Finance and Sales Teams Don’t Match up on Criteria for Deal Approvals
•February 17, 2026
0
Why It Matters
The divergence lengthens sales cycles and risks lost revenue, forcing firms to align risk frameworks or sacrifice growth. It also signals a market shift toward tighter credit discipline that could reshape B2B buying dynamics.
Key Takeaways
- •Sales prioritize company size; finance prioritizes payment behavior
- •49% sales vs 33% finance value client revenue
- •Finance sees late payments as deal‑breaker; 91% reject
- •71% CFOs regret high‑risk approvals, only 40% sales regret
- •Finance enforces penalties after 31‑60 days overdue
Pulse Analysis
The CreditSafe study highlights a growing chasm between sales and finance when it comes to evaluating B2B prospects. Sales leaders lean heavily on traditional top‑line metrics such as company size and revenue, believing these signals predict growth potential. Finance executives, however, prioritize cash‑flow indicators—budget authority, need, timeline, and especially payment history. This divergence forces sales teams to navigate an additional approval layer, extending sales cycles and increasing the risk of last‑minute deal cancellations. Aligning risk criteria early can streamline pipelines and preserve momentum.
Late‑payment behavior emerged as the most decisive factor for finance officers, with 91% indicating they would likely reject a prospect with a poor payment record. By contrast, 70% of sales leaders view late payments as merely important, not fatal. This gap reflects differing tolerances for cash‑flow volatility; finance teams must protect balance sheets, especially as capital costs remain high. Incorporating robust credit scoring and real‑time payment‑term monitoring into the qualification process enables both sides to assess liquidity risk objectively, reducing surprise rejections and supporting more accurate cash‑flow forecasting.
The survey’s broader implication is a market‑wide shift toward conservatism, with finance leaders favoring balance‑sheet protection over aggressive topline growth. As 49% of sales executives report more deal rejections in 2025, the friction threatens revenue pipelines and may push companies to adopt integrated credit‑risk platforms that bridge the sales‑finance divide. Aligning incentive structures, sharing real‑time credit data, and establishing joint approval committees can harmonize risk appetite, ensuring that high‑potential opportunities are not lost while maintaining fiscal discipline. Such collaboration becomes essential in an environment of elevated borrowing costs and tightening credit standards.
Finance and sales teams don’t match up on criteria for deal approvals
While finance and sales staff are ostensibly on the same team, at least from a big‑picture standpoint, their perceptions of credit risk tend to differ markedly.
For example, in a recent study, about half (49%) of sales leaders said they consider the company size and revenue of a potential B2B customer as a “very important” criterion in their lead‑scoring and qualification process.
However, only 33% of finance leaders assigned such priority to client size and revenue in their deal‑approval process. The survey of 100‑plus finance officials and 115 sales executives was conducted by CreditSafe, a provider of company credit scores and credit report information.
Those on the finance side saw “budget, authority, need and timeline” as by far the top deal‑approval factor, with 69% rating it very important, whereas just 41% of their sales counterparts judged it as very important to lead scoring and qualification.
And, while 70% of sales leaders said a high late‑payment rate was either important or very important in deciding whether to pursue a deal, 91% of the finance leaders said they’d be either very or fairly likely to reject a deal because of a late‑payment history.
A third of the finance leaders said that a mere 25% to 49% of their customers met their agreed payment terms in 2025.
“The reality is that some companies use late payments as a strategy to protect their own cash flow,” CreditSafe noted in its survey report. “If you decide to take on late‑paying customers, it’s important to account for that in your cash flow forecasting and financial planning.”
A majority of the finance leaders said they only wait 31 to 60 days after payments are due before they start enforcing penalties.
When a client company’s “days beyond terms” (DBT) is volatile and repeatedly spikes and dives over a 12‑month period, it’s usually an early warning sign of emerging liquidity pressure, CreditSafe wrote.
Meanwhile, according to sales leaders, finance teams have recently grown noticeably more conservative about deal approvals. Half of them (49%) said more deals were rejected in 2025 than the previous year, compared with 25% who reported fewer rejections.
Yet, only 40% of the sales leaders said they have “ever” regretted advocating for a high‑risk deal to be approved. CFOs, by comparison, were far more unhappy with their own past actions, with 71% saying they’ve regretted approving a high‑risk deal that didn’t meet their risk criteria.
“One of the biggest gripes we hear from sales teams is that they spend weeks and months on closing a deal, only for the deal to be rejected by the finance team in the 11th hour,” CreditSafe wrote.
However, with capital costs still elevated, finance leaders are prioritizing balance‑sheet protection over topline growth, according to the report: “The data shows a market where caution is winning out over expansion.”
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...