Two raises €13m to scale B2B payments
0
This content is provided by an external author without editing by Finextra. It expresses the views and opinions of the author.
This brings Two's total funding to over €40 million to date. The fintech company based in Norway helps businesses offer flexible payment terms. The new money will help it speed up the development of its products, the onboarding of merchants, and its reach around the world.
The fresh investment will fuel Two's expansion into the US and select Western European markets. Less than three months after its official launch in the US, the market already represents more than 20% of total revenue for the company. The funding will also support further development of Two's fully productised B2B payments infrastructure, which includes its proprietary risk engines, Frida and Delphi, an end-to-end business onboarding solution and embedded deferred payment capabilities tailored specifically for business transactions, already deployed by over 200 of merchants across the Nordics and Europe.
Founded in 2021, Two was created with a bold mission of making B2B transactions as seamless as consumer checkouts. Its platform offers instant upfront payments to sellers, flexible net terms for buyers, and AI-powered fraud prevention. With rapid adoption across both large enterprises and SMEs, Two's infrastructure has already become the go-to standard for B2B commerce in Northern Europe.
With this funding, Two wants to improve its credit decision engine, make integrations stronger, and work with more suppliers around the world.
The latest round comes amid accelerating momentum for the company, with both revenue and payment volume projected to grow more than 150% year-over-year in 2025. Two has also entered into major partnerships with Visa, ABN AMRO, Qliro, Avarda, and Wikinggruppen over the past six months. The company is riding the broader wave of digitisation in B2B payments, as businesses seek modern, scalable infrastructure to replace fragmented and manual processes, much like the shift that occurred in consumer fintech over the past decade.
Demand for flexible B2B payment terms is surging. According to Allianz Trade, 95% of B2B buyers now prefer to pay per invoice, yet fewer than 10% of sellers are equipped to offer it online. With the B2B e-commerce market expected to double to $48 trillion by 2030 – making it six times the size of the B2C market – the need for embedded, scalable, and credit-insured payment infrastructure has never been more urgent. Two's advanced underwriting technology and growing global presence position it to lead this transformation and meet the evolving expectations of modern business buyers.
Andreas Mjelde, CEO & co-founder of Two, said: 'We are the 'Two' in B2B, and we're on a mission to make selling on net terms as easy as accepting card payments. We've proven that merchants want flexible payment solutions built for how businesses actually buy, not just consumer tools rebranded for B2B. We will leverage the capital injection to scale with large and global enterprise businesses, and we're excited to add strong institutional investors with a long-term investment horizon like Investinor and Idékapital to the team.'
Kristian Øvsthus, Managing Partner at Idékapital – who will serve as a board observer, added: 'We invested in Two because of the exceptional ambition and talent of the founding team. With deep international experience and a diverse, world-class team, they are uniquely positioned to scale globally. B2B payments is a massive and still largely untapped market. Two stands out through their combination of a powerful and modular software, deep understanding of the network effects in their industry and their dedication to solving a big problem. We believe they have what it takes to build a global category leader.'
Mo Koyfman, Founder & General Partner at Shine Capital, noted: 'The B2B payments market is approaching $100 trillion in volume, and is largely still processed with checks by Accounts Payable departments. Over the coming years, as we've increasingly seen with consumer payments, this market will also digitise. Two, and its experienced, ambitious team, is helping lead this transition with instant underwriting, seamless terms, and a global footprint, serving some of the largest companies in the world.'
Egil Garberg, Investment Director at Investinor, said: 'Two is proving that B2B payments don't need to lag behind consumer solutions. They're tackling an underserved market with a world-class team and scalable technology. Together with Sequoia, Shine Capital, Idékapital, and Antler, we're proud to back Two as they build the next global standout fintech success from Norway.'
Mathias Owing Maanum, Partner at Antler, said 'B2B payments remain one of the largest untapped opportunities in fintech – trillions in volume still move through manual processes, with poor UX and limited access to credit. Two's platform is at the forefront, making it as simple to offer instant net terms as it is to accept a card from consumers. What sets Two apart is their real-time underwriting engine, unique banking partnerships, and proven ability to scale rapidly – already serving more than 200 merchants across Europe. We believe they're building the foundational infrastructure for the next era of global B2B commerce, and we're proud to continue supporting this exceptional team as they realise their bold vision.'
This new round of Two Funding is a big step forward for the company's global growth and will help it change the way B2B payments are made.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Outwitted': have water companies managed to sidestep Labour's bonus ban?
It started before the election. Against a background of growing fury about the conduct of the water companies, Labour promised to end the injustice of their executives getting bonuses while sewage was dumped in England's rivers and seas. In March 2024, Steve Reed, the then shadow environment secretary, said: 'Since the last election the water bosses have paid themselves £25m in bonuses. Labour will ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses until they have cleaned up their filth.' The policy became a significant part of the election campaign two months later. The manifesto promised: 'We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways.' Once in power, Labour went straight into action. One of the first big laws it passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. The legislation contains provisions to ban performance-related payments to senior executives of water companies that repeatedly pollute England's waterways with sewage. Reed, now environment secretary, described it as a means to end the 'undeserved' payments. Under the act, the government banned six water firms including Thames Water from awarding bonuses for this financial year after seven major pollution incidents. However, it was not long before flaws in this plan began to emerge. Thames Water has faced particular challenges this year, with regular discussions over its possible collapse, even as customers' bills soar to pay for infrastructure. In February, as the legislation was going through parliament, a court ruled that Thames could proceed with a controversial £3bn loan from a group of creditors, at a 9.75% interest rate, in order to stabilise the company. In May, the chair of Thames, Adrian Montague, told MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs (Efra) committee that bosses were in line for 'substantial' bonuses linked to the loan, on the insistence of creditors. The company needed to pay the bonuses, he said, 'because we have to keep staff. It is a very competitive marketplace out there … If we are unable to pay bonuses, people will come knocking and try to pick out of us the best staff we have. That is not in customers' interests.' Soon afterwards, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to use the act to block Thames bosses taking bonuses. A week later, Reed appeared in front of the same committee, telling MPs that the bonuses had been withdrawn. At the same hearing Montague conceded in a letter that he may have misspoken when he said the bonuses were insisted upon by creditors. Reed told the committee that Thames Water had 'appeared to be attempting to circumvent that ban, calling their bonuses something different so they can continue to pay them'. Thames responded, saying that rather than having been withdrawn, the bonuses were paused. But in July the Guardian revealed that Thames had already paid bonuses totalling £2.46m to 21 managers on 30 April, and was refusing to claw the money back. Although it had paused the bonus scheme, or management retention plan (MRP), it did not promise that the next tranches would not also be paid, with the managers due to receive the same sum again in December and a further £10.8m collectively next June. Under the Water (Special Measures) Act, the only bonuses that can be stopped to those at the very top of the company, such as the chief executive, the chief financial officer and the chair. Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, has voluntarily declined his 300% bonus, because, he said, it would have been a 'distraction'. The water campaigner and former Undertones frontman, Feargal Sharkey, campaigned with Keir Starmer during the general election. But Sharkey has been left unimpressed by the bonus ban. He said: 'Driving forward eye-catching policies designed to do nothing more than grab headlines is no way to fix the biggest problem facing this country in the 21st century, the government has been outwitted and outmanoeuvred by the water companies.' Was the Thames package designed to circumvent the rules? Documents it released to the Efra committee show that when designing the payments package, the company hired top consultants and law firms including Rothschild & Co, Linklaters and Mercer to help it come up with a retention programme that was legally sound and would get past regulators. During Thames board meetings set up to discuss the bonuses, members asked 'if any pressure to waive bonus would be a risk generally or under the water (special measures) bill', according to the documents The board was told the bonuses were in line with the specifications of the legislation: 'The [remuneration] committee requested to reconfirm whether the MRP was consistent with the Water (Special Measures) Act and related Ofwat consultation and it was confirmed that the MRP was a retention payment rather than a bonus, and had no performance-related element. As such, it was not restricted by the Water (Special Measures) Act.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Thames Water and its lawyers and advisers believe they could pay its chief executive and chief financial officer under the scheme if they wanted, because they are retention payments. If this loophole remains open, any water company that breaches pollution rules could continue to pay out millions in bonuses to their executives, as long as the payments are not labelled performance related. In a letter to the Efra committee in July, Reed would not directly answer whether these bonuses would be banned. He said: 'Should Ofwat determine Thames Water have breached the performance-related payments rule, then I expect them to take appropriate enforcement action.' A Defra spokesperson followed up and said: 'It is for companies to follow these new rules and help rebuild trust with their customers.' Water companies can also get round the bonus ban by hiking the pay of executives to make up for the lack of compensation. The Guardian revealed this week that Southern Water has nearly doubled its chief executive Lawrence Gosden's annual pay package to £1.4m. Southern has already been allowed to increase average bills by 53% over the next five years and is appealing to the Competition and Markets Authority to charge more. Ofwat says it may bring forward a planned review of the bonus ban, currently set for 2027, to look at the scope of the rules and see whether the net needs to be widened. The regulator added that executive salaries were a matter for the water companies, but said it expected them to be appropriate when taking bonus bans and company performance into account. A Defra spokesperson said: 'Undeserved bonuses for water company bosses have now been banned as part of the government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. Any instances of companies trying to circumvent the new rules are completely unacceptable. 'The government will leave no stone unturned against any bosses being made these outrageous payments.' Southern Water said the rise in its chief executive's salary was not an attempt to evade the bonus ban but part of a 'long-term incentive plan' as part of an effort to turnaround the company. It added that the payments were 'common industry practice'. A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP and has received no payments. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator and the Efra committee.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
British Gas boss warns Miliband against ‘outrageous' energy bill divide
Forcing households with gas boilers to pay higher green taxes than those with heat pumps would be an 'abomination', the boss of British Gas has warned. In a stark warning to Ed Miliband, Chris O'Shea said that removing net zero levies from electricity bills would punish the poor and amount to a 'terrible distortion of the market'. It comes amid reports that the Energy Secretary is considering stripping green levies from electricity in a bid to encourage the adoption of heat pumps. Instead, the costs would be moved on to gas, making a boiler more expensive to run. Mr O'Shea, the chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, warned Mr Miliband to resist such an 'outrageous' overhaul and instead focus on protecting billpayers from the soaring cost of net zero. 'It's a preposterous idea,' Mr O'Shea told The Telegraph. 'The idea you'd put the levies on gas bills will mean those better-off people with heat pumps will be subsidised by those poorer people with gas boilers. That's nonsense. 'I think those of us with the broadest shoulders should help those of us who have the most need. 'To put them on gas bills would be an abomination, outrageous and a terrible distortion of the market. It would also be unfair because the people [who have] gas boilers the longest will also be those who can least afford to pay higher bills. 'I have heard the argument that it will encourage more people to use electricity. But encouraging people to use subsidised electricity by forcing gas users to pay just doesn't make any sense.' Mr O'Shea said the Government should shift the cost of green levies on to general taxation rather than creating an energy bill divide between households. 'Hostage to fortune' The Climate Change Committee, a Government quango, has urged Mr Miliband to remove the taxes from electricity bills to encourage more people to buy heat pumps and electric cars. However, experts have warned such a move risks increasing the average gas bill by £120 a year. Mr Miliband is considering the reforms as part of a radical rethink on clean power, as he fights to defend Britain's goal of reaching net zero by 2050. An announcement is expected this autumn. Mr O'Shea's plea to protect households with gas boilers came as he warned that Mr Miliband's net zero targets would be challenging. 'I don't think they are a work of fiction, and it's good that we have stretching targets,' he said. 'But even if you were to speak to those who helped to set them, then even they would say it will be difficult. But I don't think it's impossible.' The Centrica boss also cast doubt over Mr Miliband's pledge to cut household energy bills by 2030, supposedly aided by Britain's move to a greener economy. Mr O'Shea said he was sceptical that the Energy Secretary's promise to lower bills by £300 this parliament was 'achievable'. 'The energy transition is not cheap and it is not simple,' said Mr O'Shea. 'If it were, then we would have done it already. He urged the Government to take a more honest approach when it came to net zero. 'What renewables will do is give you more price stability,' he said. 'You will get fewer highs and fewer lows. Home-grown renewables give you more security than imported gas. 'But I wouldn't have made the £300 statement because it makes you a hostage to fortune.' As Britain's second-largest energy supplier behind rival Octopus, Centrica takes an 'agnostic' view when it comes to net zero, according to Mr O'Shea. That means the company is as comfortable building gas-fired power stations as it is investing in heat pumps. However, he said the business has abandoned wind and solar investments in the UK because they do not make enough money. Instead, Centrica is exploring wind investments in Ireland. Mr O'Shea was also critical of Mr Miliband's pledge to ban all new drilling in the North Sea, even though Centrica no longer conducts any exploration activity in the basin. 'I don't agree with the decision,' he said. 'If you take it from an environmental point of view, we import LNG [liquefied natural gas]. 'If you produce gas domestically, then it will have a lower carbon content than the LNG that we import. And the reason is the cost of shipping and the cost of turning the gas into a liquid.' Zonal pricing row By taking a less fiercely aggressive approach on net zero, Mr O'Shea has set himself apart from Greg Jackson, his counterpart at Octopus, who has made a virtue of being a clean-energy champion. This distinction came to the fore in recent months amid the fierce debate over zonal pricing. Unlike British Gas, Mr Jackson was a vocal supporter of plans to divide up the country into different energy pricing zones in an effort to incentivise developers to build wind and solar farms where demand – and prices – are highest. However, the proposals were highly controversial because they would have in practice meant higher bills in the South for electricity than in the North. 'It has been a very divisive debate,' said Mr O'Shea. 'We did not want a postcode lottery.' Mr Miliband recently abandoned the proposal, which British Gas believes was the right decision. Octopus disagrees and claims the Energy Secretary missed a vital opportunity to lower bills by billions of pounds. Mr O'Shea said: 'There was one very, very vocal proponent of it, and I think the benefits were all quite theoretical. 'For a company that purports to put the customer first, I don't know why they would want a system that would be more complex. I think they missed the point. 'I don't know why they went so hard on it and why they were so vicious about the Government's decision. One of their guys made a post on social media saying 'good game, well played'. This is not a game. People are struggling to pay their energy bills. 'I think that a lot of things have become too polarised. And energy is no different.' Rough decisions Now that the battle over zonal pricing is over, Centrica is turning its attention to Rough, the gas storage facility it runs 18 miles off the coast of East Yorkshire. It accounts for about half of the capacity the UK has to store gas. However, Mr O'Shea has warned that Rough risks closure by the end of the year unless ministers agree to help fund the site's redevelopment. 'Rough is going to lose about £100m this year and we can't sustain that,' he said. 'I think we have probably got to see something by the end of this year. 'If we get towards the end of the year and we've got a situation whereby we've got no prospect of making a profit, then we're just throwing good money after bad. It would be like a charitable donation, and that's not our business.' Rather than securing a handout, Centrica has asked ministers for a so-called cap and floor mechanism to help transform the 40-year-old site to store hydrogen as well as natural gas. This would provide a guaranteed minimum revenue level for the project - the floor – as well as limited excessive profits – the cap. Centrica has already stopped filling the facility amid mounting losses. Mr O'Shea said a full closure would involve the loss of hundreds of jobs. As well as impacting the local community, such a move threatens to deal a hammer blow to Britain's energy security, just years after the country recovered from one of its worst-ever energy crises following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Worse still, it also sends the wrong message to our allies in Europe, according to Mr O'Shea. 'If Rough closes, then the UK has just six days of gas storage available, compared to 100 in France, Netherlands and Germany. 'If we get into a crisis and the UK hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure it will flow from the Continent. 'Politically, if you're the prime minister of France or Germany and you look at a country that hasn't invested in gas storage, then I am not sure that will work. There is a need for us to recognise the risk that no one likes a freeloader.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Now Ryanair pay staff bonuses to catch out passengers with oversized cabin bags - after EasyJet introduced similar incentive
Ryanair is paying staff bonuses to catch out passengers who try to sneak oversized cabin bags onto flights – and they can make up to €80 a month just from enforcing the strict rules. A leaked payslip shows how one former employee earned a 'gate bag bonus' for flagging up bags that broke the airline's famously tight size restrictions. The ex-worker claimed they pocketed around €1.50 (£1.30) for every oversized bag they reported, according to the Sunday Times, although they said the monthly bonus was capped. Ryanair, which made a staggering €13 billion in revenue last year, confirmed on Saturday that staff are financially rewarded for flagging bags that breach the rules – with passengers charged up to €75 for each oversized item caught at the gate. But despite confirming the scheme, the airline refused to say exactly how much staff are paid as part of this 'gate bag bonus'. A Ryanair spokesperson said: 'We do pay commission to our agents who identify and charge for oversized bags, but these fees are paid by less than 0.1 per cent of passengers who don't comply with our agreed bags rules. 'Our message to those 0.1 per cent of passengers is simple: please comply with our generous bag rules or you will be charged at check-in or at the gate. 'For the 99.9 per cent of our passengers who comply with our rules we say thank you and keep flying as you have nothing to worry about.' Currently, Ryanair allows just one small bag measuring 40 x 20 x 25cm free of charge, as long as it fits under the seat. A second, larger cabin bag (up to 10kg) comes with a fee starting at €6. But change is on the horizon. The airline said earlier this month that it will increase the size of free hand luggage to 40 x 30 x 20cm – in line with upcoming EU rules banning airlines from charging for small carry-ons. However, those regulations haven't yet come into effect. The revelation of Ryanair's bonus scheme comes just months after the airline's chief marketing officer Dara Brady claimed no such commissions were being paid. Speaking in April to Ireland's Virgin Media News, he insisted: 'We don't pay our staff commission for bags. [The policy] is about protecting the amount of bags we can bring on board. 'We can only take a limited amount of bags on board, so our staff have to be very conscious of the bag sizes that people are taking. I reiterate that there's been no change in the Ryanair bag policy and if people travel with the right size bags, well you'll have a great flight with Ryanair.' But Ryanair isn't the only airline profiting from passengers' luggage slip-ups. An internal email leaked earlier this year revealed that easyJet was also running a bonus scheme for staff who enforce its own baggage rules. The message, sent to employees at Swissport, which manages gates for easyJet at several UK airports, confirmed agents would earn £1.20 per oversized bag caught at the gate – £1 after tax. The 'easyJet gate bag revenue incentive' is reportedly still running at airports including Belfast, Birmingham, Glasgow, Jersey, Liverpool, and Newcastle. Swissport's Dean Martin, a station manager at Glasgow Airport, wrote that the payments were designed to 'reward agents doing the right thing'. And it doesn't stop there. At airports like Gatwick, Bristol, and Manchester, DHL Supply Chain workers are also believed to be getting a 'nominal amount' per oversized bag detected.
