The host country is where your employee works — and its laws override everything in your home jurisdiction. Your company’s headquarters, your standard employment policies, your usual benefits package: none of that matters. The host country’s labor code, tax regime, and social security system dictate the terms.
This creates a practical problem that catches companies off-guard. Hiring someone in Japan means enrolling them in mandatory benefits from day one — health insurance, pension, employment insurance, and workers’ compensation — with employer contributions around 15% of salary. Hiring the same role in the US means at-will employment, no federally mandated paid leave, and health insurance as a competitive necessity rather than a legal obligation. Same job title, same company, entirely different cost structure and compliance burden.
The gap widens at termination. In the Netherlands, ending an employment relationship requires either employee consent, a court order, or approval from the UWV (the Dutch employee insurance agency). In the UK, unfair dismissal protection kicks in after two years. In Brazil, you can terminate without cause but owe a 40% penalty on accumulated FGTS deposits. The host country decides how much it costs to reverse a bad hire.
Tax obligations compound the complexity. Employer social security contributions range from around 5% of salary in Singapore to over 40% in France. Payroll taxes, withholding rates, and reporting deadlines differ in every jurisdiction. Filing incorrectly can trigger penalties and interest that far exceed the original tax liability.
Why It Matters for EOR
Employer of Record services exist because of the host-country problem. The EOR maintains a legal entity in the host country, handles local payroll, files taxes, and administers statutory benefits. Your employee works for you day-to-day; the EOR owns the legal employment relationship and the compliance risk that comes with it.
The critical question when evaluating an EOR is entity ownership. Providers like Remote operate owned entities in 60+ countries, giving them direct control over compliance. Others use in-country partners — third-party firms that actually employ the worker. Partner models aren’t inherently bad, but they add a layer between you and the compliance function. If the partner cuts corners on social security filings or local employment contracts, the exposure lands on the EOR — and eventually on you as reputational risk.
Before choosing a host country for a hire, model the full cost. Base salary is the starting point, not the total. Add mandatory employer contributions, statutory benefits, and any required insurance. The OECD’s Taxing Wages database publishes employer cost breakdowns by country — use it to benchmark before you get surprised by a total employer cost 40% above the gross salary you offered.
For practical use of this concept, see EOR vs PEO explained and remote jobs by country.
Further Reading
- Hiring in Singapore: a common first host country for Asia-Pacific expansion — Singapore’s business-friendly regulations make it one of the most popular host countries for companies entering Asia.
- EOR vs. entity: when to establish your own presence in the host country — Compares the trade-offs of using an EOR versus setting up your own entity in the host country.
- EOR comparisons
- Read Deel review
- EOR vs PEO explained
Was this page helpful?
Tell us or send a correction.