Structured Addresses: Swift’s Temporary Postponement Is No Reason to Slow Down

With ISO 20022 now the reference standard for financial exchanges, the planned requirement to formally structure addresses in payment instructions will improve the fluidity of payments and strengthen their security.
It sounds eminently sensible. However, the harsh reality for firms failing to put their address data in order before the new structured address data rules come into force – a revised implementation timeline is expected to be announced by December 2026– will be the increased risk of payments being rejected by banks. 
But the fear of generating a raft of new and troublesome NAK (not acknowledged) payment service messages need not induce panic. Help is at hand for treasurers willing to pick up the pace and start engaging now. Indeed, the key message today for corporates is do not pause your migration plans but take advantage of the extended timeframe to complete the work. For those already having made upgrades to meet the requirement for structured addresses, messages can flow seamlessly across the Swift network.

A compromise… for now

Domestic adoption of structured addresses is seen by Swift as a critical enabler of cross-border progress. The original plan was to come into force from 14 November 2026. However, a Swift community delay request was accepted, and it was announced in August 2026 to postpone the implementation, as a parts of the industry, across all regions, were not ready. 

Swift is now consulting with banks, central banks, and market infrastructures, as well as with market practice groups and corporates, to define the optimal timing and approach, ahead of the December 2026 announcement. It is clear that the change will still go ahead.
When a new deadline is announced, at the new point of enactment, addresses provided in an unstructured (i.e. free-text) format will no longer be accepted in interbank exchanges. This applies to all addresses provided in payment orders, and in particular to the beneficiary’s address. Once enacted, failure to comply may result in significantly slower or even rejected transactions.

But for all affected payment remittances — SEPA credit transfers (standard or instant), international, urgent, or treasury transfers, as well as direct debits — regardless of the transmission channel or the format used (XML or MT101), there is already an option of submitting payments using a hybrid format. The hybrid format was launched as an option in November 2025 to ease the transition. The hybrid model permits the inclusion of just the structured fields for ‘town name’ and ‘country code’, allowing free-text address lines for the remaining details, such as building number, street name and postal code. 
However, following the postponement of the address-related changes, it remains unclear whether some countries will still move to hybrid addresses or directly to fully structured addresses when the deadline comes. The fully structured address therefore remains the reference format and the most widely accepted worldwide.
Furthermore, it may be useful to clarify that an address is not always mandatory. The requirement to provide an address depends on the payment type, currency, and countries involved.
For example, in the case of a SEPA Credit Transfer (SCT), the beneficiary's address is optional. An SCT submitted without a beneficiary address will still be processed successfully. However, whenever an address is provided, even when it is optional, it must comply with the applicable formatting requirements.

The work starts here

While the respite offered by Swift may be a welcome relief for many corporates (and banks), it should be noted that some countries are pushing ahead with the structured address programme regardless for their payments in domestic currencies (such as Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan), which is worth taking into consideration for corporates present in these countries. 

Because other countries may also elect to form an advance party, corporates should now be considering the impact of these changes, and planning their responses, ahead of schedule too. Indeed, despite the delay, many companies still face a significant internal undertaking, whether seeking full or hybridised message status. In some cases, Bourgier, believes that the work required will necessitate a fundamental overhaul of how third-party data (customers and suppliers) are managed, and that this may include changes to internal and third-party-provided IT systems.
This increases the demands made on treasury’s time. Within the payments domain alone many are currently tackling internal projects in electronic invoicing, instant payment and real-time data exchange space, for example. “The complexity of these existing projects is a reason why treasury may not have been fully focused on the shift to structured addresses,” acknowledges Bourgier. “But what we have seen is that more and more are beginning to identify this as a major topic, and not necessarily a simple one.”

Sharp-end focus

The first step will be to isolate the country code and town name from the rest of the address, suggests Bourgier. To this end, tools have been created that can automatically or semi-automatically achieve this on a range of address databases. “In practice it’s a bit more complex than that because this data is typically part of a far wider ecosystem covering treasury systems as well as areas such as procurement, logistics and sales.”

Address data will often travel a circuitous route through these systems within a company, or even group of companies. Its journey may also include external providers such as contractors and outsourced service providers. “The first task is to ensure that all address databases are able to receive structured or hybrid addresses, and then to confirm that all the different steps through which data passes are compatible with the structured address system.”

Depending on factors such as the size and geographic distribution of the corporate, and the number of steps and IT assets that internal and third-party data passes through as part of a payment, Bourgier warns of the potential for this to become “a fairly significant project”.
“The temptation is to see this as a simple case of manipulating one or two lines of a database, with the expectation that AI or another tool can offer a quick fix. While it’s true that these tools can lift a lot of the load, it’s important to understand that often the real impact stems from how the whole payments chain in a company combines. It’s vital to acknowledge that the chain may rely on a number of vendors that are operating on different delivery timelines for updates.”

Of the automated solutions that are available, Bourgier notes that major TMS and ERP providers are already supporting clients with tools to scan databases and propose address updates. Of note too is Swift’s free open-source AI address structuring model. 
Nonetheless, using these tools is “a good way to make quick progress” with this task, comments Bourgier. But he underscores the need to take the broader systemic view, ensuring all touch points across the payment chain are compatible with the new addresses. “This is usually where the heaviest workload is located.”
One of the most effective tools in this context, he notes, is MyStandards. This is a collaborative web platform, developed by Swift, to better manage ISO messaging standards and market practices. It is being used in this setting to enable corporates to test the compatibility of their payments files once address changes have been made to their data sources.

Pushing on

Swift published a report in July 2026, revealing that  half of payment messages still contain unstructured addresses. While the deadline has shifted, this still represents a significant number of potential future rejects, comments Bourgier, in a ‘call to action’. 

Even with the delay, he says Societe Generale anticipates that some corporates may not be ready. “It’s why we are keeping to our communication programme with our corporate clients.” This has become a targeted activity. Using its own data, the bank’s team is mirroring the actions of Swift, monitoring payments being made and identifying the cases where addresses remain unstructured.

Societe Generale’s commercial teams and relationship managers are now equipped to bring the deadline, whenever that may be, to the attention of clients and provide them with resources, such as explanatory documents and videos. “Corporate client feedback suggests that not all banks are communicating the message with the same level of urgency. With many corporates still believing it to be an interbank issue, or one that has been pushed back indefinitely, our number one priority is still raising awareness.”

While the level of communication from Societe Generale has ramped up, Bourgier acknowledges that the sudden realisation of what’s needed is dawning among corporates. “It can hit hard when they realise the full extent of what they need to do,” he says. But we are supporting them through expertise on our side, documentation indicating whether an address is mandatory or optional, and structured address testing platforms to help them on their way. It’s working. We are seeing the number of messages using unstructured data gradually decreasing among our own clients.”

Taking responsibility 

Ultimately, it's in the remit of the corporate to ensure its payments data meets the requirements of the new structured address regime when (and preferably before) it arrives. It will be a demanding programme for many to ensure the changes remain in line with Swift’s plans. But there is strong motivation as the risk of rejected or delayed payments files is real. 
Societe Generale’s clients will all be aware by now of what needs to be done. But they will also be aware that their bank is equipped to provide the guidance and support to ensure that their payments data is in the best possible shape once the changes happen. 

Payments in the early-adopter countries notwithstanding, time is now a little more on the side of all those impacted. With additional support from vendors, and the adoption of tools created to move this issue along at pace, it’s clear that what many treasurers may have been facing up to with a growing sense of apprehension may now be approached in a more measured and indeed structured manner.
 

Expert View produced by TMI.