There was a time when international remote work sat well outside most organisations’ standard operating procedures.
An employee might ask to spend two weeks working from another country while visiting family or extend a business trip by a few days. These requests were unusual enough that they could be handled individually, often through a few emails between HR, a manager and, where necessary, an external adviser.
That approach was rarely efficient, but it was manageable.
Today, the environment looks very different.
International remote work has become an expected part of workplace flexibility. Employees increasingly want the freedom to work from another country for short periods, while organisations continue to embrace distributed teams, hybrid working and cross-border collaboration.
Mercer’s 2025 Outlook and International Remote Working Spot Survey reflects just how much the landscape has evolved. One-third of organisations say international remote work is becoming increasingly important, while one in ten now describe it as a “burning topic”. At the same time, more than half still rely on manual processes to track international remote work, and 96% have no metrics in place to measure the success of their programmes.
Those findings tell an interesting story.
International remote work has become mainstream.
However, governance has still got some way to go.
More requests don’t just create more work
The increase in international remote work is changing the role of HR, global mobility and tax teams.
A request that once appeared every few months may now arrive several times a week.
Some involve a software engineer wanting to work from Spain for three weeks. Others involve a consultant extending a client trip to Singapore, or an employee combining annual leave in Italy with a period of remote work before returning home.
Individually, none of these requests appear particularly complicated.
Collectively, they create a significant operational challenge.
Every request needs to be reviewed. Policies need to be applied consistently. Decisions need to be documented. Managers expect quick answers, while employees increasingly assume that flexibility should be available unless there is a clear reason otherwise.
As request volumes increase, manual processes begin to show their limitations.
Mercer’s research found that just over half of organisations still track international remote work manually, while many others acknowledge they lack the right tools and processes to manage it effectively. As volumes continue to rise, manual approaches become increasingly difficult to sustain.
The technical questions haven’t changed
Despite the changing nature of work, the underlying compliance questions remain familiar.
Could the arrangement create payroll obligations?
Does it affect social security?
Are there employment law implications?
Could corporate tax exposure arise?
Does the employee have the right immigration status?
These are not new questions.
Global mobility, payroll and tax professionals have been dealing with them for decades.
The difference today is that those same questions are now being asked much more frequently, often outside traditional mobility programmes and involving employees who would never previously have been considered internationally mobile.
The increasing frequency of these assessments also comes at a time when the regulatory environment itself is evolving.
The regulatory landscape is evolving
International remote work is no longer simply changing how organisations manage their workforce. It is also changing how governments think about international taxation, payroll and cross-border compliance.
Much of that change has been driven by the OECD. Through its work on cross-border remote work, the OECD has fundamentally shifted the conversation around international remote work. What was once often viewed as an HR or mobility issue is now recognised as a broader tax, payroll, employment law and compliance challenge.
The OECD has highlighted that many of the international frameworks governing cross-border work were developed for a very different world, long before hybrid and remote working became commonplace. As a result, governments are increasingly examining how existing rules apply when employees work across borders outside traditional assignment programmes.
Issues such as permanent establishment, payroll withholding, tax residence, social security coordination and employer reporting obligations are receiving far greater attention than they did only a few years ago. For employers, that has dramatically changed the landscape. International remote work can no longer be assessed as a simple HR request. Every application may have implications across multiple compliance areas.
Earlier this year, the OECD’s Global Mobility Consultation brought together governments, tax authorities, businesses and industry experts to explore how international frameworks should evolve to reflect modern ways of working. While the consultation did not introduce new rules, it clearly demonstrated that governments are actively reviewing how cross-border remote work should be managed and that further developments are likely in the years ahead.
We explored the consultation, the key issues discussed and what they mean for employers in our blog, OECD Global Mobility Consultation: What It Means for Employers Managing Work From Anywhere.
These developments reinforce something many organisations are already experiencing. Even relatively straightforward remote work requests now require input from multiple business functions because the potential implications extend well beyond HR.
One request, multiple stakeholders
Consider a fairly typical scenario.
An employee based in London wants to spend four weeks working from Spain after attending meetings in Madrid.
Their manager has no concerns about productivity and is happy to approve the request.
The employee has already booked accommodation.
At first glance, it appears straightforward.
In practice, several different teams may need to consider different aspects of the request.
HR needs to determine whether it aligns with company policy.
Payroll may need to assess reporting obligations.
Corporate tax teams may want to understand whether repeated activity in Spain creates additional exposure.
Employment lawyers may need to consider local labour law implications.
IT may need to review data security requirements.
None of these stakeholders are wrong to ask questions.
The challenge is coordinating those assessments efficiently while ensuring similar requests receive similar treatment.
Without a structured process, decisions can vary considerably depending on who reviews the request.
That inconsistency creates unnecessary risk.
Visibility is becoming just as important as expertise
Many compliance issues arise for a surprisingly simple reason.
The organisation doesn’t know where work is taking place.
An employee extends a business trip.
Someone works remotely while travelling.
A manager approves an overseas arrangement without realising similar approvals have already been granted earlier in the year.
By the time HR or tax teams become aware, the employee may already have been working abroad for several weeks.
Technical expertise cannot solve a visibility problem.
Organisations first need reliable information about where employees intend to work, for how long, and under what circumstances.
Only then can the appropriate compliance assessment begin.
Yet many organisations are still struggling to achieve that visibility. Mercer found that only around half actively track where employees are working internationally, while many others say they would like to but lack the necessary processes or technology.
Digital nomad visas have changed expectations, but not employer obligations
The rapid growth of digital nomad visas has also influenced employee expectations.
Governments continue introducing new immigration pathways designed specifically for remote workers, reflecting the long-term shift towards location-independent work.
From an employee’s perspective, obtaining a visa may appear to resolve the issue.
From an employer’s perspective, it answers only one question.
A visa may determine whether someone can legally enter or remain in a country.
It does not automatically determine payroll obligations, social security, employment rights, corporate tax exposure or internal policy requirements.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important as international remote work becomes more common.
Governance is increasingly becoming a competitive advantage
The organisations responding most effectively are not necessarily those with the most generous policies.
They are the organisations with the clearest processes.
Employees understand how requests are assessed.
Managers know when specialist review is required.
Compliance teams work from a consistent framework rather than reinventing the assessment every time.
Decisions are documented clearly.
That consistency benefits everyone involved.
Employees receive faster responses.
Managers gain confidence in the process.
Specialists spend less time answering the same questions repeatedly.
Leadership has greater assurance that decisions align with policy and can be explained if challenged later.
Mercer’s survey also found that 96% of organisations do not currently measure the success of their international remote work programmes. Without consistent governance, visibility and reporting, it becomes difficult to understand whether policies are delivering the intended outcomes or whether risks are increasing unnoticed.
Technology has an important role, but governance comes first
Technology can make international remote work significantly easier to manage.
Risk assessments can be standardised.
Low-risk requests can move through the approval process more efficiently.
Higher-risk arrangements can be escalated automatically to tax, payroll or legal specialists.
Every assessment can be recorded in a consistent and auditable way.
Technology, however, should support governance rather than replace it.
Without clear policies, defined ownership and consistent decision-making criteria, even the best technology will struggle to deliver reliable outcomes.
Looking ahead
Remote and hybrid work are now firmly established in the global labour market, and international remote work is following the same trajectory.
At the same time, the regulatory landscape continues to evolve. The OECD has brought international attention to the challenges created by cross-border remote work, and governments are increasingly focused on the tax, payroll and compliance implications of employees working across jurisdictions.
The question facing employers is no longer whether requests will continue.
They almost certainly will.
The organisations that adapt most successfully will be those that treat international remote work as an operational capability rather than an exception. That means having clear governance, consistent approval processes, visibility over where employees are working and the ability to demonstrate why decisions were made.
International remote work is no longer simply an employee benefit or a workplace flexibility issue. It has become part of a much broader conversation about international taxation, employment, payroll and regulatory compliance.
That is where the next phase of global mobility is heading.
Donal Brady is Co-Founder and Head of Product at Work From Anywhere, a platform to help companies execute a successful workation policy. He has deep expertise and experience in the world of remote work having spent nearly twenty years working in finance leadership roles with global multinationals like PwC, before entering the world of global mobility with International SOS and then pivoting into the software industry with Accel-KKR backed Smart Communications. He walks the walk with Work From Anywhere, speaking 5 languages, having travelled to 65+ countries and worked in 10.
