Compliance architecture
The owned entity model,
in full.
Owning an entity is where compliant employment starts, not where it ends. Here is the complete architecture, and the proof behind each layer.
Owning the entity is the start, not the whole stack
A registered entity gives you a legal employer in-country. Keeping that employment lawful as the law changes takes more than ownership. Teamed runs a four-part architecture, and publishes enough of it that you can check the work.
Pillar
Owned entities
Teamed owns the legal entity in each market it operates. The employment relationship sits inside a company Teamed controls, not a third-party arrangement rented by the month.
57 countries, owned.
Pillar
Global legal counsel
DLA Piper acts as global counsel across every market, so the legal standard behind your employment does not change from one country to the next.
One firm, one standard.
Pillar
Specialist local firms
In each market, specialist local employment-law firms keep the entity current with that country's law. Ownership holds the relationship; local expertise keeps it compliant.
Country by country.
Pillar
Transparency
Teamed publishes which entities it owns and which partners it relies on. The model is built to be inspected, because being able to see it is the point.
Open by default.
The centrepiece
The owned entity map
Transparency is the point of the model. This is every country where Teamed owns its legal entity, the markets covered through vetted partners, and how to tell the difference. See exactly what you are buying before you buy it.
Explore the entity mapThe foundation
The model in full
The architecture itself: why Teamed owns its entities, the layers that sit on top, and what an entity does and does not cover on its own.
Owning an entity is the starting point. It is not enough.
Most EOR providers present entity ownership as their compliance story. They list countries, show a map, and the implication is cl…
Your EOR's entity is a shell. The expertise lives somewhere else.
When an Employer of Record tells you they own entities in the countries where you hire, they're telling you something true and so…
When a compliance event hits, who actually handles it?
Most EOR providers can tell you they own an entity in the country where you're hiring. Very few can tell you what happens next. W…
What does your EOR provider's compliance stack actually look like?
Most providers won't tell you. They'll show you a map dotted with country flags, say they own entities in all of them, and leave…
Your EOR provider has a legal supply chain. Do you know what's in it?
Every employer of record relies on external legal counsel. That's not a weakness or a workaround. It's how compliance actually wo…
Buyer framework
Evaluate your EOR
The questions to ask, the checks to run before you sign, and what the comparison sites leave out of the compliance picture.
Five questions your EOR doesn't want you to ask
Your EOR told you they own their entities. That's where most of the conversation ends. But entity ownership is the starting point…
The entity question is not the due diligence. It's the start of it.
When you're evaluating an employer of record provider, 'do you own the entity?' has become the default opening question. It's a r…
Your EOR can name a country. Can it name who handles compliance there?
Most employers of record will tell you they own entities in the countries where you hire. That's meant to close the conversation.…
Comparison sites are scoring EOR compliance wrong
When you search for an employer of record, you'll find review and comparison sites that rank providers against a checklist. One o…
In practice
How the model works, and the proof
The mechanics in practice: where EOR compliance fails, the partners behind the model, and why owned entity became a default buying criterion.
Entity ownership doesn't prevent these three compliance failures
Most EOR providers sell you entity ownership as the answer. It isn't even the whole question. An entity is a legal shell. What ha…
Your EOR provider has a local entity. That's not the same as having a global legal architecture.
Most providers stop the compliance story at entity ownership. They own a legal presence in a country, they hire someone into it,…
Your EOR provider probably can't tell you who reviews your contracts locally
Most EOR providers stop the compliance conversation at entity ownership. They own an entity in the country where you're hiring, a…
Owned entity became a shortcut. Shortcuts obscure what matters.
The phrase appeared in EOR marketing early for a legitimate reason. Providers who owned legal entities in the countries where the…
On the ground
By market
The same architecture, read out country by country.
Germany is one of the hardest hiring markets in the world. Here's what that actually means for your EOR provider.
Most EOR providers will tell you they own a legal entity in Germany. That's true for many of them. What they won't tell you is wh…
Hiring in Spain on a template contract is a structural gamble.
Most EOR providers will tell you they own an entity in Spain and that this means you're covered. Entity ownership is real and it…
When employment rules shift, your provider's architecture either holds or it doesn't.
Ireland is a useful illustration. It's an active hiring market, a common entry point for companies building European teams, and a…
Your EOR provider owns an entity in Poland. That's not enough.
Owning a legal entity in Poland means a provider can employ someone there. It does not mean they understand every shift in how Po…
See the model for yourself
Compliance you can inspect, not just trust
The architecture is published on purpose. Bring your hardest questions about entities, counsel, and local law, and we will walk you through exactly how it holds up.
Talk to an expertLast verified 2026-06-23