BLOG |
Employer of Record & PEO
Published:
January 7, 2026
Last updated:
January 5, 2026
HR leaders should evaluate an employer of record in APAC by verifying execution capability rather than accepting marketing claims: request operational runbooks demonstrating payroll governance, test statutory submission evidence retrieval, review frameworks showing compliance ownership clarity, examine escalation protocols with defined response structures, and validate reporting consistency across markets through sample outputs.
At regional scale with 500+ employees, evaluation must demonstrate the provider can maintain payroll accuracy under volume, deliver audit-ready evidence within Finance timelines, escalate incidents predictably through clear protocols, and support consistent employee experience across varying APAC statutory environments. AYP Group's evaluation approach centers on transparency, providing prospective clients with operational documentation that demonstrates execution depth rather than requiring trust in feature lists alone.
The most critical evaluation factor combines compliance ownership clarity with genuine risk transfer. When ownership is ambiguous—common with providers using local partnerships or reseller networks—penalty exposure transfers to your organization despite contractual language suggesting otherwise.
Concrete verification methods: Request accountability frameworks showing who handles statutory employer obligations, contract amendments, and government reporting in each target market. Verify whether the provider operates through direct legal entities or subcontractor partnerships with entity registration documentation. Review sample contract templates checking mandatory local clause inclusion. Request liability documentation showing specific risk categories (payroll errors, statutory penalties, employee disputes) and who bears financial responsibility. Examine subcontracting clauses for named partners. Verify data protection agreements define controller versus processor roles. Request exit and transition support protocols with timing commitments.
Common red flags: Vague language like "we work with local partners" without naming entities, contract templates lacking market-specific mandatory clauses, liability provisions using "reasonable efforts" without specific commitments, termination dispute costs becoming client responsibility despite EOR being legal employer, or exit support described as "we'll work it out."
AYP's approach: AYP operates direct legal entities across APAC markets with clear accountability frameworks, provides sample contracts demonstrating mandatory local clause inclusion, delivers proactive law change monitoring, maintains defined liability frameworks with specific risk assumption documentation, and delivers structured exit support protocols—establishing verifiable accountability and genuine risk transfer.
Regional HR must evaluate execution controls: clear cutoff calendars showing approval deadlines by market, structured accuracy validation during implementation, variance investigation protocols when discrepancies emerge, retroactive adjustment handling ensuring statutory recalculations complete correctly, statutory submission evidence demonstrating filing confirmations exist, and exception handling governance for off-cycle payments and commission corrections.
Concrete verification methods: Request market-specific payroll calendars with cutoff dates and approval timelines. Review implementation accuracy validation approaches. Examine exception handling workflows for common scenarios (retroactive changes, mid-month terminations, commission disputes). Request actual statutory submission confirmations from recent cycles. Test evidence retrieval speed for itemized calculation worksheets.
Common red flags: Generic cutoff guidance rather than market-specific calendars, implementation approach described as "we'll figure it out as we go," exception handling without structured workflows, statutory evidence "available on request" without demonstrated delivery capability, or variance investigation requiring escalation rather than standard protocols.
AYP's approach: AYP maintains operational payroll runbooks per market with cutoff governance, operates structured implementation protocols with accuracy validation, provides exception handling frameworks with case management tracking, delivers statutory submission evidence as standard, and maintains audit-ready variance investigation procedures.
Service governance evaluation must verify response time commitments by issue severity, escalation documentation showing when issues move from operational to management levels, incident logging tracking resolution status and root causes, post-incident protocols ensuring recurring issues trigger improvements, and business continuity commitments defining backup procedures during provider-side failures.
Concrete verification methods: Request SLA documentation showing response commitments by issue type and severity. Review escalation structure definitions with contact roles and triggers. Ask for sample incident logs showing tracking, categorization, and resolution. Request business continuity documentation outlining backup procedures for system failures or vendor outages during critical windows. Verify whether SLA performance is measured and reported.
Common red flags: SLAs with only generic language, escalation paths described verbally without clear structures, incident tracking that doesn't exist systematically, post-incident protocols absent so recurring issues aren't identified, or business continuity planning reactive rather than proactive.
AYP's approach: AYP provides structured SLA frameworks with response commitments by severity level, maintains escalation protocols with defined structures, operates incident logging systems tracking resolution patterns, conducts post-incident reviews, and delivers business continuity plans with documented contingency procedures.
Reporting evaluation must verify standardized formats across markets enabling Finance consolidation without manual aggregation, audit trail accessibility for approval workflows and calculation methodology, role-based access controls protecting sensitive data while enabling stakeholder visibility, evidence retrieval protocols supporting business-critical timelines, and reporting cadence predictability.
Concrete verification methods: Request sample month-end report packs across multiple markets—verify formats align and definitions are consistent. Ask to see approval audit trail examples demonstrating how changes and exceptions are tracked. Test evidence retrieval speed for transaction-level documentation. Review data access protocols showing role-based permission structures. Verify reporting delivery timing and frequency commitments.
Common red flags: Sample reports showing inconsistent formats requiring manual consolidation, approval audit trails not accessible to clients, evidence retrieval timing "depends on the request" rather than committed service levels, role-based access controls not implemented, or reporting cadence ad-hoc rather than scheduled predictably.
AYP's approach: AYP delivers standardized reporting formats with transaction-level detail enabling Finance consolidation, maintains audit trails with client-accessible approval documentation, operates evidence retrieval protocols supporting Finance timelines, implements role-based access controls, and provides predictable reporting cadence.
Scenario 1: A late salary change request arrives after documented cutoff in Singapore—affecting statutory CPF calculations. How does the provider control the exception, document the approval, recalculate accurately, and provide evidence for Finance reconciliation?
→ AYP's control: Exception handling workflows with clear approval protocols, statutory recalculation procedures ensuring accuracy, and audit trail evidence supporting Finance reconciliation—demonstrating governance under operational pressure.
Scenario 2: During internal Finance review, a statutory contribution discrepancy appears in Philippines payroll from two months prior. How quickly can the provider deliver itemized calculation worksheets, submission confirmations, and variance explanation enabling Finance to close the investigation?
→ AYP's control: Audit-ready documentation systems with evidence retrieval protocols deliver calculation worksheets, filing confirmations, and variance documentation supporting Finance timelines—enabling stakeholder accountability.
Scenario 3: A high-severity incident occurs during month-end close—payroll system experiences processing delays affecting multiple markets. What's the escalation path, who has emergency decision authority, how are stakeholders notified, and what backup procedures exist?
→ AYP's control: Business continuity plans with structured escalation frameworks, emergency decision authority definitions, stakeholder communication protocols, and backup processing procedures—maintaining operational control during critical failures.
Scenario 4: Implementation parallel validation reveals material variance between current and new provider payroll calculations. How is the variance investigated, root causes documented, corrections validated, and Finance confidence established before go-live?
→ AYP's control: Structured implementation protocols with variance investigation procedures, itemized calculation comparison, root cause documentation, and accuracy validation—preventing go-live until Finance reconciliation confidence is established.
AYP Group facilitates evidence-based EOR evaluation by providing operational transparency rather than requiring trust in marketing claims. Our approach during the evaluation stage includes sharing operational payroll runbooks with cutoff governance, accountability frameworks defining compliance ownership, sample reporting outputs demonstrating Finance consolidation capability, structured SLA commitments with measurable response standards, and audit trail examples showing evidence accessibility—enabling regional HR to verify execution capability before contract commitment.
Unlike providers offering feature lists or coverage maps without operational substantiation, AYP delivers evaluation transparency through implementation protocols prospective clients can review, incident management frameworks demonstrating governance maturity, business continuity plans showing contingency preparedness, and reference conversations with clients operating at similar scale facing comparable complexity.
Regional HR teams receive liability documentation with clear risk transfer frameworks, data protection agreements properly defining controller/processor roles, and exit support protocols preventing future transition disruption—supporting defensible vendor selection decisions that protect operational continuity and stakeholder accountability.
Compliance ownership clarity is paramount: verify whether the provider operates through direct legal entities or subcontractor partnerships, review accountability documentation defining who handles statutory employer obligations and government filings, examine contract templates for mandatory local clause inclusion, and validate law change monitoring is proactive rather than reactive. Ambiguous ownership—common with reseller networks or local partnerships—transfers risk to your organization despite contractual language suggesting otherwise.
Warning signs include: SLAs containing only generic language without specific response time commitments by severity level, escalation paths described verbally without clear structures, incident tracking that doesn't exist systematically (issues resolved ad-hoc), post-incident protocols absent so recurring issues aren't identified, business continuity planning reactive ("we haven't needed it yet") rather than proactively structured, and SLA performance not measured or reported to clients.
Request sample month-end report packs across 3–4 target markets and compare formats for consistency, verify definitions align (headcount, FTE, cost allocation, statutory contributions), test whether transaction-level detail supports variance investigation without additional requests, confirm reporting delivery timing meets Finance close cycle requirements, and validate role-based access enables Finance visibility without compromising data privacy. Fragmented reporting requiring manual consolidation reveals control weakness.
Ask for: sample approval audit trails showing salary change authorization documentation, itemized calculation worksheets demonstrating variance investigation support, statutory submission confirmations from recent payroll cycles, evidence retrieval timing commitments supporting business-critical deadlines, retention policy documentation showing what's kept and for how long, and examples of how evidence was delivered during past client audits or regulatory inquiries.
Request detailed liability documentation showing specific risk categories (payroll errors, statutory penalties, employee disputes, data breaches) and who bears responsibility—avoid broad indemnity language with carve-outs. Review subcontracting clauses for named partners and accountability clarity. Examine termination dispute handling showing cost responsibility. Verify data protection agreements define controller versus processor roles meeting APAC privacy requirements. Test whether liability provisions have enforcement mechanisms beyond contractual language.
Request documented contingency procedures for: payroll system failures during peak processing, vendor outages affecting statutory submission deadlines, key person unavailability during critical cutoff windows, bank processing delays impacting employee payments, and data integrity issues requiring rapid validation. Verify emergency escalation frameworks define decision authority, stakeholder communication protocols exist, and backup processing procedures are tested rather than theoretical.
Speak with provider references operating at similar scale (500+ employees across multiple APAC markets) about: payroll execution reliability under volume stress, incident response quality and escalation effectiveness, Finance stakeholder support for reconciliation and reporting, audit readiness and evidence delivery experiences, employee query resolution consistency, implementation accuracy validation effectiveness, and whether operational reality matches pre-sales promises. Ask specifically about what surprised them or where expectations weren't met.
Request: documentation showing standardized operational frameworks with market-specific local adaptations, sample onboarding processes across markets demonstrating consistent employee experience with local compliance variations, reporting format examples verifying consolidation capability, and escalation protocols showing unified service governance rather than fragmented market-by-market support. Verify whether the same operational standards apply across all APAC markets or if certain markets receive different treatment.
