The Leading Magazine For International HR Professionals Worldwide
FEATURES INCLUDE:
Global Immigration
EU Settlement: Absences And The 30-Month Rule
AI Can't Fix What Global Mobility Programmes Haven't Connected
The EU Pay Transparency Directive: What It Means For Internationally Mobile Employees
The Freelance Trap: Why Your International Contractor Network Is a Ticking Tax Liability
Hyper-Localising the Global Offer: Designing Benefits That Actually Work in 50+ Countries
Operational Excellence In Global Mobility: Moving From Risk Management To Quality Assurance
The Soft Leadership Model: A Solution For The HRM Department To Work With Technical People In The AI Age
ADVISORY PANEL FOR THIS ISSUE:
In This Issue
Operational Excellence In Global Mobility: Moving From Risk Management To Quality Assurance
Luke Skirrow & Jordan Taylor, Deloitte LLP
EU Settlement: Absences And The 30-Month Rule
Kiran Rasoda, Envoy Global UK
Global Immigration Envoy Global
AI Can't Fix What Global Mobility Programmes Haven't Connected
Peter Sewell, Sterling Lexicon
The EU Pay Transparency Directive: What It Means For Internationally Mobile Employees
Olivier Meier & Lucye Provera, Mercer: A Marsh Business
The Soft Leadership Model: A Solution For The HRM Department To Work With Technical People In The AI Age
Michael J Provitera & Mostafa Sayyadi
The Freelance Trap: Why Your International Contractor Network Is A Ticking Tax Liability
Robbin Schuchmann, Employee Borderless
Hyper-Localising The Global Offer: Designing Benefits That Actually Work In 50+ Countries
Robbin Schuchmann, Employee Borderless
Operational Excellence In Global Mobility: Moving From Risk Management To Quality Assurance
As global mobility speeds up, can quality keep pace?
Global mobility is no longer a compliance function simply following business decisions. Rather, it is a risk function that must inform them, and a strategic enabler to support decisions being acted upon in the most effective way possible for an organisation’s people and business operations. This shift reflects a trend forged in recent years through the convergence of, i) regulatory volatility; ii) increased internal audit scrutiny, and iii) heightened employee expectations moving the goalposts decisively.
This means that global mobility functions can no longer remain fundamentally reactive - built around responding to tax return deadlines, immigration renewals, and service escalations.
For many, embedding robust risk management and quality assurance (R&QA) frameworks within global mobility is now a business imperative, with an increased focus on how to help the business to ‘look around corners’?
Why Operational Excellence In Global Mobility Matters
The focus on operational excellence and why it matters can be distilled into four interconnected categories of risk.
These risk areas are significant to the success of a global mobility programme, given it is particularly susceptible to risk given the high volume of critical touchpoints across the lifecycle of an assignment. Organisations and individuals alike find themselves consistently facing new and more frequent challenges during what are commonly perceived to be ‘standardised’ or simple processes. It is this misconception that can potentially lead to the underresourcing and under-funding of global mobility programmes.
To shift this mindset, global mobility functions are increasingly pivoting towards a more proactive risk mitigation approach across the following areas:
The Four Risk Areas
Operational Risk: Inefficient processes and lack of standardisation, leading to process
failure points, including matters of data security and privacy, vendor management failures, and delays in relocation, onboarding, or repatriation.
Compliance Risk: Traditional compliance risk areas, including evolving immigration legislation and potential violations for existing internationally mobile employees (visa overstays, work permit issues), tax noncompliance including payroll withholding and personal tax requirements, as well as social security certification. Increasingly, global mobility is influenced by the intricate web of international and local laws, as well as the complexities of legislative and regulatory compliance.
These risk areas have influenced global mobility consistently over an extended period; however, they are driving the imperative to act now more than ever before
Experience Risk: The increased expectation of consumer-grade user experience has swept global mobility, whilst issues persist across core programme areas, such as vendor performance issues, outdated technology and the limited transparency of communications. These and the lack of upfront career planning prior to an assignment can all impact the employee experience.
These risk areas have influenced global mobility consistently over an extended period; however, they are driving the imperative to act now more than ever before.
Why Now? The Accelerating Pace Of Change
The current global business environment is defined by ongoing volatility. Whilst many factors are beyond the control of businesses themselves, they demonstrate the criticality of operational excellence in global mobility more than ever before. Several converging factors contribute to this heightened urgency.
Geopolitical Uncertainty
Global events - ranging from political instability and economic shifts to armed conflict and health crises - can swiftly alter the viability and risk profile of international assignments. Recent country upheaval illustrates how quickly a global workforce may require emergency relocation support, with associated immigration action, and dynamic risk reassessment. Geopolitical uncertainty necessitates exceptional agility, robust contingency planning, and a global mobility function that is genuinely capable of responding at pace - not one that is discovering its exposure at the point of crisis. For example, the proactive set-up and increased use of parking programmes (specialised immigrationled relocation programmes) to overcome changes in immigration legislation and enable the temporary facilitation of displaced assignees is evidence of the expectation on Global Mobility to respond in-step with business requirements.
Financial Risk: Uncontrolled costs, unexpected tax liabilities, shadow payroll errors, duplicate vendor billing, foreign exchange exposure, and the cost of early repatriation can severely erode the return on investment of international assignments.
Regulatory And Legislative Volatility
Governments across the world often update legislation related to key global mobility focus areas (tax, immigration,
social security agreements etc.). The proliferation of remote and hybrid work has introduced novel complexities around permanent establishment, tax residence, and social security obligations across jurisdictions. Revenue authorities are increasingly expecting employers to be more sophisticated in how they track, assess, and report on their mobile and business-travelling populations. The Business Risk Review framework is a live and specific example of this heightened regulatory expectation - organisations that cannot demonstrate structured oversight of their business travel population are now materially exposed. Navigating these rapid and frequent changes demands constant vigilance and adaptive compliance strategies.
Targeting Organisational Risk
Internal audit functions and senior leadership are placing an intensified focus on identifying and mitigating risks across all business units. Global mobility, with its inherent complexities in immigration, tax and compliance, represents a significant area of potential exposure. Greater visibility of global mobility programmesdriven by improved data, increased press coverage of relevant topics such as remote work and the taxation of internationally mobile employees, and the accessibility of information to senior leaders - means that the global mobility function is increasingly in scope for internal scrutiny. This mandates that global mobility programmes are not just compliant, but demonstrably "internal audit ready".
Increased Scrutiny Of Vendor Performance
As cost pressures have driven leaner global mobility teams, organisations have become increasingly reliant on a complex ecosystem of third-party vendors for critical mobility services, including relocation, immigration support, and tax advisory. The heightened scrutiny of vendor performance is a direct response to the understanding that sub-optimal vendor services can directly compromise employee experience, jeopardise compliance, and inflate operational costs. Leaner teams need greater vendor performance, not less oversight of it. However, it is also critical that the structure of vendor operations is a complimentary extension of the core team.
The Expectation Of A Consumer-Grade Experience
Today's mobile workforce, accustomed to seamless digital interactions in their personal lives, expects an equally intuitive, supportive, and efficient experience from their employers. Travel has never been easier; the expectation of frictionless
international movement extends naturally to the assignment process itself. A cumbersome, inefficient, or unsupportive mobility process can lead to significant dissatisfaction, impacting talent retention, productivity, and the organisation's employer brand. It is therefore critical that the services discharged to global mobility vendors meet these expectations and feel naturally tailored for the organisation’s culture and the service levels that employees have come to expect. Such evolving expectations have impacted most mobility services, but highly manual services (e.g., relocation services) and potentially sensitive processes (e.g., immigration) can be particularly exposed to pain points, process failures, and diminished employee experience.
Today's mobile workforce, accustomed to seamless digital interactions in their personal lives, expects an equally intuitive, supportive, and efficient experience from their employers
Demonstrating Global Mobility Programme ROI
Very few organisations have escaped the impact of inflationary headwinds and financial pressures and with substantial investments channelled into global mobility, organisations are under increasing pressure to articulate and demonstrate a clear return on investment. This requires sophisticated data analytics, transparent reporting, and highly efficient operations to justify costs and prove the strategic value of mobility initiatives. The persistent misconception
that global mobility is a straightforward administrative function - rather than a complex, compliance-based strategic lever for organisations to use to their advantage - continues to often undermine the function's ability to secure the resource and investment it requires.
This complex web of geopolitical, compliance-related challenges, and the broader demands on global mobility programmes, means organisations are having to continually react and respond. Whilst many of these challenges are not new, the volume, the level of change, and sheer complexity has ramped up since the dawn of the Covid-19 pandemic, and it does not appear to be slowing down.
How Can Organisations Keep Pace?
Achieving operational excellence in global mobility may require your function to evolve from reactive administrative drivers of process to proactive strategic partners, integrated earlier into critical business decision-making processes. This shift is one that typically takes place over time, with global mobility increasingly integrated with talent and reward functions. That said, there are several other deliberate actions global mobility functions can take to move things forward.
Proactive Market Scans: The first step in supporting the business to ‘look around corners’ is to complete legislative market scans and Tax and Immigration Risk Assessments, including Mock Audits, to anticipate regulatory changes and potential compliance gaps before they crystallise into findings or penalties.
A critical aspect of this shift is reviewing existing processes and policies to ensure they have evolved in tandem with policy maturity and perceived current risks. International Remote Worker policies are a prime example, whereby many organisations established frameworks during the initial wave of remote working guidance that have not been revisited since, despite material changes in the regulatory environment.
Internal Audit Readiness: A critical step is to understand to what extent global mobility has been included on the programme of work for the internal audit function. The wide-reaching impact of global mobility, with it spanning across matters such as international payroll, equity and incentives, as well as employment law, means there is a suite of areas that may be subject to review. Progressive global mobility leaders are proactively requesting that internal audit includes global mobility in their annual audit cycle, using this as an opportunity to surface gaps and secure investment for
remediation. Those who wait to be audited are consistently more exposed than those who proactively seek to review and enhance processes or take mitigative or remedial steps before issues are identified during an audit.
Focus On Process Efficacy: The future will be shaped by understanding what processes and associated tasks may potentially be subjected to digitisation and AI ‘agentification’ and therefore ensure they are operationally proficient enough to be adapted. Whilst this is a natural next step of seeking automation and embedding technology, it does point to the increased need for processes and associated tasks to stand up to scrutiny, especially where there is ambition to automate. This means, more than ever before, organisations need to ensure that processes and process steps, work both in isolation and end-to-end. Employing methodologies such as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Kaizen, and Six Sigma facilitates detailed process reviews, identifying risks and pitfalls and enabling the design of more efficient, robust, and scalable processes.
Vendor Diagnostics: Organisations with mature global mobility programmes implement structured vendor scorecards, measuring SLA adherence, case resolution times, escalation rates, and assignee satisfaction scores. No doubt these are commonplace across programmes of all shapes and sizes; however, they now form a key part of annual vendor reviews. Long-term vendor relationships and the proliferation of new or additional services that begin to take shape across the duration of a contract, mean it’s increasingly important to recognise that a leaner internal team requires higher-performing, bettergoverned external partners, not simply more of them. Beyond this, when cost pressures are so significant, organisations also need to ensure that they are maintaining ‘value for money’ on the services provided.
Data: Many organisations are often overwhelmed by the volume of data available for their programme, made available by a range of systems and solutions that often deliver in isolation, and which may fall short of meeting the reporting requirements needed for programme leads and sponsors. This ongoing and longstanding challenge is often due to data not being tangible or connected to consistent points of measurement within a process. Therefore, whilst many organisations have the data they need, they struggle to use it to drive results and outcomes. In the future, with the emergence of AI technologies, organisations will be expected to derive meaningful insights and enhancement opportunities with that data.
Technology: Technology solutions are most effective when embedded into the programme's foundational design. Tools for immigration management, business travel assessment, compliance dashboards, and obligations trackers are key examples of efficient compliance controls. The key challenge for organisations moving forward is determining how much can be done by technology, whether that is increased integration with HRIS platforms, data scrutiny, or the deployment of AI across the programme. The starting point for many of these changes will be efficiency, but what ultimately determines their success is whether they meet the expectations to deliver good governance for programme leads and their sponsors. Beyond this, organisations should also seek to build upon technologies deployed across the business (not just global mobility technology) and assess what they can offer the function to deliver improved processes, robust controls, and an optimised user experience.
Formal Risk & Quality Assurance Framework: Underpinning all of these is the increased focus on embedding Risk & Quality Assurance frameworks, to provide robust measures to maintain best practice. It is true to say that much of this is an extension of increased scrutiny on vendors. However, market practice articulates a broader set of circumstances. Key examples arise across the four risk areas defined previously, with immigration compliance and supporting processes, as well as user experience as a component of the employee value proposition, all proving to be drivers for extensive work in this space.
Inherently good design principles do not always guarantee a good outcome as there are too many variables in play. However, a lack of clear strategy and focus on proactively managing all manners of risk almost certainly reduces the likelihood of good outcomes.
We started by asking the question, ‘as global mobility speeds up, can quality keep pace?’, and this article has aimed to answer why and how this is the critical question for global mobility professionals in 2026. Moving forward, ‘keeping pace’ will not mean maintaining the status quo and only reactively responding to issues. Rather, it will require building controls, culture, and capability to deliver consistently for the business, its people, and to meet the ever-changing external forces we face.
The question is therefore not whether your programme is ‘fast-paced’ enough. It is whether it is ready for new era of change. Are you ready?
LUKE SKIRROW
Associate Director, Deloitte LLP
Global Employer Services
T: +44 121 696 8684
E: laskirrow@deloitte.co.uk
JORDAN TAYLOR
Associate Director, Deloitte LLP
Global Employer Services
T: +44 121 696 8865
E: jordtaylor@deloitte.co.uk
Deloitte’s Global Employer Services practice is a multi-disciplinary group of tax, immigration, talent, HR and digital professionals who support clients as they navigate complex global workforce challenges, developing focused strategies and delivering practical enablement. www.deloitte.co.uk/globalworkforce
The EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) was introduced to protect the immigration position of EU, EEA and Swiss nationals, together with their eligible family members, following the UK’s exit from the European Union. The scheme represents a significant component of the UK’s post-Brexit immigration framework, ensuring that individuals who had established residence in the UK prior to the end of the transition period are able to continue living and working in the UK lawfully.
Under the scheme, individuals are granted either limited leave to remain, commonly referred to as pre-settled status, where they have not yet completed a qualifying period of five years’ continuous residence in the UK, or indefinite leave to remain, known as settled status, where they are able to demonstrate that they meet the relevant residence requirements. These two forms of permission reflect different stages of an individual’s residence history and provide a pathway from temporary to permanent status within the UK immigration system.
Pre-settled status is typically granted for a period of five years and allows individuals to live, work and study in the UK, with access to healthcare and certain public services. During this period, individuals are expected to continue building their residence in the UK with a view to qualifying for settled status once they meet the residence requirements. Settled status, on the other hand, provides indefinite permission to remain in the UK and is not subject to time limits. It also affords greater certainty and security, including the ability to spend longer periods outside the UK without losing status.
To be granted settled status, an applicant must normally complete a continuous qualifying period of residence in the UK. This requirement has historically been assessed in accordance with detailed provisions set out in Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, including rules governing absences from the UK. The concept of continuous residence has been central to the operation of the scheme and has required careful consideration
by applicants, particularly those whose circumstances involve travel outside the UK.
In most cases, an applicant must not have been absent from the UK for more than six months in any rolling 12-month period, subject to limited exceptions. This rule has traditionally been applied strictly, with each 12-month period assessed on a rolling basis rather than by reference to fixed calendar years. As a result, individuals have needed to monitor their absences carefully to ensure that they do not exceed the permitted threshold.
The Immigration Rules allow for a single period of absence of up to 12 months where there is an important reason, such as serious illness, study, specialist training, or an overseas posting
particularly relevant for individuals whose lives or employment require a temporary period outside the UK. In such cases, provided that the reason for the absence falls within the scope of an “important reason,” the period of absence will not break the continuous qualifying period.
However, where absences exceed the permitted thresholds and do not fall within a recognised exception, the continuous qualifying period may be treated as broken. This has significant consequences for applicants, as it may require them to re-start the qualifying period from the point at which they returned to the UK. For many individuals, particularly those with complex travel histories, this requirement has presented practical challenges and, in some cases, has resulted in uncertainty as to their eligibility for settled status.
In July 2025, an alternative basis for assessing residence was introduced for the purposes of an application for settled status. Under this approach, a person holding presettled status may qualify where they can demonstrate that they have been physically present in the UK for at least 30-months within the most recent 60-month period, equivalent to five years. This development marked an important evolution in the operation of the scheme and reflects a more flexible approach to assessing residence.
This approach represents a shift away from a strictly absence-based assessment to one which considers overall residence in the UK. Rather than focusing solely on whether absences exceed specific limits within defined periods, the alternative method looks at the cumulative time spent in the UK over a five-year period. In doing so, it provides an additional route to eligibility for individuals whose residence patterns do not neatly align with the traditional continuous residence requirements.
The Immigration Rules allow for a single period of absence of up to 12 months where there is an important reason, such as serious illness, study, specialist training, or an overseas posting. This concession has been
The periods of residence relied upon do not need to be continuous, and there is no requirement for the applicant to provide reasons for absences. This is a notable difference from the previous rules, under which the reasons for any extended absences were often critical to determining whether the continuous qualifying period had been maintained. Instead, the assessment is now based on the total amount of time the person has spent in the UK during a five-year period, irrespective of the nature or purpose of any absences.
Applicants may rely on either the continuous qualifying period of residence or the alternative 30-month residence requirement, depending on which is more advantageous in their particular circumstances. For some applicants, the continuous residence route will remain the most straightforward option, particularly where absences have been minimal and within the permitted limits. For others, however, the alternative 30-month requirement may provide a more practical and achievable route to settled status.
In practice, the introduction of this alternative approach provides greater flexibility, particularly for individuals whose residence patterns include extended or frequent absences. This may include individuals who have spent periods abroad for work, family commitments, or other personal reasons, and who may previously have struggled to demonstrate continuous residence in accordance with the strict absence rules. Under the new approach, such individuals may still be able to qualify for settled status where they can demonstrate sufficient overall residence in the UK.
For example, an individual who has spent significant periods outside the UK but has accumulated at least 30-months of physical presence over a five-year period may now be eligible for settled status, even if their absences would previously have broken their continuous qualifying period. This represents a more pragmatic recognition of modern patterns of mobility and acknowledges that residence in the UK may not always be linear or uninterrupted.
It is important to note, however, that applicants are still required to provide evidence of their residence in the UK. This may include employment records, HMRC documentation, tenancy agreements, utility bills, or other official evidence demonstrating physical presence. The evidential burden remains a key aspect of the application process, and applicants should ensure that they retain and organise documentation that clearly establishes their presence in the UK over the relevant period.
In many cases, evidence may be drawn from a combination of sources, and applicants may need to demonstrate residence over a series of discrete periods rather than through a single continuous record. Careful preparation and review of supporting documentation will therefore be essential in ensuring that the application is robust and meets the required standard. Absence provisions also remain relevant in the context of maintaining status once it has been granted. A person who has been granted settled status may generally spend up to five consecutive years outside the UK without losing that status (for Swiss nationals this is four consecutive years). This provides a
For those with pre-settled status, different considerations apply. Extended absences may affect eligibility for settled status and, depending on the circumstances, may also impact the validity of their existing status
Ultimately, each application must be considered on its individual merits. The Immigration Rules provide the framework within which decisions are made, but the outcome of any application will depend on the specific facts and evidence presented. Applicants should therefore ensure that their period of residence in the UK is clearly evidenced and that they consider carefully which route to eligibility is most appropriate to their circumstances.
In conclusion, the evolution of the residence requirements under the EU Settlement Scheme demonstrates a shift towards greater flexibility while maintaining the overall integrity of the system. By offering alternative pathways to settled status, the framework is better equipped to accommodate the realities of modern life, where movement between countries is increasingly common. For applicants, the key consideration remains the ability to demonstrate sufficient residence in the UK, supported by clear and credible evidence, in accordance with the requirements of Appendix EU.
degree of flexibility for individuals who may wish to live or work abroad for extended periods while retaining their right to return to the UK.
For those with pre-settled status, different considerations apply. Extended absences may affect eligibility for settled status and, depending on the circumstances, may also impact the validity of their existing status. It is therefore important for individuals to be aware of the rules governing absence and to consider the potential implications for their longer-term immigration position.
The introduction of the alternative 30-month residence requirement reflects a more flexible and inclusive approach within the Immigration Rules. It recognises that individuals may have complex and varied patterns of residence and seeks to provide a mechanism by which those patterns can still lead to eligibility for settled status. At the same time, the continued availability of the continuous residence route ensures that the framework remains consistent and predictable for those who meet the traditional requirements.
KIRAN RASODA Associate Director
Envoy Global UK
E: ssw-info@envoyglobal.com
Envoy Global is the leading corporate immigration services provider committed to delivering a better way for companies to manage global immigration. With legal experts in 180+ countries and more than 1,800 clients worldwide, they deliver the complete range of services required to manage immigration for a global workforce. From securing visas and work authorizations, to supporting business travelers and remote workers, to providing strategic guidance that keeps programs running efficiently and in compliance, their legal professionals take a holistic, proactive, compassionate approach. Envoy Global’s technology platform was purpose-built by their in-house technology team to make immigration easier for mobility professionals and the global talent they depend on.
Global Immigration
BELGIUM
Government approves changes for highly qualified workers
The Council of Ministers has approved a preliminary draft law amending the rules governing highly qualified workers.
The amendments, which are intended to align Belgian national laws with EU law, include:
• The partial transposition of Directive (EU) 2021/1883 on the European Blue Card for highly qualified workers, namely:
• Processing time for applications will be reduced to a maximum of 90 days
• The rules on family reunification for this group will be simplified; and
• Mobility within the EU will also be facilitated
• Changes to the single permit, namely:
• The grounds for refusal and end of stay will be extended; and
• Better protection will be established for workers who are victims of certain social offences committed by the employer
• An administrative simplification of the application process for the job search year for students and researchers
• Other technical corrections.
The proposals are explained here by the Minister for Asylum and Migration.
CANADA
Reduced completeness checks for citizenship applications submitted from abroad
On 15 May 2026, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) updated its operational instructions for officers processing proof of citizenship applications from individuals outside of Canada and the United States.
According to the new instructions, effective 1 March 2026, Global Affairs Canada (GAC) has reduced its role in these applications and has ceased conducting completeness checks for citizenship applications submitted abroad.
At the minimum, applications must contain the required form (CIT 0001), photographs, signatures, and fee payment before they can be accepted into processing.
Applications that do not meet these completeness requirements must be rejected with a notification of the missing information or documentation. No further processing is to be undertaken.
CHILE
New expedited business visa for Indian nationals
On 13 May 2026, the Ministry of Foreign Relations announced a new, expedited
business visa for Indian citizens, aimed at attracting more trade and investment from that country.
The business visa for Indian citizens has a duration of two years during which multiple entries to Chile are allowed for a period of up to 90 days. The Ministry asserts that application processing will be more efficient, thanks to more limited response times and fewer repetitive procedures. Further details are expected in the near future.
The business visa for Indian citizens has a duration of two years during which multiple entries to Chile are allowed for a period of up to 90 days
EUROPEAN UNION
EU adopts more favourable Schengen visa rules for Thailand
On 18 May 2026, the Thailand delegation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) announced that, on 8 May 2026, the European Commission approved the application of the European Union’s Visa Cascade regime to Thai nationals residing in Thailand who apply for short-stay Schengen visas at the embassies or consulates of Schengen States in Thailand.
This was confirmed by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This measure, which has now come into effect, will facilitate the issuance of longervalidity short-stay visas to Thai passport holders who have previously obtained Schengen visas and maintained a good travel record, thereby reducing the need for
frequent visa applications and saving both time and costs.
Under the Visa Cascade scheme, applicants who have previously obtained and lawfully used a Schengen visa may be eligible for multiple-entry visas with progressively longer validity accordingly.
The Visa Cascade is not a Schengen visa exemption. Thai passport holders will continue to be required to apply for Schengen visas through the normal process, and the applicable requirements remain unchanged. To be eligible for longer-validity visas, applicants must maintain a good travel record, including full compliance with the laws and regulations of destination countries.
Thailand is currently one of seven countries to have been granted the Visa Cascade regime, following India, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman in 2024, and Turkey and Indonesia in 2025.
IRELAND
Changes to acknowledgement of posted documents
Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) has announced that it will no longer issue acknowledgements for documents or letters sent to us by post. This includes additional documents and queries about the progress of your application.
All post ISD receives will still be added to the applicant’s file and considered when the application is assessed.
Applicants who wish to confirm that their documents have reached ISD, or who are sending original documents, should use registered post and use the tracking number to confirm delivery.
ISD recommends that, where possible, applicants send copies of documents through the Customer Service Portal.
ISD states that it is currently receiving a high number of applications and postal items. Therefore, it is focusing on processing cases for decision and streamlining background processes to help it make decisions as quickly as possible.
NEW ZEALAND
Group and Tour Escort visitor visa applications moving to enhanced Immigration Online
Effective 20 July 2026, Group visitor visa and Tour Escort visitor visa (including ADS) applications are moving to Immigration New Zealand’s enhanced Immigration Online system.
Approved Destination Status (ADS) is an arrangement between the Chinese
Government and another country, that lets Chinese holiday travellers visit a country in a tour group or as a Free and Independent Traveller (FIT).
Visa products are transitioning to enhanced Immigration Online in phases. INZ first introduced this platform in 2021 and has already moved several types of visa applications onto it, including family of temporary visa holder visas, international student visas, visitor visas, accredited employer work visas and permanent resident visas.
From 20 July 2026, new applications will be automatically directed through the new system. INZ will provide further information closer to the transition date.
Visa products are transitioning to enhanced Immigration Online in phases
SINGAPORE
Ministry updates myMOM portal with new functions
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has moved the work permit issuance function from Work Permit Online to its new myMOM portal.
Since 2025, work permit applications and appeals can be submitted via the new myMOM portal.
Effective 4 May 2026, employers in Singapore no longer need to:
• Separately update their worker's address and mobile number in OFWAS before getting the Work Permit issued
• Upload hard copy medical examination (ME) reports or chest x-rays. Their medical service provider (MSP) will submit the medical results directly to MOM. Employers will now receive an email notification after the MSP submits the foreign worker’s ME results. They can view their workers’ ME results, update the worker’s address and mobile number and issue the work permit using the new issue function.
Work permit transactions for migrant workers will continue to be moved to the new myMOM portal through 2027.
Employers will now receive an email notification after the MSP submits the foreign worker’s ME results
THAILAND
Government approves revision of Thailand’s visa exemption and visa on arrival schemes
On 19 May 2026, the government approved the revision of Thailand’s visa exemption and visa on arrival schemes, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
These revised measures include:
• Granting only one visa exemption scheme per country
• Revoking the 60-day visa exemption scheme for all 93 countries
• Revising the 30-day visa exemption scheme for tourism purpose and reducing the list of eligible countries (from 57) to 54 countries
• Introducing the new 15-day visa exemption scheme for tourism purpose for three countries; and
• Revising visa on arrival and reducing the list of eligible countries (from 31) to four countries.
The 60-day visa exemption scheme was introduced in July 2024.
UNITED KINGDOM
Right to work check guidance clarified
On 20 May 2026, the government updated its guidance for sponsors of overseas workers to clarify right to work check requirements.
Previous amendments, published on 6 March 2026 and 8 April 2026, suggested that sponsors were required to undertake right to work checks on unsponsored workers ‘(directly) engaged’ but not employed by them.
Following user feedback, this reference has now been deleted and any reference in those versions to unsponsored workers ‘engaged’ or ‘directly engaged’ by the sponsor should be disregarded.
The newly amended guidance states that sponsors are required to undertake right to work checks on:
“…any worker you wish to sponsor (including a worker who is not your direct employee), or any worker you otherwise wish to employ (whether sponsored or not).”
UNITED STATES
Visa operations paused in several countries
The State Department has announced that, effective 18 May 2026, the US Embassies in Juba, South Sudan; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Kampala, Uganda have temporarily paused all visa services in light of an ongoing Ebola outbreak.
…any worker you wish to sponsor (including a worker who is not your direct employee), or any worker you otherwise wish to employ (whether sponsored or not)
ENVOY GLOBAL
(Formerly SMITH STONE WALTERS)
If you have any questions about these changes or would like to discuss how they may affect your organisation, our team is here to help. Please get in touch with a member of the Envoy Global, team for support and advicehttps://smithstonewalters.com/.
AI Can't Fix What Global Mobility Programmes Haven't Connected
There’s no shortage of research or predictions out there about the transformative power of technology generally, and AI specifically, to reshape human resources and the future of work. Take a Salesforce study of 200 global HR executives, for example, which suggests an AI agent adoption rate accelerating some 327% by the end of next year. Gartner estimates that 60% of HR work tasks will be completed through an intelligent agent or LLM-centric interface by 2030. And McLean & Company’s most recent HR Trends Report, comparing 2026 to 2025, shows a 5% increase in companies indicating that they are now fully in the incorporation phase of AI’s maturity model, and a 10% jump in those describing themselves as having moved into the proliferation stage.
For all the hype, however, we still see the use of AI within talent mobility specifically lagging a bit behind the broader HR function’s uptake. Our own 2026 Blueprint study, found that only 27 percent of corporate global mobility (GM) managers were using it specifically to enhance their employee relocation programmes. The apparent disconnect prompted us to dig deeper to understand what’s really going on.
There are several factors that are likely in play. For one, our survey also found that many organisations rely on their mobility service partners’ technology, are prioritising investing in enhancements to their existing systems over new technology, or are still developing their own relocationrelated tech strategy internally. Things like industry sectors, decentralised operating or different governance models, budgets, sizes of mobility programmes and company cultures will also certainly influence where a company is on its AI journey. Indeed, our very understanding of exactly what
we mean by AI and how it’s applied to mobility can differ significantly from one organisation to another. Of those GM teams who are using it, many reported merely deploying it to record and summarise meetings, enhance communications, or answer routine questions, while some are looking to it to help analyse large sets of complex data.
AI’s power is only as good as the data that goes into informing it
The Hidden Problem Of Data Fragmentation
That last usage indicator brings us to an important point, and one we believe is perhaps the most significant driving factor behind mobility’s slower adoption rates: AI’s power is only as good as the data that goes into informing it. Many global mobility programmes operate with fragmented information and data sources, presenting a significant hurdle to overcome. Not only is achieving optimal alignment between mobility and other areas of the business internally an ongoing challenge, but, very often, information is siloed across different external service providers, regions and systems too. This all makes achieving genuine visibility into the programme and identifying opportunities for strategic enhancements difficult, if not impossible. While business leaders are unquestionably under constant pressure to adopt new technologies, reduce costs and find operational efficiencies, mobility professionals would be well-advised to focus first on what’s happening one layer below AI: achieving true connectivity and integration. The complexity of moving talent across borders safely, efficiently and compliantly involves multiple skills and vast global and local knowledge about frequently changing market conditions and
regulations. The current evolution of how, when and where work gets done - layered with ongoing geopolitical challenges and uncertainties - only demands even more highly nuanced levels of understanding and expertise. Few, if any, organisations can truly master and deliver the entire global mobility process alone.
With Or Without AI, Incomplete Data Still Equates To Nothing More Than Guesswork
The key is to get all the necessary parties that are required for a successful talent mobility ecosystem to be genuinely connected to and speaking with one another. The solution for making the most of the technology available to us now to enhance the mobility experience is less about the tools themselves, or racing to invest in and embrace the latest and greatest new thing, and more about taking the time to connect all the right sources to share the right information at the right time.
Focus On Ease First And Intelligence Will Follow
That all sounds good in theory, right, but with so many different systems, service providers, teams, regions and the evolving security and compliance risks, how do you get there in practice? It all comes down to the application programming interface, or API. Now, stay with me, because you don’t have to be an IT or programming guru to know how APIs can make your life easier. Some powerful analogies compare them to messengers or restaurant menus and waitstaffs, because they essentially consist of a set of facts, rules, definitions and protocols that make communicating requests and delivering the desired outcomes easier between all parties. For the global HR and talent mobility industry, a better analogy might be a translator, who is highly skilled at understanding what one party is looking for, interpreting it and delivering it to another party (application) and returning the appropriate response in a way that is equally understood by all. With so many inter-dependent tasks that must happen along the employee relocation journey – think determining visa and immigration eligibility, establishing compliant tax, payroll and benefit protocols, identifying housing and family
needs, coordinating destination services and move dates, just to name a fewremoving friction points is critical. Having solid and secure APIs in place – and the real-time, bi-directional data exchange that they facilitate – enables the necessary communications, workflows, outcomes and reporting that make the process as simple and clear as possible. Simplicity, clarity and accuracy are the foundational ingredients to making the most of AI, followed by the human expertise and emotional intelligence it takes to understand and act on what the data is telling us.
The Next Chapter In The Mobility AI Story
Despite the seemingly low adoption rates of AI within internal corporate mobility programmes, there are certainly many ways in which the global relocation service community is currently successfully embracing AI to improve the employee experience and enhance delivery. But, before we can get to the next level of a truly transformative experience, using it to inform talent mobility strategy overall, we first need to focus on getting the connectivity and integrations across all the members of the ecosystem right.
Mobility professionals would be welladvised to focus first on what’s happening one layer below AI: achieving true connectivity and integration
PETER SEWELL
Peter Sewell is Sterling Lexicon’s Managing Director, EMEA & APAC, where he is responsible for driving service excellence and regional sales across the full product portfolio. He has extensive experience in global mobility, business strategy, and talent management, development, and diversity. His career includes operational and leadership roles in global accounting and advisory firms, corporate HR and relocation management companies. He has been recognised for his Outstanding Contribution to Global Mobility in EMEA and as a Global Mobility Top 100 Service Provider. He has been with Sterling Lexicon since 2018.
Please share our website with your UK-bound expatriate colleagues, www.expatsguidetotheuk.com which is the digital platform for the Guide.
The EU Pay Transparency Directive: What It Means For Internationally Mobile Employees
The EU Pay Transparency Directive (Directive (EU) 2023/970) is becoming one of the most consequential regulatory developments affecting global mobility and international HR in Europe over the coming years. While much of the public discussion has focused on gender pay gaps and domestic workforce practices, the implications for internationally mobile employees are potentially far broader and more complex.
At its core, the Directive establishes minimum EU standards intended to increase transparency around pay structures, strengthen equal pay enforcement, and improve employees’ access to information regarding compensation and career progression. However, for organisations managing international assignees, localised employees, commuters, and globally mobile talent in general, implementation will raise practical questions that extend well beyond traditional compensation governance.
International mobility inherently creates differentiated employment conditions. Employees move between countries, tax systems, payroll structures, labour markets, and compensation philosophies. As a result, mobile employees frequently receive pay packages that differ materially from those of local peers. Historically, many of these differences were accepted as a normal consequence of mobility. Under the new framework, organisations may increasingly need to explain, document, and justify such differences in a more structured and transparent manner.
Importantly, however, the Directive should not be interpreted as creating a fully harmonised European pay regime. It establishes minimum standards, but Member States retain significant discretion when transposing the rules into national law. Definitions, thresholds, reporting obligations, enforcement mechanisms, remedies, and procedural requirements may differ materially between jurisdictions. Employers
should therefore avoid assuming that one single EU-wide approach will automatically satisfy all local requirements.
For mobility and HR teams, the Directive is best understood not as a narrow legal compliance exercise, but rather as part of a broader shift toward more evidence-based and transparent pay governance.
One of the most important aspects of the Directive is that it changes the philosophy underlying pay governance itself
A Shift From Pay Secrecy To Pay Justification
One of the most important aspects of the Directive is that it changes the philosophy underlying pay governance itself.
Historically, many organisations operated with relatively limited pay transparency. Compensation decisions often relied on managerial discretion, historical precedent, individual negotiation, or market practice. While equal pay obligations did already exist under EU law, employers were not always required to explain pay differences in a detailed or accessible manner.
The Directive changes this dynamic significantly. Employees and job applicants
will increasingly gain rights to information regarding pay levels, pay ranges, and the criteria used to determine pay and progression. Employers may also face obligations to demonstrate that compensation structures rely on objective and gender-neutral criteria.
Another important development concerns the burden of proof. Under the Directive, where an employee establishes facts from which discrimination may be presumed, the burden may shift to the employer to demonstrate that no unlawful discrimination occurred. In practice, this means organisations will increasingly need to maintain robust documentation supporting compensation decisions.
For global mobility programmes, this is particularly relevant because international assignments routinely involve differentiated pay approaches and reward package elements: housing support, mobility premiums, hardship allowances, tax equalisation, schooling assistance, localisation offsets, and cost-ofliving adjustments.
The Directive does not prohibit differentiated treatment. Nor does it require uniform compensation across countries or employee populations. However, employers may increasingly need to demonstrate that differences are objectively justified, proportionate, consistently applied, and unrelated to discriminatory criteria. This distinction is important because some commentary surrounding the Directive risks oversimplifying its implications.
Why Mobile Employees Create Additional Complexity
International mobility introduces structural complexity because mobile employees often sit simultaneously between multiple legal, tax, and compensation systems.
An employee may remain employed by a home-country entity while physically working elsewhere. Another may transition onto a local contract but retain legacy expatriate benefits. Others may operate under regional or global compensation structures that are partially disconnected from local market positioning. As a result, determining how the Directive applies to mobile employees is rarely straightforward.
In many cases, applicability will depend on a combination of factors, including: the employing legal entity, payroll arrangements, habitual place of work, posted-worker status, social-security affiliation, contractual structure, and national implementation rules.
This is an area where organisations should be careful not to adopt overly broad assumptions. For example, it may be tempting to maintain that the Directive applies automatically whenever an employee is employed by an EU entity. While this may often be relevant, actual obligations will depend on how Member States transpose the Directive and how local labour courts interpret the employment relationship in practice.
Similarly, employees working partly outside the EU should not automatically be assumed to fall outside scope. Certain secondment structures, posted-worker arrangements, or host-country employment relationships could still create obligations depending on national implementation.
The safest approach is therefore not categorical inclusion or exclusion, but rather fact-specific legal assessment supported by local counsel where necessary.
Mobility Programmes Will Need Stronger Pay Narratives
One of the less visible, but potentially most important, consequences of the Directive is that mobility programmes may increasingly require coherent and defensible “pay narratives”.
Historically, many mobility policies evolved incrementally over time. Benefits were added to address operational realities, business pressures, market competitiveness, or legacy practices. In some organisations, significant discretion also existed at managerial or regional level.
Under a more transparent framework, however, organisations may need to explain not only what mobile employees receive, but why they receive it. For example, housing support may be linked to temporary relocation obligations. Tax equalisation may reflect the objective of maintaining tax neutrality during assignments. Hardship allowances may compensate for objectively assessed livingcondition differentials. Mobility premiums may relate to assignment-related disruption or retention considerations.
This becomes increasingly important because transparency tends to increase employee comparison across populations and jurisdictions. Once compensation structures become more visible, employees may compare outcomes not only internally but internationally.
Mobility teams should therefore anticipate greater scrutiny regarding assignment design, localisation practices, allowance structures, and legacy expatriate arrangements.
Segmentation Can HelpBut It Must Be Defensible
Many organisations are already considering segmentation approaches to manage comparability challenges between different mobility populations.
From an analytical perspective, segmentation may often be appropriate. Home-based expatriates, localised employees, commuters, and permanent transfers may operate under fundamentally different assumptions regarding cost structures, assignment purpose, and employment conditions.
Employers should avoid any suggestion that segmentation can be used simply to remove mobile populations from broader payequity analysis or reporting obligations
However, segmentation also creates potential risk if poorly designed. Employers should avoid any suggestion that segmentation can be used simply to remove mobile populations from broader pay-equity analysis or reporting obligations. Regulators and courts are unlikely to accept structures that appear designed primarily to avoid scrutiny or obscure unjustified disparities.
A more defensible approach is to treat segmentation as an analytical methodology intended to ensure meaningful comparisons between genuinely distinct employee groups. Where segmentation is used, organisations should ensure that the
methodology is transparent, comparator groups are coherent, distinctions are objectively justified, and governance processes are documented consistently.
The stronger the underlying governance framework, the easier segmentation becomes to explain and defend. Documentation and governance become strategically important. Perhaps the most immediate operational implication of the Directive concerns documentation quality.
Previously, many mobility decisions relied heavily on institutional knowledge or historical practice. Experienced mobility professionals understood why certain allowances existed or why exceptions had been approved. Yet such reasoning was not always documented in ways that would withstand detailed regulatory or legal scrutiny. The Directive changes this environment materially.
Organisations may increasingly need auditable evidence supporting compensation decisions, including benchmark methodologies, job evaluation outcomes, assignment rationales, approval workflows, market positioning logic, and explanations for differentiated treatment.
This is particularly important because documentation gaps can create risk even where underlying decisions were objectively reasonable.
Data governance also becomes more sensitive in the mobility context. Transparency obligations must still be balanced against GDPR requirements, national privacy rules, confidentiality obligations, collective bargaining agreements, and employee-relations considerations. Organisations should therefore avoid assuming that pay transparency automatically requires unrestricted disclosure of individualised compensation information. In practice, national implementation rules may permit or require aggregated or anonymised disclosures in certain circumstances.
Close coordination between mobility, legal, compensation, employee-relations, and data-protection teams will therefore become increasingly important.
Beyond Compliance
Although much of the discussion surrounding the Directive focuses understandably on legal compliance, its implications are broader than regulation alone.
In many organisations, mobility policies evolved over decades through successive business decisions, local practices, and operational exceptions. The result is often a highly complex ecosystem that may not always reflect a fully coherent compensation philosophy. The Directive creates pressure, but also an opportunity, to revisit these structures more strategically.
Organisations that respond proactively may use this moment to strengthen governance frameworks, improve policy consistency, modernise job evaluation methodologies, clarify compensation principles, and reinforce alignment between mobility and broader talent strategies. The objective should not be rigid standardisation. International mobility will always require differentiated approaches because mobility itself creates additional complexity and cost.
Ultimately, the EU Pay Transparency Directive signals a broader transition away from opaque compensation structures toward more evidence-based and transparent pay governance. For global mobility teams, this means that assignment management increasingly becomes not only an operational discipline, but also a governance discipline. In a more transparent environment, governance quality may become just as important as policy design itself.
Please register for the Reward Conference https://www.mercer.com/ insights/events/global-hr-conferences/ european-rewards-conference/.
Join us 8-9 October 2026 in Cascais, Portugal for "Beyond compensation and benefits: The rewards ecosystem of the future" - a focused conference turning trends like GenAI, transparency, and geopolitics into practical steps for fair, trusted rewards.
The Soft Leadership Model: A Solution For The HRM Department To Work With Technical People In The AI Age
Technical organisations are facing a dramatic shift from being behind the eight ball to being the entire playing field. While technical skills are important to find a job and keep a job, without the softer side of leadership skills, technical people fall short of a fulfilling and successful career. Most leaders will need to change not just their own approach to knowledge-sharing and interpersonal relationships but also their entire organisation's approach with the occurrence of artificial intelligence (AI). The necessary techniques of artificial intelligence are grounded firmly in the human relations movement in the 1930s, with Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies. It is possible to build a technical culture that is not only productive but also healthy and enjoyable. Artificial intelligence synthesises thinking in technical skills and puts forward innovative ideas on what works when dealing with people and what does not bring out the best in people. By using AI to envision a technical organisation becoming more of a people-centered workplace, softer side approaches are becoming much more common.
Consider the importance of storytelling when working on technical work. The technical leader is the principal medium we use to transmit our ideas to the world. If we want our own insights to influence our practice and profession, we need to pay as
much attention to the craft of storytelling as we do to identifying and answering interesting questions. AI has developed a way of capturing conversations through reiterating what was said and making it better and more appealing, and then the AI assistant will ask a pertinent question. This is the skill of the technical leader using a softer side of leadership.
The technical leader may consider themselves more of conducting more feasibility studies as opposed to creating an executive summary. One places the technical leader, as Einstein once said:
If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough
“If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough”.
Technical leaders are not oriented towards participative learning and cooperative learning. They live in their minds, and this has enabled them to be successful. The reason for this is that the technical leaders are somewhat passive, and anything that is retained does not pervade the area of the brain that needs to be transformed to be effective in the soft side of leadership. For a technical leader to change from being too dogmatic, this article introduces some participative and cooperative learning techniques, which will enable technical leaders to experience
learning the softer side of leadership, to evolve to become more knowledgeable about organisational behaviour, and to lead from the heart and mind.
The Heart And Mind Meets AI
The technical leader, in many instances, faces what McGregor calls a Theory-X mannerism. This is because, for one, they possess a superior knowledge of the field that they are in, which is, in most cases, the cultural climate of the same people. There has to be some sort of element of control to the methods of transition for an organisation to begin to overcome inertia. In the following sections of this article, some selected methods applied in practice will be provided. Here are a few ways the technical leader can begin to create more of a softer-sided leadership approach.
• Challenge and validate all concepts regarding what they have been doing in the past and what needs to be changed in their behaviour. The technical leader must welcome the possibility of change and improve sound principles of effective knowledge management. Their AI assistant can be helpful in this manner by directing dialogue and helping them in the transition
• The objective of the technical leader is to provide an environment in which effective thinking can take place. Their communication should challenge not only themselves but also their colleagues to stimulate each other to find the solution of inertia
• The technical leader should try not to be defensive or condescending. The technical leader should logically surface inconsistencies and contradictions so that the softer side of leadership can become contagious. While these ideas are simply thoughts on improvement, when used in conjunction with an AI assistant, a technical leader can transform into more of a softer side of leadership.
Controlling, Leading, Organising, And Planning As A Soft-Sided Leader
There are two potential problems that technical leaders face. One being
micromanaging and using control for manipulative purposes. Coercive leadership only works in the short-term, and longterm success is often stymied. The second is a realisation that they must reverse the mindset of manipulation to use the softersided leadership skills.
Coercive leadership only works in the shortterm, and longterm success is often stymied. The second is a realisation that they must reverse the mindset of manipulation to use the softer-sided leadership skills
When leading, ask colleagues and followers how they want to feel. A technique used by Jim Clawson is mentioned in the book Powered by. Soft-sided leaders establish emotional congruity by helping colleagues feel good about their work. Find out where subordinates are raising the bar incrementally to develop personal growth. Leaders who use the softer skills do not lose control because, as Jim and Scott argue, there is motivation and accountability. Thus, by focusing on how people want to feel, this emphasises the role of feeling in achieving personal and organisational excellence, suggesting that emotional well-being is crucial for success. Breaking away from the technical leader's manipulative behaviour by making subordinates feel that they are involved will
help their followers be involved. A key to ascertaining the softer-sided organisational behaviour competency. For more detailed insights, you can refer to the book “Powered by Feel” by Jim Clawson.
Organising takes the sequential technical leader and attempts to get them to be more global in their thinking. Not a global mindset, a global perspective which takes many more things into account than simply leading from a script. The softer-sided leader is more of an organisational architect. This implies that followers can innovate and create without worrying about failure. To do this, a loose control system that encourages experimentation and trial and error is necessary, with the objective of moving the structure of the hierarchy toward a more distributed, flatter organisational chart. Bottom-up decision making, as opposed to the mechanistic style of the technical leader. When planning, technical leaders conduct feasibility analysis based on organisational goals and put them into specific objectives that can be measured and quantified. The softer-sided leaders direct a process that helps subordinates find their strengths and then focus on using them for individual selfimprovement. Given that this is successful, then the organisation will improve the bottom line as people develop a sense of self-improvement.
Rewarding Colleagues And Followers As A Soft-Sided Leader
The Basic Principle of Rewards is based upon one side of the gamut to the other. The technical leaders focus more on punishments, which are an integral part of the correction-control idea found in organisations suffering from inertia. Primarily, the leader has to realise that not only does the technical leader have the capacity to reward and punish, but this is also part of the cultural process determined over a long period of time. Theory X technical leaders, based on McGregor’s theory, demonstrate that these direct attempts at behavioural modification are not recommended for the management of professionals. Therefore, one can honestly find that the soft-sided leader would attempt to assume more of a Theory Y mentality. This assumption can be found in the Hawthorne Effect. The softer side of the leader caused the desire to learn and become more cordial toward leaders on the part of the workers, which showed that the human side of organisational behaviour is more beneficial than the carrot-on-the-stick approach often permeated by the technical leader. Thus, the change in basic assumptions in the workers' perception was tantamount to the entirely friendlier paradigm of the softer-sided leader than these workers had seen before with the technical leader.
In Conclusion
Technical leaders are more successful than their softer-sided competitors early in their careers, but they reach a point at which promotion is not inevitable. The Peter Principle holds them back as they find themselves stuck in the expert category, lacking the linear longevity. Softsided leaders find themselves shelved right from the start because their lack of technical ability holds them back. Especially if their boss is more technical in nature. These leaders must embrace the technical knowledge enough to keep their jobs. Once mastered, they can learn to be more intuitive and show their soft-sided interpersonal leadership skills. Artificial intelligence is an agent of awareness for either of the two styles of leadership. Consulting with the artificial intelligence agent of change, both the technical leader and the soft-sided leader can establish a positive mindset to move forward. Self-awareness and focusing on building strengths to become your best self will enhance your leadership prowess.
Technical leaders are more successful than their softer-sided competitors early in their careers, but they reach a point at which promotion is not inevitable
BY MICHAEL J. PROVITERA & MOSTAFA SAYYADI
The Freelance Trap: Why Your International Contractor Network Is A Ticking Tax Liability
When the world went remote in 2020, a lot of companies made a very understandable call: hire international talent fast, call them contractors, and sort out the details later. Five years on, "later" has arrived. For a growing number of CFOs, it is arriving in the form of retroactive tax assessments, backdated payroll liabilities, and audit notices from jurisdictions they barely knew they had workers in.
The pattern Is Almost Always The Same
A US or UK company needs to scale quickly into a new market. They find strong talent in Brazil, Vietnam, or Mexico. They sign a freelance agreement, set up invoicing, and everyone moves on. Operationally, this person functions exactly like an employee: full-time hours, company laptop, internal Slack channels, performance reviews. But on paper, they are a contractor. That gap between operational reality and legal fiction is where the problem lives.
What regulators in Brazil, Mexico, Vietnam, and most of Europe are calling this is a "permanent establishment" - or more plainly, an unregistered corporate presence. The foreign company has no entity in the country, no registration, no local tax filings. Yet the daily activities of their "contractor" amount to running a business operation there. Local tax authorities are increasingly comfortable arguing that this constitutes taxable corporate activity within their borders, regardless of what the contract says.
The Financial Exposure Is Not Trivial
Authorities can reach back years. They can attribute a portion of global corporate profits to the local operation and apply tax to it. They can demand backdated social security contributions that were never
paid. And they can layer employment penalties on top. It is not unusual for a company that thought it was saving money by avoiding local entity setup to end up facing a bill that dwarfs what it would have cost to do things properly from the start.
The underlying legal issue is contractor misclassification, and it is more common than most HR and finance teams realise. The legal tests vary by country, but share a common thread: if someone works exclusively for you, takes direction from you, uses your tools, and is embedded in your org chart, they are probably an employee in the eyes of local law. A freelance invoice does not change that.
Here is what that looks like in practice. A mid-size US tech company brings on a senior marketing lead in Germany under a contractor arrangement
Here is what that looks like in practice. A mid-size US tech company brings on a senior marketing lead in Germany under a contractor arrangement. She manages vendor relationships, attends executive planning sessions, has a company email. By the time the company runs an internal
audit two years later, she has crossed every threshold German labour law uses to define employment. Unwinding that situation takes months and costs far more than a standard EOR arrangement would have from day one.
The Risk Varies By MarketBut It Is Rarely Low
The risk profile is not uniform across countries. Brazil has strong worker protections and a well-established legal tradition of workers successfully claiming retroactive employment status, including access to mandatory severance funds. Mexico's profit-sharing rules mean a misclassified contractor can legally claim a percentage of local corporate returns. Indonesia caps working hours by statute, so treating a local worker as permanently on-call creates a direct labour law violation, not a classification grey area.
Knowing which markets carry the most acute exposure - and where your current arrangements are weakest - is usually the first step worth taking.
The
"We'll Sort It
Out Later" Approach Is A False Economy
This is not a hedge, it is an opinion: the cost of cleaning up a shadow entity exposure is almost always higher than the cost of structured compliance from the start. The administrative convenience of contractor agreements is real, but it is an unpriced loan against future regulatory risk. At some point, that loan gets called in.
The practical fix, once an audit or internal review flags the exposure, is moving affected contractors to an Employer of Record arrangement. The EOR becomes the legal employer in the relevant country, runs compliant local payroll, handles statutory contributions, and structures contracts that reflect local labour law. The operating company keeps full day-to-day control of the work. The risk moves to a structure that can actually hold it.
The Conversation With Your Contractor Is Easier Than You Think
Moving someone from a freelance invoice to a formal employment structure
through an EOR is, in most cases, a clear improvement for them: stable benefits, verifiable employment history, access to local protections they were previously cut out of. Framing it that way, honestly, usually makes the conversation easier than people expect.
The Broader Point International contractor hiring is not always wrong. Genuine project-based freelance relationships - with multiple clients and clear deliverables - are legitimate and workable. The problem is dressing up what is functionally a full-time employment relationship in contractor clothing because entity setup feels like too much overhead. That is the specific pattern regulators have noticed, and they are getting better at finding it.
If you are not sure whether your current contractor arrangements would survive a local labor inspection, that uncertainty is itself the answer. At Employ Borderless, we publish independent guides on EOR providers, contractor-to-employee transitions, and country-level compliance risk - so you can understand your options before the audit notice arrives.
Email: robbin@employborderless.com
International contractor hiring is not always wrong. Genuine projectbased freelance relationships - with multiple clients and clear deliverablesare legitimate and workable
ROBBIN SCHUCHMANN
Robbin Schuchmann is co-founder of Employ Borderless, an independent research and advisory platform for global hiring. Employ Borderless publishes independent reviews, direct comparisons, and countrylevel hiring guides to help businesses find the right EOR, payroll, or PEO provider. Headquartered in Singapore. employborderless.com
Hyper-Localising The Global Offer: Designing Benefits That Actually Work In 50+ Countries
The foundation for international hiring has genuinely improved. Employer of Record (EOR) platforms now let a lean HR team hire across 30 or 40 countries without setting up a single local entity. That part works. A start-up can spin up global headcount faster than it can hire a decent recruiter.
What has not kept pace is the thinking about what those employees actually need once they are hired.
A quiet but consistent pattern is emerging in remote-first companies: international employees are leaving. Not because the work is bad or the pay is wrong, but because the benefits package - probably designed at a US or UK headquarters - lands flat in the places where these people actually live. A mental health app subscription and a home office stipend read very differently to a developer in Ho Chi Minh City than to one in San Francisco. The company thinks it is being generous. The employee feels like an afterthought.
The Copy-Paste Problem
The copy-paste approach to global benefits is the core problem. Most companies, when they first scale internationally, export their domestic benefits logic wholesale. That is understandable - HR teams are stretched and speed matters - but it creates a specific kind of resentment.
International workers are not asking for more perks. They are asking for benefits that reflect three things:
• What the law actually requires
• What local employers in their market are actually offering
• Where they actually live.
When that is missing, the comparison they make is not against your US package. It is against the regional employer down the road who understands their situation without having to be told.
Where Generic Packages Fall Apart
The statutory gaps are often the most damaging, partly because they are the most
concrete. Missing these baselines puts a company immediately on the back foot.
The statutory gaps are often the most damaging, partly because they are the most concrete. Missing these baselines puts a company immediately on the back foot
13th-Month Pay and Profit Sharing:
In much of Latin America and parts of Southeast Asia, 13th-month pay is not a discretionary bonus. It is a legal requirement, and employees know exactly when it is supposed to arrive. Getting this
wrong - or late - signals that the company either does not know or does not care. Mexico adds another layer with mandatory profit-sharing rules (PTU) that have no real equivalent in standard US or UK employment templates.
Healthcare: A generic global health stipend - the kind listed in a job description as a perk - can be almost meaningless in Vietnam, where regulated social insurance contributions and supplementary private coverage are both expected and culturally significant. Paying out a cash stipend without understanding how it flows through local payroll can trigger tax penalties the employee ends up absorbing. That is a benefits mistake dressed up as generosity.
Pension and Retirement: Brazil's severance fund structure (FGTS) is heavily unionised and legally rigid. Indonesia has strict pension frameworks and hard limits on working hours that cannot be approximated with a generic retirement contribution. Employees in these markets are not impressed by a company matching a percentage into a non-compliant vehicle. They are worried about their longterm financial security.
Economic Volatility: Argentina is the clearest example of what happens when benefits packages are static in volatile environments. Minimum wages there have been adjusted repeatedly to track inflation, and foreign currency controls make fixed, USD-denominated packages erode in value month by month. Companies that have not built flexibility into their compensation structures in that market have watched employees leave for local organisations that can actually respond to what is happening on the ground.
Tier Component What It Covers
Tier 1 The Global Core Uniform elements that drive a shared culture: company values, equity structures (where legally feasible), the software stack, and core mission.
Tier 2 The Local Statutory Pillar Built directly from the actual statutory requirements of each specific country, not adapted from a domestic template.
Tier 3 The Flexible Perk Layer A localised budget pointed at whatever genuinely matters in that specific marketwhether that is private healthcare, a localised retirement contribution, or regional allowances.
A Three-Tiered Framework
The framework that works is a tiered approach. It is not complicated in principle, even if the execution takes discipline. A tiered approach, on previous page.
Moving Beyond Software
The companies retaining global talent well are the ones that have stopped treating this as primarily a software problem. Top-tier EOR platforms - including providers we track closely like Remote, Deel, and Rippling - are genuinely useful for benchmarking salaries, speeding up on-boarding, and maintaining compliance records.
But no dashboard interprets the cultural weight of a late 13th-month payment, or flags that your Vietnamese team quietly stopped engaging because their health coverage did not meet what local competitors offer. That requires people who understand the markets, and a genuine willingness to treat localisation as a first-class concern rather than a compliance footnote.
Getting this right does not require a large HR operation. It requires an honest audit of where your current package is falling short, country by country, and the discipline to fix the gaps rather than paper over them with another generic perk.
Think of it like comparing credit cards: the value is not in the slick plastic interface, but in whether the specific rewards and protections actually work for where and how you spend. Your global benefits strategy should operate the exact same way.
ROBBIN SCHUCHMANN
Robbin Schuchmann is co-founder of Employ Borderless, an independent advisory platform for global hiring solutions, headquartered in Singapore. He runs international business operations and digital marketing, and has spent years working across global hiring, EOR, PEO and payroll. Employ Borderless helps businesses find the right global hiring provider through independent research, provider reviews, direct comparisons and oneon-one advisory. www.employborderless.com
