. And a joint venture structure bolted onto either after the fact tends to require manual adjustment every period rather than sitting cleanly inside the reporting process. 

A reporting structure built to handle group consolidation quickly also tends to support these other views more easily, since they draw on the same underlying data. Timely, closed numbers matter here too: see why UK finance teams can’t close faster for what typically slows the close down before any of this reporting can happen. 

Explore Sage Intacct for how group financial reporting can be structured around consolidated, segmental, and ownership-aware views without separate manual processes for each. 

The CFO role has always included two jobs: keeping score and shaping strategy. What’s changed is the balance between them. Deloitte’s Finance Trends 2026 report, based on a survey of 1,326 global finance leaders, found that 57% now play a leading role in shaping their organisation’s strategy, and that these strategy-influencing leaders manage 20% more responsibilities than peers who remain focused on financial stewardship alone. 

That shift is well documented, but it doesn’t happen by itself. It depends on three enablers working together: systems that free up time, skills that shift from technical to commercial, and team structures that reorganise around business partnering rather than transaction processing (source: Deloitte, Finance Trends 2026). 

Here’s what we cover:

What the shift from scorekeeper to strategist actually means 

A scorekeeper CFO produces accurate, timely numbers about what already happened: the close, the management accounts, the statutory reporting. A strategist CFO does that as a baseline and also shapes what happens next, sitting in decisions about pricing, investment, market entry and resource allocation before they’re made rather than reporting on them afterwards. The two aren’t mutually exclusive; the shift is about how much of the CFO’s time and attention moves from the first to the second. 

None of that shift happens because a CFO decides to spend more time in strategy meetings. It happens because the systems, skills and team structure underneath the role change enough to make it possible. 

Enabler one: Systems that free up time for analysis 

The most basic constraint on any CFO’s move toward strategy is time, and most of that time is currently spent on data assembly rather than analysis. The Access Group’s 2026 survey of 400 UK mid-market CFOs and Finance Directors found that finance teams lose an average of 20 hours a month consolidating fragmented data across disconnected systems, and that 84% of respondents were planning to switch finance software as a result (source: The Access Group, Mid-Market Finance Report 2026).

Twenty hours a month is roughly two and a half working days, recovered only when the underlying systems stop requiring manual reconciliation between them. 

This is the same constraint covered in why UK finance teams can’t close faster: a close that consumes most of the month leaves little time for the analysis that strategic input actually requires. 

Enabler two: Skills that shift from technical to commercial 

Systems create the time; skills determine what happens with it. Deloitte’s research found that 64% of finance leaders plan to build more technical and commercial capability into their function, reflecting a broader shift in what CFOs are expected to bring to the table: not just technical accounting expertise, but the ability to read a market, model a decision, and communicate a recommendation to non-finance stakeholders. 

For CFOs and FDs newly stepping into this expanded remit, this shift often shows up earliest in the first few months of a new role. See our new CFO’s first 90 days checklist for what tends to matter most early on, and our overview of financial planning software for the tools that typically support this more commercial, forward-looking way of working. 

Enabler three: Team structure built around business partnering 

The third enabler is organisational. Finance functions built around transaction processing, one team per process area, tend to reinforce a scorekeeper mindset by design, since the structure itself is built around producing accurate historical numbers. Functions further along this shift tend to layer a business partnering structure on top: analysts and finance leads embedded alongside commercial, operational or sector teams, translating finance data into decisions those teams can act on directly. 

This shows up distinctly by sector. In financial services specifically, the pressure to combine regulatory rigour with commercial agility has pushed this restructuring further and faster than in many other industries; see sustainable growth for financial services firms and Sage Intacct’s financial services experience for how that plays out in practice. 

Final thoughts: What this means for CFOs and FDs building the case internally 

None of these three enablers moves quickly on its own. Systems change takes a business case and a transition period. Skills development takes time and, often, different hiring. Team restructuring takes buy-in beyond the finance function itself. What the data suggests is that businesses treating these as three connected changes, rather than picking one, tend to make the shift faster than those addressing them in isolation. 

For CFOs already working through what a more decision-oriented reporting structure looks like in practice, two related pieces are worth reading alongside this one. 

Explore Sage Intacct for how the underlying finance system fits into this shift as one of the three enablers, not a replacement for the other two. 

From very limited stock to more than 100 trucks on the hire fleet, BLC Forklifts has grown steadily since the 1990s. It has served thousands of businesses, from furniture suppliers and caterers to film sets and football stadium advertisers.

In this article, we talk about the secrets of its success, as follows:

How did BLC Forklifts reduce manual admin?

A finance system that worked well at £10 million in revenue doesn’t always keep pace at £30 million. That’s rarely because the software broke. It’s because growth changes what a finance system needs to do, and the gap between what it does and what the business now needs widens quietly, month by month, until someone finally asks why the close is taking three days longer than it used to. 

For financial controllers, FDs and CFOs at growing mid-market businesses, that gap rarely announces itself all at once. It shows up as a handful of small frictions that each seem manageable on their own: an extra day here, a workaround there, until the pattern becomes impossible to ignore. 

Each of these signs is worth examining on its own, because together they build a clear picture of whether your finance system is still supporting growth or starting to limit it. 

Here’s what we cover:

The finance system ceiling 

Every finance system has a ceiling: a point at which transaction volume, entity count or reporting complexity outgrows what the platform was built to handle. Below that ceiling, a system can look perfectly adequate: month-end close finishes on time, reports come out reasonably fast, and finance keeps pace with the rest of the business. 

Growth changes the maths. More transactions mean more manual matching. More entities mean more consolidation work. More stakeholders mean more report formats, cut differently for the board, for investors, for department heads. None of this happens overnight, which is exactly why it’s easy to miss. The system doesn’t fail outright; it just gets slower, one quarter at a time, until the constraint is unmistakable. 

The five warning signs your finance system has become the constraint 

The rationale behind each of these signs is different, but together they’re the clearest diagnostic for whether a finance system is still fit for purpose. The table below summarises each one; the sections that follow go into more detail. 

1. Close cycles keep getting longer, not shorter 

A close that used to take five working days creeping to eight, then twelve, is one of the most visible signs of a finance system under strain. It’s tempting to treat this as a team or process issue: tighten the timetable, add a checklist, chase people harder. But when the same finance team, working the same hours, takes longer to close each quarter as transaction volume grows, the constraint is usually the system: manual journal entries, reconciliations that don’t happen automatically, and subsidiary data that has to be chased and re-keyed rather than pulled in cleanly. 

For a closer look at why this happens even in well-run finance teams, see why UK finance teams can’t close faster. 

2. Spreadsheet workarounds are multiplying 

Almost every finance team has at least one spreadsheet holding something the core system can’t. The problem isn’t the first one. It’s the fifth and sixth, each built to bridge a different gap: intercompany allocations, invoice tracking, revenue schedules, approval workflows assembled outside the system because the system doesn’t support them natively. Each spreadsheet is a single point of failure, dependent on the person who built it and vulnerable to version control errors that are hard to catch until a number doesn’t reconcile. 

This is particularly common around accounts payable, where manual matching and approval routing tend to migrate into spreadsheets first. See our guide to accounts payable management best practices for what a more resilient process looks like. 

3. Reporting takes longer every quarter, not less 

As the business grows, the reports finance is asked to produce multiply: more entities to break out, more detail for investors, more cuts of the same data for different audiences. If pulling those reports still means exporting data into spreadsheets and rebuilding formatting by hand, the time cost rises in step with the business, rather than staying flat as it should on a system built to scale. 

A finance platform with reporting and analytics built into its core, rather than bolted on, changes this dynamic. See how Sage Intacct’s platform capabilities support this. 

4. Consolidating multiple entities has become a manual project 

Adding a subsidiary, entering a new market or completing an acquisition changes the maths on consolidation overnight. Intercompany eliminations, currency translation and disparate charts of accounts that were manageable across two entities become a genuine project across five or six, particularly when consolidation still happens through spreadsheets rather than a system designed to consolidate automatically. 

This is one of the clearest growth triggers for reassessing a finance system. Read more in multi-entity finance: acquire and expand. 

5. Audit trails have gaps that are hard to explain 

Manual journal entries, approvals granted by email, and overrides that never made it into a formal log all create the same problem: when an auditor asks who approved a transaction and why, the answer takes longer to find than it should, or doesn’t exist in a form anyone can point to. This rarely causes a problem until it does: a qualified audit finding, a compliance query, or simply hours lost each year reconstructing a trail that should have been automatic. 

Built-in financial controls close this gap by design. See how Sage Intacct’s core financials capabilities maintain a full audit trail as standard. 

Why these signs compound 

None of these five signs sits in isolation. Spreadsheet workarounds introduce errors that extend the close. A longer close delays reporting. Weak reporting infrastructure makes consolidation harder. Manual processes at every stage leave gaps in the audit trail. The effect is a feedback loop: each quarter, finance spends more time producing numbers and less time analysing them, which is usually the opposite of what a growing business needs from its finance function. 

This is also why the question, “When should a business upgrade its accounting software?”, rarely has a single trigger. It’s the accumulation of two or three of these signs appearing together, consistently, over several reporting cycles, that indicates a systems problem rather than a temporary bottleneck. 

What’s adding to the pressure at mid-market scale 

Certain growth events accelerate all five signs at once. The table below sets out the most common triggers and what they typically add to the finance function’s workload. 

Finance teams are also increasingly weighing whether their current system can support AI-assisted reporting and analysis at all, rather than treating it as a future consideration. See Sage Copilot: secure by design, AI made ready for finance for what that looks like in practice. 

Recognising the pattern before it becomes a crisis 

Most finance teams don’t replace their system because of a single dramatic failure. They replace it because two or three of these signs have been present for long enough that waiting any longer carries more risk than acting: a missed board deadline, a qualified audit finding, or simply the realisation that the system can’t support the business at its next stage of growth without a disproportionate amount of manual effort holding it together. 

As a general guide, the more of the five warning signs that are present together, and the longer they persist, the stronger the case for a formal review: 

Final thoughts

This is the gap platforms like Sage Intacct are built to close for growing mid-market businesses. Rather than adding another tool alongside the finance system, they remove the need for the workarounds in the first place. Recognising which of these signs apply to your business now is the first step, well before any formal evaluation of new software begins. 

Managers are being asked to do more than ever.

They’re expected to deliver results, support employee wellbeing, develop skills, manage performance, and help teams adapt to constant change.

But the support around them hasn’t always kept pace. Sage’s HR and Payroll Leaders’ Report found that 78% of HR managers feel more stretched than they did 2 years ago, while 49% feel stressed about their jobs.

 HR managers are also under growing pressure to support stressed line managers across the wider business.

So why are managers today under so much pressure?

The research points to a wider issue: managers are being asked to lead digital transformation, support wellbeing, develop skills, improve retention, and manage performance, but many still lack the time, tools, and support needed to do all those things effectively.

In this article, we’ll look at why pressure is rising and what HR can do to help managers perform without burning out.

Here’s what we’ll cover:

Why are managers under so much pressure?

For HR managers, workloads are becoming broader as well as heavier, with responsibility stretching across more areas of the business.

Sage’s research shows how quickly the role is expanding.

Over the next 5 years, 63% of HR managers expect to spend more time on digital transformation and 60% on strategic planning.

The same proportion expect to do more around employee wellbeing and working practices, while 59% expect to spend more time retaining talent and supporting skills development.

That means managers are increasingly moving between very different demands.

They might be helping set strategy in one meeting, dealing with a wellbeing concern in the next, then trying to solve a skills gap or manage performance later that day.

And the pressure doesn’t stop with their own workload.

HR managers are stretched by their own expanding remit while also being asked to support line managers facing pressure elsewhere in the organisation.

Manager workload challenges are already an issue, and they’re only increasing.

It’s easy to understand why managers are stressed nowadays.

This is why growing pressure on managers shouldn’t automatically be seen as a performance issue.

When the remit keeps expanding, managers need the capacity, tools, and support to expand with it.

Without them, asking people to simply become more resilient only addresses the symptom.

Why manager burnout needs a wider response

What happens when managers are overstretched?

How HR can better support managers

2. Equip managers with practical tools

3. Build support into the working week

4. Track whether managers are coping

Start small and grow

Supporting managers doesn’t have to mean launching a major new programme.

Start by identifying one source of pressure you can improve.

Maybe priorities are unclear, or managers don’t have enough visibility into workload.

You might also find that difficult conversations are where they need the most support.

Then introduce one practical change to address it.

That could be a clearer weekly priority check-in, a workload tool, or more regular support from HR.

Once that change becomes part of how managers work, build from there.

The aim is to create consistent support that helps managers address pressure early, before stress, burnout, and performance issues start affecting their teams.

Want to put these ideas into action?

Download the Managers Under Pressure infographic for practical tools, weekly routines, and manager support frameworks you can start using today.

Frequently asked questions about manager pressure and burnout

What causes manager burnout?

Manager burnout can develop when demands keep rising without a corresponding increase in capacity or support.

A broader remit can leave managers juggling competing priorities while still being expected to support the people around them.

What are the signs that a manager is under too much pressure?

Changes in workload can be an early warning sign.

Rising overtime or absence may indicate that pressure is building, while slipping progress can show that a team is struggling to keep up.

Talk to managers directly too.

Ask whether their priorities feel clear and where they’re finding the role most difficult.

Sage’s manager enablement framework also recommends checking managers’ confidence in areas such as feedback and performance conversations.

How can HR support stressed managers?

Start by making the job easier to navigate.

Managers should know what matters most and have access to the information they need without having to chase HR for every answer.

Regular check-ins also give them a chance to raise workload concerns or ask for help before problems escalate.

Support works best when it becomes part of everyday management rather than something offered only when someone is already struggling.

How can organisations reduce pressure on managers?

The first step is to identify where the pressure is coming from.

If unnecessary work is consuming managers’ time, look for ways to remove or simplify it.

If they lack confidence in parts of the role, focus support and training there.

Sage’s research also shows that HR leaders see better technology and stronger senior leadership support as important ways to tackle the challenges they face.

How can technology help managers manage their teams?

Technology can make important team information easier to see in one place.

Instead of piecing together different sources, managers can get a clearer view of workload, wellbeing, and performance and spot potential problems sooner.

Browse more topics from this article

Recommended

17 September, 2026
6 min read

Employment status: Meaning and importance

Employment status might sound like a dry topic, but it’s critical for small businesses. Learn what it means in this article.