As a business grows, more employees and external partners may need access to financial information, accounts and payment processes. Regularly reviewing who has access and what they are authorised to do can help businesses maintain clearer financial control as teams, responsibilities and financial operations become more complex.
Category: Business Banking
Reading time: 9 minutes
Introduction
Managing access to a business bank account is usually relatively straightforward during the early stages of a company. The founder may be the only person responsible for checking incoming payments, paying suppliers, reviewing transactions and managing transfers, which means there is little uncertainty about who has access to the company’s financial information.
As the business grows, however, financial responsibilities begin to spread across the organisation. A finance manager may take responsibility for supplier payments, an accountant may need access to transaction information for reconciliation and reporting, and a CFO may require broader visibility across the company’s financial activities. External accountants, bookkeepers or financial advisers may also need access to certain information in order to perform their work.
Providing access to these individuals is often necessary for the company to operate efficiently, but the challenge is that permissions are frequently added when someone needs them and then left unchanged when that person’s responsibilities evolve. An employee may move into another department while retaining financial permissions from their previous role, or an external adviser may continue to have access long after a project has ended.
Over time, these small changes can create a financial access structure that no longer reflects the way the organisation actually operates. This is why bank account access should not be treated as something that is configured once and then forgotten. As employees, responsibilities and financial processes change, access permissions should be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.
Financial Access Becomes More Complex as a Business Grows
A small company with only a few employees may have a very simple financial structure because only one or two people need access to its accounts. In a larger organisation, financial responsibilities are often divided between several employees who manage different aspects of the company’s operations.
One employee may handle accounts payable and supplier invoices, while another is responsible for reconciliation and reporting. A finance manager may oversee larger transactions, and senior management may require broader financial visibility in order to make strategic decisions. If the company operates internationally, additional employees may also be involved in managing different currencies, entities or payment flows.
Each of these responsibilities can create a legitimate reason for granting access to financial information or payment functionality. However, as the number of users increases, it becomes more important for the business to understand exactly what each person is authorised to do.
Instead of simply asking who has access to the company’s accounts, the business should understand which accounts each person can access, what information they can view, whether they can create or approve payments and whether those permissions are still appropriate for their current role.
Financial Permissions Should Reflect Actual Responsibilities
Not every employee who works with financial information needs the same level of access. An accountant who prepares monthly reports may need visibility into transactions but may not need the ability to initiate payments. An employee responsible for accounts payable may need to prepare supplier payments, while a finance manager may be responsible for reviewing and approving those transactions.
Giving everyone the broadest possible permissions may initially appear convenient because employees are less likely to encounter restrictions when performing their work. However, this approach can result in people having access to financial activities that are unrelated to their responsibilities.
A more structured approach is to align permissions with the work each person actually performs. Employees can receive the level of access required to complete their responsibilities without automatically receiving additional permissions that they are unlikely to use.
This can also make the company’s financial structure easier to understand. When access reflects responsibilities, it becomes clearer who is responsible for preparing payments, who can approve them and who primarily needs visibility for accounting or reporting purposes.
Temporary Access Should Not Automatically Become Permanent
Businesses frequently need to provide additional permissions for temporary projects or responsibilities. An operations manager may need access to supplier payments during a large project, or a finance employee may temporarily take responsibility for another colleague’s tasks during a period of leave.
The problem arises when temporary permissions remain active after the original requirement has disappeared.
Consider a company that grants an operations employee additional financial access while launching a new office. During the project, the employee needs to coordinate several supplier payments and therefore receives additional permissions. Once the office is operational, those responsibilities return to the finance department, but the employee’s financial permissions remain unchanged.
Nothing necessarily goes wrong, but the company is maintaining access that no longer serves a clear operational purpose.
Temporary permissions should therefore be reviewed when the project or responsibility that justified them comes to an end. This becomes particularly important in fast-growing businesses where employees frequently change teams, take on new responsibilities or participate in temporary projects.
Employee Role Changes Should Trigger an Access Review
Financial access should not only be reviewed when someone joins or leaves the company. Internal role changes can be equally important.
An employee may begin their career at the company in the finance department and later move into operations, sales or another function. If their previous financial permissions remain active, they may continue to have access that is no longer relevant to their work.
Similarly, an employee who receives a promotion may require additional financial permissions because their responsibilities have expanded.
Connecting access reviews to role changes helps ensure that financial permissions continue to reflect the organisation’s current structure rather than its historical structure.
When an employee changes roles, the business can review which existing permissions should be removed, which should remain and whether any new access is required. This creates a more deliberate approach than simply adding new permissions while leaving all previous ones unchanged.
Employee Departures Require Prompt Attention
When an employee leaves a company, organisations usually follow an offboarding process that includes returning equipment, disabling email access and removing access to internal systems. Financial platforms and business accounts should be included in the same process.
If the departing employee had access to financial accounts, payment systems or other financial tools, those permissions should be reviewed promptly rather than relying on someone to remember at a later date.
The company may also need to consider whether the employee participated in payment approval workflows or held responsibilities that now need to be transferred to another person. Removing access without transferring those responsibilities could create operational problems, particularly if the employee was responsible for important recurring payments.
A structured offboarding process therefore considers both sides of the transition. Access that is no longer appropriate should be removed, while necessary financial responsibilities should be reassigned so that normal operations can continue.
Shared Login Credentials Can Make Responsibility Less Clear
Sharing a single login between multiple employees may appear convenient when a company is small, but the approach becomes increasingly difficult to manage as the team grows.
If several employees use the same credentials, it can become harder to understand who performed a particular action. When an employee leaves, removing their access may require changing credentials for everyone else who uses the same login.
Individual access provides a clearer structure because each person can use their own credentials and, where supported, receive permissions appropriate to their responsibilities. If their role changes or they leave the organisation, their individual access can be adjusted without affecting other users.
Individual access can also make periodic reviews easier because the company can identify the specific people who currently have access rather than trying to determine who knows or uses shared credentials.
For growing businesses, this can provide a more manageable foundation for financial administration.
Viewing Financial Information and Making Payments Are Different Responsibilities
Financial access does not always need to include the ability to move money. Many employees and external professionals may require financial information without needing payment permissions.
An accountant may need transaction information to reconcile the company’s books. A department manager may need to confirm whether a particular supplier invoice has been paid, while an external financial adviser may need access to certain information for reporting or analysis.
These responsibilities are different from initiating or approving payments.
Treating financial access as a collection of different capabilities rather than one broad permission can help companies create a structure that better reflects their operations. Some users may only require visibility, while others need the ability to prepare transactions and a smaller group may be responsible for approving them.
The appropriate structure will depend on the company, but distinguishing between these responsibilities can make financial access easier to manage as the organisation grows.
Payment Creation and Approval Can Be Separate Responsibilities
As businesses process larger numbers of transactions, payment workflows may also become more structured. One approach is to separate the preparation of a payment from its final approval.
For example, an accounts payable employee may receive and verify a supplier invoice before preparing the corresponding payment. Instead of the payment being sent immediately, an authorised finance manager can review the transaction before it is approved.
The reviewer may check the recipient details, payment amount, currency, invoice reference and payment date before authorising the transaction.
The appropriate approval process will vary depending on the company’s size, transaction volumes and internal procedures. Requiring several approval steps for every small transaction may create unnecessary administration, while larger or unusual payments may justify additional review.
The objective is to create a payment process that provides appropriate oversight without making routine financial operations unnecessarily difficult.
Larger Payments May Require Additional Oversight
A business may also decide that payment requirements should change according to the size or nature of a transaction.
A routine monthly software subscription does not necessarily require the same internal process as a significant supplier payment or a large international transfer.
Companies can therefore establish internal approval structures that reflect the financial significance of different transactions. Routine payments may follow the normal payment process, while larger transactions could require approval from a finance manager, CFO or another authorised decision-maker.
The exact thresholds will differ considerably between businesses. A transaction considered significant for a small company may represent a normal daily payment for a much larger organisation.
What matters is that the approval structure reflects the company’s own financial activity and responsibilities rather than applying the same process to every transaction without considering its significance.
External Accountants and Advisers Should Also Be Reviewed
Financial access is not limited to employees. Many businesses work with external accountants, bookkeepers, consultants and financial advisers who require access to financial information in order to perform their responsibilities.
These relationships can create another category of permissions that needs to be managed.
An external accountant who needs transaction visibility for bookkeeping may not require broader payment capabilities. Similarly, a consultant who temporarily supports a financial project may no longer require access once that project is completed.
External users can sometimes be overlooked during normal employee access reviews because they are not part of the organisation’s standard HR processes. This makes it particularly important to include external parties when reviewing financial permissions.
When the relationship with an external provider changes or ends, the company should consider whether the associated financial access should also be changed or removed.
Multiple Accounts Can Make Access More Difficult to Manage
Growing businesses often develop more complicated financial structures. A company may operate several accounts for different entities, currencies, departments or operational purposes.
For example, a company might maintain accounts for everyday operating expenses, payroll or particular business activities. International companies may also manage balances and payments across several currencies.
Different employees may need access to different parts of this structure.
A payroll employee may primarily work with salary-related payments, while an accounts payable employee focuses on suppliers. A finance director may require broader visibility across the organisation, and another employee may be responsible specifically for international transactions.
As the number of accounts increases, giving every user identical access becomes less practical.
Businesses can instead consider whether account access should reflect the employee’s responsibilities and the specific financial activities they manage.
International Operations Add Another Layer of Complexity
Companies operating across multiple markets often face additional financial complexity because they may manage several currencies, entities and payment routes at the same time.
A business might receive revenue in EUR, DKK, SEK, GBP and USD while also paying suppliers in several of those currencies. Different employees may be responsible for different markets or entities, while a central finance team requires a broader overview of the organisation.
As this structure develops, financial permissions can accumulate quickly if access is repeatedly added without reviewing what users already have.
An employee who previously managed one market may move to another region but retain access to the accounts associated with their previous responsibilities. Another employee may temporarily cover international payments and continue to have those permissions after responsibility has returned to the original team.
Regular reviews help ensure that the financial access structure continues to match the company’s international operating model.
Regular Access Reviews Help Keep Permissions Current
One of the simplest ways to maintain a clearer financial access structure is to review permissions periodically.
The process does not need to be complicated. The company can begin by identifying everyone who currently has access to its financial accounts and relevant systems and then compare those permissions with each person’s current responsibilities.
The review can determine whether each person still works with the company, whether their current role requires financial access, whether they need access to every account they can currently view and whether their payment or approval permissions remain appropriate.
Temporary access can also be identified during this process and removed when it is no longer required.
The objective is not necessarily to reduce the number of users as much as possible. The objective is to ensure that every permission has a current and understandable business purpose.
Access Reviews Can Be Connected to Existing Company Processes
Financial access reviews do not always require a completely separate administrative process. They can be connected to organisational events that already require other access or responsibility changes.
When a new employee joins the finance team, the company can determine which permissions are required for the role. When an employee changes departments, existing permissions can be reviewed. When someone leaves, financial access can be included in the standard offboarding process.
Similar reviews can occur when the company changes accounting providers, opens a new account, creates another legal entity, restructures the finance team or expands into another market.
Connecting access management to these existing events can make it easier to keep permissions current because reviews happen when the underlying responsibilities actually change.
Periodic company-wide reviews can then provide an additional opportunity to identify permissions that may have been overlooked.
Clear Financial Responsibilities Make Access Easier to Manage
Financial permissions become easier to manage when responsibilities are clearly defined.
If the company knows which employee prepares supplier payments, who approves larger transactions, who performs reconciliation and who maintains overall financial oversight, it becomes easier to determine what each person needs to access.
Clear responsibilities can also make transitions easier when someone changes roles or leaves the organisation.
Instead of trying to determine what an employee was responsible for after they have already left, the company can identify the financial activities associated with the role and transfer them to another authorised person.
This creates a closer connection between organisational responsibilities and financial permissions, making the overall structure easier to understand and maintain.
Avoid Providing Financial Access “Just in Case”
Businesses sometimes grant permissions because someone might need them in the future. A manager may receive payment access because they could eventually need to approve a transaction, or an external adviser may retain access after a project because the company expects to work with them again.
Although individual decisions like these may seem harmless, they can gradually create a large number of unnecessary permissions.
A clearer approach is to provide access when there is an actual operational requirement and review it when that requirement changes.
If someone needs additional permissions in the future, those permissions can be granted at that time.
This helps the company maintain an access structure that reflects its current operations rather than a collection of possible future requirements and historical responsibilities.
Businesses Should Be Able to Understand Their Own Access Structure
A company responsible for financial oversight should ideally be able to answer basic questions about its account access without extensive investigation.
It should be possible to understand who currently has access to financial accounts, which accounts each person can access, who can initiate payments, who can approve them and which external parties have access to financial information.
The company should also have a reasonable understanding of when these permissions were last reviewed.
If answering these questions requires searching through old emails, contacting several employees and checking multiple unrelated systems, the financial access structure may have become more complicated than necessary.
Good access management is therefore not simply about restricting permissions. It is also about maintaining visibility over how financial responsibilities are distributed throughout the organisation.
Growth Is an Opportunity to Review Old Financial Processes
A process that works well for a five-person company may no longer be appropriate when the business employs fifty people.
In the early stages, the founders may personally review every significant payment. As the company grows, this becomes increasingly difficult, and responsibilities need to be distributed across a larger finance function.
The same applies to financial access.
Companies should periodically consider whether their existing access and approval processes still reflect the organisation they have become.
The business may discover that employees have permissions inherited from previous roles, that approval structures no longer match transaction volumes or that external access has not been reviewed for a long time.
Growth naturally creates complexity, but reviewing financial processes as the organisation changes can prevent old structures from continuing simply because they have always been used.
A Practical Example of an Access Review
Consider a company with 25 employees where five people currently have access to its financial platform.
The CFO has broad visibility and approval responsibilities, while the finance manager handles supplier payments and financial reporting. An accountant requires transaction information for reconciliation, and an operations manager has limited access because they work closely with several suppliers.
The fifth user originally worked with supplier payments and therefore received payment permissions when joining the company. Six months ago, however, the employee moved into a sales role and no longer performs any financial responsibilities.
During a periodic access review, the company notices that the employee still has the same permissions.
There has been no incident and no financial problem. The access is simply no longer required.
By identifying and removing the outdated permission, the company brings its financial access structure back into alignment with the employee’s current responsibilities.
This is the primary purpose of regular access reviews. They help ensure that financial permissions continue to reflect the business as it operates today.
How EasyKonto Can Support a More Structured Business Banking Setup
As businesses grow and expand internationally, their financial requirements often become more complex. Companies may need to manage several currencies, international payments, virtual IBANs and different financial workflows across markets.
EasyKonto provides financial solutions for qualified businesses, including multi-currency accounts, virtual IBANs and international payment capabilities.
For growing companies, having a financial structure that reflects how the organisation operates can help create clearer oversight as transaction volumes and international activities increase.
The appropriate account structure and financial processes will depend on the individual company, its team and its operational requirements. What matters is that the company maintains visibility over its financial activities and regularly reviews whether existing processes continue to meet its needs.
As responsibilities change, the way financial access is organised should be able to change with them.
Final Thoughts
Financial access rarely becomes complicated overnight. Instead, complexity usually develops gradually as new employees join, responsibilities change, external advisers become involved and the company opens additional accounts or expands into new markets.
Permissions that were appropriate when they were originally granted may no longer be necessary several months or years later. An employee may have changed departments, a temporary project may have ended or an external adviser may no longer work with the business.
Regularly reviewing access gives companies an opportunity to identify these changes and ensure that financial permissions continue to reflect current responsibilities.
The objective is not to make financial systems difficult for employees to use or to restrict access unnecessarily. It is to create a structure where the people responsible for financial activities have the access they need, while permissions that no longer serve a business purpose are adjusted or removed.
As a company grows, this becomes an increasingly important part of maintaining clear financial oversight. Businesses should understand who can view their financial information, who can initiate payments, who can approve transactions and why each person requires those permissions.
A business bank account is not only a place where company funds are held and payments are processed. It is also part of the organisation’s broader financial infrastructure, and the way access is managed should evolve alongside the people, responsibilities and processes within the business.