France is replacing the current NAF 2008 activity classification with NAF 2025 on 1 January 2027. The change matters to a foreign founder because the company’s APE code (the “activité principale exercée” code, meaning the principal activity carried on) appears in business records, payroll systems and many compliance files. It can also trigger questions from a bank, an insurer, an accountant or an employee who sees a different activity code on a payslip.

The legal point is narrower than the administrative noise suggests. The code is assigned by INSEE, France’s national statistics institute, for classification purposes. It does not amend the company’s articles, change its legal form, replace its SIREN or SIRET numbers, or authorise a regulated activity. The 2027 change is therefore not a new incorporation and not, by itself, a corporate amendment. It is an opportunity to check that the activity description sent through the Guichet unique (the one-stop business formalities portal), the company’s actual business and the future code are consistent.

This guide sets out the two routes that a foreign founder must keep separate: correcting an INSEE coding error when the business has not changed, and filing a formal change when the company’s principal activity has changed. It also explains what to do when a bank, payroll provider or employee treats the APE code as conclusive even though French law and the courts treat the company’s real activity as the decisive evidence.

For the wider framework covering incorporation and ongoing corporate compliance, see our French company formation and corporate compliance guide.

I. What Does the 1 January 2027 APE Change Mean for a French Company?

A. What is the APE code in France, and does it change the company’s legal identity?

APE means “activité principale exercée”. It is a code describing the principal activity carried on by a business unit. NAF means “Nomenclature d’activités française”, the French activity classification used to assign that code. A company may conduct several activities, but the statistical classification identifies one principal activity for the legal unit and, where relevant, for each establishment.

The distinction between a legal unit and an establishment matters in a cross-border group. The legal unit is the French company itself. An establishment is a place where that company carries out all or part of its activities in premises available to it. Article R. 123-220-1 of the French Commercial Code uses that distinction expressly. A French subsidiary with a Paris head office and a Lyon operating site may therefore have an APE code at company level and activity information associated with the establishment. A foreign parent remains a separate legal person; its group activity does not automatically become the French subsidiary’s APE activity.

Article R. 123-220 of the French Commercial Code places private legal persons within the national register maintained by INSEE. Article R. 123-221 explains the identifiers: the SIREN is a nine-digit number for the legal unit, while the SIRET adds five digits for the establishment. Neither identifier is the APE code. If the APE changes in 2027, the SIREN and SIRET do not thereby change.

The APE code is nevertheless recorded in the register. Article R. 123-223 of the French Commercial Code requires, for each legal unit and establishment, “le code caractérisant l’activité principale exercée” by reference to the French activity classification and assigned by INSEE. The reference is administrative and statistical. It is not a substitute for the company’s object clause, licences, professional registration, VAT analysis, employment classification or evidence of what the business actually does.

The new classification is the NAF 2025. The Decree no. 2025-736 of 31 July 2025 approves the new nomenclature, and Article 2 sets its entry into force at 1 January 2027. Article 5 states that the assignment of an APE code for statistical purposes “ne saurait suffire à créer des droits ou des obligations”. This is the controlling warning for a foreign founder: a new code may require a systems update, but it does not by itself create a new tax liability, an employment obligation or a right to practise a regulated profession.

The change is also not a retroactive rewriting of the company’s history. Contracts signed under the former code, invoices bearing the company’s SIREN, and accounts filed by the French entity remain attached to the same legal person. A lender or commercial partner may ask why the code changed, especially where a NAF 2008 category is split into several NAF 2025 categories. The answer should be documented as a classification transition, unless the business itself has changed.

The practical risk comes from automated systems. A bank’s onboarding tool may compare the APE code to the website or business plan. An insurer may associate a premium with a code. A payroll provider may copy the code onto payslips. A public tender may use activity classifications as an initial filter. Those uses justify a careful review, but they do not turn the code into legal proof. The company should correct the source data and explain the transition rather than altering its description merely to obtain a convenient code.

B. What should a foreign founder verify before 1 January 2027?

The first document to verify is the final activity wording submitted during incorporation or a later modification. A foreign founder will often see several versions: the articles of association, the business-formality draft, the final “document de synthèse” generated by the Guichet unique, the Kbis (the official extract from the French Trade and Companies Register), the INSEE Sirene notice and the company website. These documents should not contradict one another about the commercial activity.

The Kbis is not the same thing as the APE notice. The Kbis identifies the company in the Trade and Companies Register and shows corporate particulars. The Sirene notice records the SIREN, establishment details and APE information. A mismatch between a Kbis activity and a Sirene code does not automatically mean that the company was incorporated incorrectly. It may mean that the description was broad, that INSEE classified the principal activity differently, or that a later modification has not yet propagated through every system.

The second document is the actual activity matrix. Prepare a short table for each material activity showing what the company sells, to whom, where the work is performed, which entity signs the contract, which entity bears the operational risk, the staff or contractors involved, and the relevant turnover or operational volume. A foreign-owned company should also identify services received from the parent, sales made by the subsidiary, licences, online activity, stock, premises and any French employees. The matrix is more useful than a bare statement that the group is a technology, consulting or trading business.

The third check concerns the legal unit and each establishment. Article R. 123-222 of the French Commercial Code distinguishes the activity information for a legal unit and its establishments. A founder should confirm that a warehouse, showroom, laboratory, workshop or French branch has not been assigned a description copied from the foreign head office. The company should also check that an establishment which has closed is not still presented as operational.

The fourth check is the future NAF 2025 code. INSEE has made a future-code service available through the Sirene ecosystem. The founder should search using the company’s SIREN, read the future code and its wording, and compare it with the company’s real principal activity. A code that looks unfamiliar is not necessarily wrong: NAF 2025 may use a new label, split a former category or regroup activities. A code that describes a different business is a reason to prepare a correction request.

The official Service Public Entreprendre explanation of the APE code confirms the key separation. A code may be changed because the principal activity has changed, or because the code assigned by INSEE is incorrect. For a company, a real activity change may also require the corporate object to be amended. An alleged coding error follows the INSEE revision route. These are different legal and administrative facts, even if both ultimately result in a different APE code.

The fifth check is the effect on employment records. Article R. 3243-1 of the French Labour Code requires the payslip to contain “le numéro de la nomenclature d’activité” characterising the activity of the employing establishment. Article L. 3243-2 confirms the employer’s duty to provide a payslip. A payroll update should therefore be planned after the official code is confirmed. It should not be implemented by silently changing the collective agreement or the employee’s classification.

The sixth check is the company’s contractual and regulatory perimeter. Ask whether any document uses the APE code as a shorthand for an insurance risk, a public subsidy, a sectoral tender, a collective agreement or a regulated activity. Record the document, the person relying on it and the requested correction. This evidence may be needed if a third party refuses onboarding or alleges that the company misrepresented its business.

For a founder outside France, the review should be delegated in a controlled way. The legal representative can give a written mandate to an accountant, lawyer or other authorised representative to prepare the request. Keep the signed mandate, the representative’s identity details, the company’s SIREN and the final filing documents in a single file. A translation or certification should be supplied where the portal or recipient requires it; it should not replace the original French filing record. The mandate should say whether the representative may merely submit a correction request or may also change the company’s declared activity.

The timing is important because 1 January 2027 is an automatic classification transition, not a general amnesty for inaccurate activity descriptions. A foreign founder should download the current records now, check the future code before the change, and preserve the confirmation of any request. The company can then distinguish three dates: the date on which its business actually changed, the date on which it filed a modification, and the date on which INSEE applied or revised the code.

II. How Can a Foreign Founder Correct an APE Code or Challenge Its Consequences?

A. What is the right INSEE or Guichet unique procedure?

Start by answering one question: has the company’s principal activity changed?

If the answer is yes, the company has a formal business modification. Article L. 123-33 of the French Commercial Code requires an enterprise to declare the creation, modification of its situation or cessation of activities through a single electronic dossier filed with the designated one-stop body. The text describes the mechanism as “le dépôt d’un seul dossier”. For a French company, the relevant interface is the Guichet unique for business formalities. The filing should describe the new principal activity precisely and identify any secondary activities.

The company must then review its articles of association. If the object clause no longer covers the business, the shareholders or the competent corporate body must approve an amendment under the company’s legal form and articles. The amended articles, resolution, legal-notice evidence where required, and the formal change should be coordinated. A mere request to INSEE cannot cure a corporate object clause that has become inaccurate. Conversely, if the articles already cover the activity and only the statistical label is wrong, changing the articles may create unnecessary cost and a misleading corporate record.

Article R. 123-224 of the French Commercial Code links the attribution of identification numbers to the creation or modification procedure provided by Article L. 123-33. Article R. 123-225 then states that the identification information in the register is modified for businesses “à l’occasion de la procédure de modification de leurs situations prévue à l’article L. 123-33”. Together, these provisions explain why an actual activity change must be routed through the formalities process rather than through an isolated email to an INSEE office.

If the answer is no, and the principal activity was correctly declared but INSEE assigned the wrong code, use the APE revision or correction service. The INSEE correction page states that the request must be supported by the SIREN, the department of establishment and the final Kbis or formalities summary containing the activity wording. It also indicates a maximum response period of 20 working days for the situation covered by that service. Treat that period as official service guidance, not as a promise that every complex cross-border file will be resolved without further questions.

The request should be drafted so that an INSEE reviewer can compare the declared wording with the proposed classification. Do not write only “the code is wrong”. Describe the products or services, the customer type, the means of production, the location of the work, the revenue-generating activity and the activity that is genuinely principal. If the company operates several establishments, identify the relevant establishment by its SIRET and explain whether the request concerns the legal unit, one establishment or all establishments.

The activity table is central. INSEE’s online APE modification service requires an activity table and states that the request is examined by the competent Sirene service. The table should use plain activity descriptions, not only NAF codes or professions. For example, “software publisher selling subscriptions to European businesses” is more useful than “technology”; “wholesale distribution of laboratory equipment from a French warehouse” is more useful than “international trading”. The purpose is to allow a classification decision, not to market the company.

The one-month situation deserves attention. INSEE’s guidance distinguishes companies created less than one month earlier and asks for the final Kbis or final document of synthesis. A newly incorporated foreign-owned company should not rely on a provisional screenshot from the Guichet unique. Wait for, or obtain, the definitive document requested by the service. If the portal has generated several versions, label the final version and preserve the submission receipt.

The correction should not be confused with a request to add a new activity. If the company has begun a new activity that is now principal, file the appropriate modification. If a secondary activity has merely become visible on the website, that fact alone does not prove a change of principal activity. If the business is a holding company, head-office service provider or mixed operating group, use the applicable activity table and explain the functions performed in France. The description should reflect substance, not the parent company’s branding.

The Code also contemplates data coordination. Article R. 123-226 of the French Commercial Code provides for information validated through the business-formalities channel to be transmitted to INSEE so that the register can be brought into alignment. This is why a correction may require patience between the Guichet unique, the Trade and Companies Register, the Kbis provider and Sirene. Keep the filing number and each public response; do not submit repeated contradictory requests merely because one database has not refreshed.

The correction route from abroad should follow a written sequence:

• identify the legal representative and the French company concerned;
• download the current Kbis, formalities summary, Sirene notice and future NAF 2025 record;
• state whether the request concerns an error or a real change of principal activity;
• prepare the activity table and link every important statement to a contract, invoice, website page, premises record, staffing document or accounting extract;
• attach the SIREN, establishment department, SIRET where relevant and final filing document;
• submit through the correct service or Guichet unique route and preserve the receipt;
• monitor the request using the French company email and a nominated representative;
• after the response, download the revised record and circulate it to the accountant, payroll provider, insurer, bank and relevant commercial partners.

Do not provide more personal data than the service requires. A foreign founder’s passport may be relevant to a corporate filing, but an APE correction is principally about the company’s activity and identification records. The submission should be secure, proportionate and consistent with the company’s existing compliance file.

B. What if the wrong code affects payroll, a collective agreement or a commercial decision?

The immediate response is to separate the code from the underlying legal question. A wrong APE code can require correction, but it does not automatically decide the company’s employment obligations. The French Labour Code makes the distinction visible. Article L. 2261-2 provides: “La convention collective applicable est celle dont relève l’activité principale exercée par l’employeur.” The legal criterion is the employer’s principal activity, not a code copied without analysis.

The Cour de cassation has repeatedly applied that distinction. In Cass. soc., 3 July 2019, no. 17-15.884, the court described the APE code as “une présomption simple ayant simple valeur indicative”. The same decision recalls that assigning the code for statistical purposes cannot, by itself, create rights or obligations. A foreign founder should therefore correct a wrong code, but should not accept a payroll provider’s assertion that the code alone proves the applicable collective agreement.

In Cass. soc., 17 November 2015, no. 14-19.851, the court stated that “la référence à la nomenclature des activités économiques établie par l’INSEE (code APE) est insuffisante à elle seule à déterminer la convention collective applicable”. This is particularly important for a newly incorporated company hiring its first French employee. The employer should assess the actual business, the establishment employing the person, the collective agreement’s scope and the wording of the employment documents. The APE code can be a useful starting indicator, not the conclusion.

The same principle appears in Cass. soc., 10 December 2014, no. 13-19.148, which refers to the APE or NAF identification as having “qu’une valeur indicative”. It follows that a code correction does not retrospectively rewrite every payslip or prove that a different collective agreement applied in earlier months. The employer should instead review the underlying activity and correct payroll records prospectively and, where necessary, make a documented historical correction after obtaining advice.

The issue is more complex when activities are mixed. Cass. soc., 16 November 2022, no. 21-14.062 states that “l’application d’une convention collective dépend de l’activité réelle et principale de l’entreprise”. The decision is a warning against relying only on public labels, payslips or a code. Keep evidence showing how the French company actually earns revenue, what its employees do, and whether distinct establishments perform genuinely autonomous activities.

For a company with more than one activity, Cass. soc., 13 June 2019, no. 17-28.937 examined the relationship between the principal activity and distinct activities conducted through establishments. The lesson for a foreign group is practical: do not merge the parent’s global activity, the French subsidiary’s activity and the local establishment’s activity into one unexplained description. Prepare an evidence file for each level. Turnover may matter, but so may staff, functions, customer contracts, premises and operational autonomy.

The payroll consequence follows from Article R. 3243-1, not from an automatic change of employment status. Once the APE code is officially revised or the NAF 2025 code is applied, update the payroll master data so that future payslips show the correct nomenclature number. Inform the provider in writing that the code is an administrative classification and that the collective-agreement analysis has been made separately. If a provider refuses to update a payslip, record the refusal and obtain a corrected document rather than editing a PDF informally.

The bank and insurer require a similar approach. Send the revised Sirene notice or official INSEE response, together with a short explanation: the SIREN and SIRET remain unchanged; the APE code changed because of NAF 2025 or because INSEE corrected a classification; the company’s legal form and object clause are unchanged unless a separate formal change was filed. If the bank’s risk model still refuses the account, ask it to identify the document or legal condition on which it relies. A classification code is not a licence and cannot replace the company’s actual registration or regulatory authorisation.

The tax administration may receive the code through inter-administration data, but an APE change does not on its own change the company’s corporate-tax regime, VAT liability or tax residence. Those questions follow the company’s activity, transactions, taxable presence and elections. The company should check whether any tax return or VAT registration contains an inconsistent activity description, while avoiding the assertion that a new APE code automatically changes the answer. A French VAT number, for example, is not created or cancelled merely because a statistical activity label is revised.

If a public authority or counterparty claims that the code proves a legal obligation, ask for the legal basis and preserve the correspondence. Article 5 of the 2025-736 decree is a useful starting point because it expressly rejects the idea that the statistical assignment alone creates rights or obligations. The company can answer with the official record, the activity matrix, the relevant licence or registration, and the contract or payroll analysis that actually governs the relationship.

If INSEE rejects the correction, read the reason before filing again. A refusal may mean that the declared activity was not first filed correctly, that the request used an unacceptable activity label, that the wrong establishment was selected, or that the evidence does not show a coding error. Correct the factual weakness. If the company’s real activity has changed, move to the Guichet unique modification route. If the company maintains that an administrative decision remains wrong after a complete request, obtain advice on the available administrative challenge, the competent authority and the evidence needed. Do not present an unverified appeal deadline as universal.

The file should end with a reconciliation checklist:

• current and future APE/NAF code;
• SIREN of the legal unit and SIRET of each relevant establishment;
• final Kbis and final formalities summary;
• articles and corporate object, with any approved amendment;
• INSEE or Guichet unique receipt and response;
• activity table and supporting commercial evidence;
• payroll provider confirmation and first updated payslip;
• collective-agreement analysis based on actual activity;
• bank, insurer and major-platform updates;
• explanation of why the change is a NAF transition, a coding correction or a real activity change.

This record is particularly valuable for a foreign founder because the people operating the French company may be in different countries and may rely on different databases. A short, dated explanation prevents the same issue from being reopened by the bank, accountant, employee representative or French administration. It also ensures that a future director can understand why the code changed without confusing statistical classification with corporate authority.

Conclusion

The 1 January 2027 move to NAF 2025 is a real compliance event, but it is not a new company formation. A foreign founder should check the future APE code, compare it with the company’s final declared activity and actual business, and preserve the SIREN, SIRET, Kbis and establishment records. The critical distinction is between an unchanged business that was coded incorrectly and a business whose principal activity has genuinely changed.

An unchanged business should use the INSEE correction service with a precise activity table and the required final documents. A changed business should file through the Guichet unique and review the corporate object. After the code is revised, update payroll and third-party records, while analysing collective agreements, VAT, corporate tax, insurance and regulated activities by their own legal criteria. The official texts and the case law do not make the APE code conclusive evidence.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm.

We can review the French company’s activity, the NAF 2025 transition, the correction file and the consequences for payroll or third parties.

Call Maître Reda Kohen’s firm at +33 6 46 60 58 22.

You can also use the French contact form.