Structured Addresses: Why Is Something So Simple Becoming So Complicated?
Postal addresses. Probably not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the future of payments. So why is the financial industry suddenly paying so much attention to how they are structured?
Think about the last time you entered an address. A street name, a building number, a postcode, a city and a country. Nothing particularly exciting.
For a person reading that address, understanding it is usually straightforward. We recognise what belongs where, even when the information is presented in different formats.
But what happens when that same information needs to travel through multiple financial systems, across banks and national borders, without human intervention?
An address might be written as a single line in one system, split across several fields in another and stored differently again in a third.
Suddenly, something as ordinary as a postal address becomes a challenge for automated payment processing.
When readable information isn't enough
The financial industry has spent years working towards faster, more automated and increasingly interconnected payment processes.
ISO 20022 is an important part of this transformation. By providing a common approach to financial messaging, it supports the exchange of information between different participants in the financial ecosystem.
Introducing a common standard is one thing. Ensuring that existing data can be interpreted consistently across different systems is another.
Payment information includes account details, transaction references and information about the parties involved. For humans, understanding this information often comes naturally, even when it is presented inconsistently.
Automated systems, however, depend on data being sufficiently clear and consistent to process it reliably.
How much of the payment industry's transformation depends not on new technology, but on the quality and meaning of the data we already have?
The hidden complexity of existing payment data
Modern payment infrastructures do not operate in isolation. They are connected to systems, processes and data that have often developed over many years.
For corporate customers, payment information may originate in an ERP system, pass through a treasury management solution or corporate banking platform and eventually reach several banks and payment infrastructures.
Consider a large corporate managing thousands of suppliers across multiple countries. Its supplier information may have been collected over decades, entered by different employees, imported from external sources or transferred during system migrations.
Even if that information has supported payment processing for years, it does not necessarily mean that every data element is stored consistently.
An address might be complete and correct from a business perspective, yet still be difficult to interpret automatically when it reaches another system.
This illustrates a broader challenge in digital transformation.
Data that has worked well in established processes is not automatically ready for new levels of automation.
Changing how address information is represented may sound like a manageable technical adjustment. But when that information is used across ERP systems, payment applications, banks and other parts of the payment chain, new requirements can affect multiple processes and participants.
For banks, this raises questions about how information is received, validated, processed and passed on.
For corporates, it can involve the relationship between master data, ERP systems, payment files and banking applications.
The challenge is not necessarily defining how information should look in the future. It is understanding what needs to change to get there.
Standardisation is a journey, not a single switch
ISO 20022 provides a common foundation for financial messaging, but it does not define every implementation requirement. Individual payment communities determine how the standard is applied in their respective environments.
For example, SEPA payment schemes and SWIFT CBPR+ use ISO 20022 within different market practices, with their own requirements for payment information.
As a result, supporting ISO 20022 does not automatically mean that the same requirements or implementation timelines apply across all payment environments.
The discussion around structured addresses illustrates this particularly well.
What appears to be a relatively simple change to address information can therefore involve different expectations depending on the payment scheme and the systems involved.
For banks and corporates, this creates a practical dilemma.
How should organisations prepare for changes when requirements and timelines may differ across the environments in which they operate?
And how can they make progress without treating every new requirement as an isolated technical project?
These questions extend beyond structured addresses. They reflect a recurring challenge in financial services: balancing the modernisation of existing infrastructure with the need to keep everyday banking processes running reliably.
What does this mean for corporate banking?
For banks and corporates, structured addresses raise questions that go beyond technical format compatibility.
Where does address information originate? How is it maintained? And can its meaning be preserved throughout the payment process?
These questions are particularly relevant in multibanking environments, where corporate banking platforms connect different systems, banks and payment formats.
The challenge is not simply to support evolving standards, but to ensure that the underlying payment data can support them
Interested in exploring this topic further?
Next Thursday, we'll be taking a closer look in a new episode of our podcast coco:cast, exploring what it means for corporate banking. Subscribe today so you don't miss it!
Contact
