Most organisations believe payment is a back-office function.

Something for:

• finance teams,

• spreadsheets,

• approval cycles,

• and auditors.

In procurement, this belief is dangerously wrong.

Payment is not accounting.

Payment is governance.

It shapes behaviour more powerfully than any rulebook ever will.

________________________________________

The first question farmers really ask

Farmers rarely ask:

“Aapka system kaisa hai?”

They ask:

“Paise kab milenge?”

That question contains everything:

• trust,

• fear,

• dignity,

• and survival.

A farmer may tolerate:

• slightly lower price,

• minor quality disputes,

• seasonal volatility.

But payment uncertainty breaks relationships permanently.

________________________________________

A vegetable season near Shahpura

It’s April.

Procurement is going well.

Volumes are steady.

Rates are acceptable.

Payments are promised “within 7 days”.

Day 7 becomes day 10.

Day 10 becomes day 15.

No malice.

Just internal approvals, cash juggling, and delays.

Farmers don’t call immediately.

They wait.

By the time they speak up, trust has already thinned.

The system hasn’t failed legally —

but it has failed morally.

________________________________________

Delayed payment is silent coercion

Delayed payment does something subtle.

It:

• shifts financial stress downstream,

• forces farmers to borrow,

• and makes them compliant next time.

This is rarely acknowledged.

Many buyers treat delayed payment as:

“Cash flow management.”

Farmers experience it as:

“Power imbalance.”

Governance must name this honestly.

________________________________________

Milk systems understood this decades ago

Milk cooperatives survived not because they paid the highest rates —

but because they paid predictably.

Daily or weekly payments created:

• rhythm,

• trust,

• and loyalty.

Even when rates dipped,

farmers stayed — because money arrived on time.

Vegetable and animal procurement often ignore this lesson

and then wonder why farmers disappear quietly.

________________________________________

Payment frequency trains behaviour

Payment cycles teach farmers how to behave.

• Fast payment encourages honesty and consistency.

• Slow payment encourages overloading, gaming, and opportunism.

This is not moral judgement.

It is behavioural economics.

Governance that ignores this

creates the very behaviour it later complains about.

________________________________________

Partial payments and deductions hurt more than rejections

Nothing confuses and angers farmers more than:

• unexplained deductions,

• changing calculations,

• or partial payments without clarity.

Even small amounts feel insulting

when reasoning is unclear.

A rejected lot is visible.

A payment deduction feels sneaky.

Governance insists that every rupee deducted must be explainable calmly.

________________________________________

Digital payment doesn’t solve trust

Many organisations believe:

“Now we pay digitally — so things are transparent.”

Digital payment changes mode, not meaning.

If:

• timing is unpredictable,

• amounts vary without explanation,

• or support is unavailable,

digital payments feel just as arbitrary.

Governance is about predictability, not platforms.

________________________________________

When buyers confuse patience with consent

A dangerous assumption creeps in:

“They haven’t complained — so it’s fine.”

This is almost always wrong.

Farmers often stay silent because:

• complaining risks future business,

• power is uneven,

• or alternatives are limited.

Silence is not agreement.

It is often fear.

________________________________________

Payment behaviour reveals true priorities

Organisations reveal what they value by what they pay first.

If:

• salaries are paid on time,

• vendors are delayed,

• farmers are paid last,

the system has already declared its ethics.

Governance demands alignment between values and cash flow.

________________________________________

Live animals and delayed payment are explosive

In live animal procurement:

• delayed payment magnifies resentment,

• because effort, risk, and emotional load are higher.

Farmers remember such delays vividly —

and exit decisively.

Animal systems collapse faster than crop systems

when payment trust breaks.

________________________________________

A simple payment governance test

Ask this question honestly:

“If payment were delayed by the same logic we apply to farmers, would we accept it for ourselves?”

If the answer is no,

the system is unjust — even if legal.

________________________________________

Why this chapter matters

Many procurement systems collapse not on price,

but on payment credibility.

Once payment trust breaks:

• quality deteriorates,

• loyalty vanishes,

• and governance becomes irrelevant.

Money speaks louder than policy.

________________________________________

What comes next

Payments influence behaviour.

But incentives and penalties shape it deliberately.

If payment is the baseline,

then incentives are the steering wheel.

That’s where we go next.