On electronic invoicing, the costly confusion is not about the timetable, it is about the casting. Three families of providers show up with a similar pitch, and many business owners assume that picking one exempts them from the others. It does not, and the mistake surfaces at go-live.
This article does not rank brands. It splits the roles, states which one carries accountability, and sets out when you genuinely need all three.
In short:
- The approved platform transmits, it does not advise and never rules on your compliance.
- The integrator connects your existing system, and is only needed if that system is non-standard.
- The firm establishes the scope, arbitrates and gives an opinion on tax compliance. It is the only one of the three that does.
- The simplest setup is a firm that already embeds a registered platform, so you keep a single provider accountable for the outcome.
The roles at a glance
| Approved platform (former PDP) | Integrator | Accounting firm | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main role | Issue, receive, transmit in structured format | Connect your tools to the platform | Frame the scope, arbitrate, verify |
| Registered by the tax authority | Yes, with a verifiable number | No | No, but registered with the professional body |
| Rules on your tax compliance | No | No | Yes |
| Picks the platform for you | No, it is judge and jury | Sometimes, from its own catalogue | Yes, that is its job |
| Trains your teams | On the tool | On the configuration | On the process and obligations |
| Essential? | Always | Only outside the standard | Strongly recommended |
1. The approved platform, the mandatory component
This is the one provider you cannot do without. From 1 September 2026, every VAT-registered business established in France must be able to receive electronic invoices, and those invoices travel through a registered platform.
One point of terminology explains many misunderstandings. The official term today is approved platform, or PA. It replaced partner dematerialisation platform, the well-known PDP acronym, still widely used in content and conversation. Both mean the same thing, and if a provider still says PDP, that is not a warning sign, merely older vocabulary.
What an approved platform does not do is the point to remember. It applies rules, it does not interpret them. An invoice can travel through a perfectly registered platform and still be non-compliant in substance, missing mandatory fields, incorrect VAT treatment, a badly established scope. The platform will not tell you, that is not its job and it carries no accountability for it.
The check to run. Ask for the registration number and verify it against the official list published by the tax authority. The reform produced a notable number of opportunistic offers, and this check takes minutes.
2. The integrator, useful only outside the standard
The integrator sits between your tools and the platform. It configures the flows, handles the formats, and deals with cases where your information system does not natively speak the expected language.
It is a real trade and a scarce skill, but most companies do not need it. If you use market-standard invoicing software and an accounting portal, vendors have already built the connection, and paying for integration work means funding a problem you do not have.
An integrator becomes necessary in three specific situations.
- You run a bespoke or heavily customised ERP.
- You have several entities with different product or customer data models that must be aligned.
- Part of your invoicing comes out of a line-of-business tool that is not accounting software, a specialised point-of-sale system, an industry platform, or in-house development.
Outside these cases, ask the question plainly, and be wary of an answer that always concludes integration is required. Our guide to approved platforms and their registration sets out what the standard connection already covers.
3. The firm, the only one giving an opinion
The accounting firm is the only one of the three to rule on your compliance, and that is what justifies its place in the setup.
In practice, its scope covers four things neither the platform nor the integrator handles.
- The scope of obligation. Which of your invoices are affected, by when, and which are not. It is the first question, and many companies deal with it last.
- Platform arbitration. A platform cannot objectively recommend itself. The firm already knows your invoicing process and can arbitrate against what exists.
- Tax compliance. Mandatory fields, VAT treatment, consistency with your returns. This is the core of its accountability.
- Process training. Not learning the tool, which is the platform’s job, but how your teams must work from September 2026.
The three-way setup that simplifies the project
One setup recurs among accounting networks, and it is worth understanding because it cuts the number of providers.
The firm keeps the advisory role and embeds a registered platform in its own offering, without becoming a platform itself. In Extenso works this way, with its Inexweb client portal, a Purchases module for receiving and a Sales module for issuing, and registration with the approved platform fulll, registered under number PA n°0095, included for its Inexweb clients with a monthly invoice allowance. The details are on its dedicated electronic invoicing page.
The benefit is not about price, it is contractual. One provider answers for the outcome. When the firm, the platform and the integrator are three separate suppliers, every anomaly opens a discussion about responsibility, and that is time lost weeks away from a legal deadline.
The trade-off is real and worth knowing. You are in effect steered towards the platform your firm has selected, rather than the one that would theoretically suit you best. For a small or mid-sized business with a standard process, the difference is negligible. For a company with strong technical constraints, it is not, and the arbitration deserves to be made explicitly.
What each role should deliver
A simple way to check the casting is complete is to ask each provider what they hand over.
- The platform should supply its registration number, the list of supported formats, Factur-X, UBL and CII, and the archiving terms.
- The integrator, if there is one, should supply a map of the flows before any configuration. Starting to configure without mapping is a warning sign.
- The firm should supply a written scope assessment stating which invoices are affected and by when. Several networks offer a readiness self-assessment beforehand, so you arrive at the conversation with an initial picture.
The order in which to run the project
This is where it is won or lost, and the most common mistake is one of sequence, not of provider choice.
- Map your existing invoicing process, both issuing and receiving.
- Establish your scope of obligation and the dates that actually apply to you.
- Choose the platform in light of the two previous points, not the other way round.
- Connect, with an integrator only if your system warrants one.
- Train, and plan a period of parallel running before switching over.
Choosing the platform first, which most companies do because it is the most visible part of the subject, almost always leads to double entry. You end up compliant in form and penalised in substance, since you lose the productivity gain that justified the reform in the first place.
Our reading
The three roles are not interchangeable and do not replace one another. The approved platform is mandatory, the integrator is conditional, the firm is the one that gives an opinion on your compliance.
For a small or mid-sized business, the clearest setup remains a firm that already embeds a registered platform, with no integrator. For a company with an ERP or several entities, all three roles are needed, and the firm should lead rather than the integrator, because compliance outranks configuration.
If you are still at the stage of choosing a firm rather than splitting the roles, our comparison of firms for electronic invoicing and our complete guide to electronic invoicing cover the ground upstream.