Welcome

‹ Back

For many companies expanding internationally, an Employer of Record (EOR) is the logical starting point.

The attraction is obvious. A company can recruit employees in a new country without first establishing a local legal entity, building a payroll function, opening local banking arrangements, appointing accountants and HR resources, or developing an intimate understanding of local employment and tax administration.

The EOR becomes the legal employer while the international company directs the employee's day-to-day work.

It is an extraordinarily effective way to enter a new market.

But as the local team grows, an inevitable question arises:

At what point should we stop using an EOR and establish our own entity?

The temptation is to answer the question purely on headcount.

Five employees? Stay with the EOR.

Twenty-five employees? Establish a company.

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple.

The wrong comparison: EOR fee versus payroll cost

One of the most common mistakes is to look at the monthly EOR fee multiplied by the number of employees and compare that number with the apparent cost of administering payroll internally.

At small headcounts, the EOR cost looks relatively insignificant. As the workforce grows, however, that multiplication starts attracting the CFO's attention.

If an EOR charges a fixed monthly fee per employee, every additional employee increases the EOR cost. By contrast, many of the costs associated with operating your own entity are fixed or semi-fixed.

The conclusion therefore seems obvious:

At some point, owning the infrastructure must become cheaper than renting it.

And it does.

But the EOR isn't simply providing payroll.

The correct comparison is:

Total cost of EOR

versus

Total cost of establishing, operating, managing and eventually closing a local employing entity.

That produces a very different calculation.

What are you actually buying from an EOR?

A good EOR provides something much broader than a monthly payslip.

It provides an existing local employment infrastructure.

Depending on the service, that can include employment contracts, onboarding, payroll processing, statutory deductions and submissions, employee records, leave administration, HR support, employment-law compliance, employee relations support, termination processes and ongoing local expertise.

Most importantly, the foreign company does not have to build all of this before employing its first person.

That has considerable value.

The company converts what would otherwise be a combination of fixed cost, management overhead and compliance risk into a predictable variable cost per employee.

That distinction becomes particularly important when entering an unfamiliar market.

Establishing a company is the easy part

There is another misconception worth addressing.

The cost of registering a company is not the cost of operating a company.

In South Africa, for example, once an entity becomes an employer it assumes ongoing obligations relating to payroll taxes and employment administration. Employers generally have registration, withholding, payment and reporting responsibilities involving PAYE, UIF and, where applicable, the Skills Development Levy. SARS requires employer declarations and reconciliations in addition to the underlying payroll administration.

These are perfectly manageable obligations. Thousands of South African businesses deal with them every day.

The point is that somebody has to deal with them.

The same applies to accounting, tax, corporate administration, banking, annual financial reporting, HR administration, employment contracts, disciplinary matters, terminations and the numerous other responsibilities associated with being an employer.

Moving away from an EOR doesn't make those functions disappear.

It transfers responsibility for them from the EOR to you.

So where is the breakpoint?

There are actually two breakpoints.

The first is the financial breakpoint.

This is the point at which the annual cost of the EOR exceeds the estimated annual cost of operating your own entity.

Because EOR pricing generally increases with headcount while many entity costs do not increase at the same rate, there will inevitably be a crossover.

But reaching mathematical crossover doesn't necessarily mean that establishing an entity makes sense.

Imagine that operating your own entity would save R50,000 a year compared with your EOR.

Would you establish and manage a foreign subsidiary, assume the associated employment and compliance responsibilities and dedicate management resources to it to save R50,000?

Probably not.

Now suppose the saving were R1 million a year.

The conversation would be very different.

Which brings us to the second breakpoint.

The strategic breakpoint.

This occurs when the financial advantage of owning the entity becomes sufficiently significant to justify the additional complexity, risk and management responsibility.

In practice, this is often the more important number.

Headcount matters — but trajectory matters more

A business employing 15 people in a country can represent two completely different situations.

Company A has 15 employees because it is experimenting with an offshore development team. The project may succeed spectacularly, remain at its present size or be closed within 18 months.

Company B has 15 employees today, has approved a five-year investment programme and expects to employ 60 people within three years.

Their current headcount is identical.

Their entity decisions should be completely different.

Company A benefits enormously from retaining flexibility.

Company B should probably already be modelling the economics and timing of establishing its own operation.

The question therefore isn't merely:

"How many employees do we have?"

It is:

"How many employees do we reasonably expect to have, for how long, and how certain are we about that commitment?"

Time horizon changes the economics

Establishing an entity creates both entry and exit costs.

There are professional costs and management time involved in establishing the operation. Systems and supplier relationships have to be created. Employment infrastructure has to be established.

And if the international expansion doesn't work, the entity cannot simply be switched off like a subscription.

Employees may need to be terminated appropriately, contractual obligations settled, tax affairs finalised, accounts closed and the entity wound down or otherwise dealt with.

This means an entity that appears cheaper on an annual operating-cost comparison may still be more expensive over an 18-month investment period.

Companies should therefore compare Total Cost of Ownership over the expected life of the investment, rather than annual cost alone.

Local management capability matters

Another important question is whether the company actually has the capability to operate the entity.

Who will oversee the South African operation?

Who understands the local employment environment?

Who deals with an employee grievance?

Who ensures payroll information is correct?

Who deals with underperformance?

Who monitors changes in legislation?

Who manages the local accountants, payroll providers, lawyers and other service providers?

Who is ultimately accountable for ensuring that things get done?

If the answer to most of these questions is somebody sitting several thousand kilometres away who already has another full-time job, some of the apparent financial savings associated with establishing an entity may be illusory.

Management time has a cost, even when it doesn't appear on an invoice.

A physical presence changes the equation again

Establishing a legal entity and establishing an operating business are not necessarily the same thing.

A remote team may require little more than the corporate and employment infrastructure.

A physical operation may require premises, connectivity, insurance, equipment, facilities management, local administration, health and safety arrangements and additional management.

Consequently, companies should distinguish between three decisions:

Do we need employees in this country?

Do we need our own legal entity in this country?

Do we need a physical operating presence in this country?

They are related questions, but they are not the same question.

Tax considerations should not be an afterthought

The decision also needs to be considered alongside the company's international tax structure.

Questions concerning corporate tax residence, permanent establishment, transfer pricing, intercompany charges, VAT and the relationship between the local entity and foreign parent can become relevant depending on what the local operation actually does.

These issues should be assessed by appropriately qualified tax advisers before the structure is finalised.

An EOR should never be regarded simply as a mechanism for avoiding the tax consequences that would otherwise arise from the substance of a company's activities in a country.

There is also the question of strategic permanence

There comes a point where establishing an entity sends an important signal.

A company employing two people in South Africa may simply be accessing talent.

A company employing 50 people, developing local management, servicing customers and planning further investment is doing something fundamentally different.

South Africa has become part of its organisational architecture.

At that point an entity can provide advantages beyond cost: corporate identity, local market credibility, direct control of employment infrastructure, local supplier relationships and a platform for further investment.

The business has moved from testing a market to operating in a market.

That is often the clearest strategic signal that the EOR conversation should change.

Don't regard the move away from EOR as a failure

There is a curious tendency in the EOR industry to treat a customer establishing its own entity as a lost client.

I think that misunderstands the purpose of EOR.

A successful international expansion should sometimes result in the company outgrowing the EOR model.

The natural lifecycle can be:

Enter → Test → Employ → Learn → Scale → Establish → Transition.

An EOR can provide the bridge between the first employee and the point at which the company has sufficient scale, confidence and permanence to justify building its own infrastructure.

The best EOR relationship should therefore include an honest conversation about when that transition becomes appropriate.

The questions companies should ask

Before establishing an entity, an international company should consider:

1. What is our current local headcount and realistic three-to-five-year headcount?
2. How certain are we that we will remain in the country?
3. What is our total annual EOR cost?
4. What will it genuinely cost to establish and operate our own entity?
5. What internal management resources will the entity require?
6. Which services currently provided by the EOR will need to be replaced?
7. What are the tax, accounting, payroll, HR and employment-law implications?
8. Do we need a legal entity, a physical operation, or both?
9. What would it cost to exit if the strategy changed?
10. How long would it take for the savings from an entity to recover the cost of establishing it?

Only then does the headcount number become meaningful.

There is no magic number

It would be convenient to say that every company should establish an entity when it reaches 10, 20 or 30 employees.

There is no universally correct number.

A rapidly growing 12-person operation with a five-year investment horizon may already justify an entity.

A 25-person project expected to run for only 18 months may still be better suited to an EOR.

The real breakpoint occurs when three things come together:

Scale + Permanence + Economic Advantage.

Until then, an EOR allows a company to buy flexibility and local employment infrastructure without making a substantial structural commitment.

Once those three factors align, however, the question should change from:

"Why are we paying an EOR?"

to:

"Are we now sufficiently established in this market to become the employer ourselves?"

That is the conversation international companies should be having — and a good EOR should be prepared to have it with them.