Global Employers & International Expansion

Subscribe to Global Employers & International Expansion via RSS

As sweeping reforms converge to redefine workplace standards, employer responsibilities and employee rights, 2026 will require global businesses to balance rapidly evolving workplace regulation with the need to safeguard commercial interests.

Global regulation shifts in focus

Across the UK, the Americas and Europe, three key themes dominate: equity, openness and flexibility.

In the UK, the recent Employment Rights Act will broaden protection against unfair dismissal by reducing the qualifying period from two years to six months and removing the existing caps on compensation. These changes are anticipated from January 2027. The act will create other significant changes in 2026 and into 2027, including measures strengthening union influence; broadened thresholds for collective consultation and increased associated penalties for breaches; severe restrictions on imposing contractual variations, improved job security for zero- and low-hours workers; and broadened protections against harassment. In short, there will be a seismic shift to the compliance landscape. Employers will need to stay alert, as many of the finer details remain unknown.

The European Union is taking a proactive approach to strengthen its global competitiveness, aiming to boost innovation and economic growth. However, core worker protections are likely to remain strong with employers facing a wave of new regulation including the Pay Transparency Directive, the AI Act, and a revised framework for European Works Councils. Meanwhile, the Quality Jobs Roadmap forms part of the EU’s strategy to generate and maintain sustainable, high-quality employment. This potentially includes legislative measures to safeguard workers’ rights while adapting to ongoing technological, economic, and societal developments.

Recent employment law developments across Asia Pacific and Latin America also reflect a strong focus on worker protection, flexibility and fairness. Wage reforms are prominent, with South Korea and multiple Philippine regions announcing significant minimum wage increases, while Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill enhances rights and security for nontraditional workers. Broader labor rights are evolving through measures like South Korea’s Yellow Envelope Act, which expands union protections, while Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act seeks to ensure fair treatment for employees, including by providing greater protection against workplace discrimination. In Latin America, labor reforms are continuing, with Brazil seeking to strengthen equal pay compliance, Colombia modernizing its labor inspection regime, Mexico proposing reforms to strengthen workers’ rights and Argentina seeking to introduce sweeping changes to modernize labor relations while fostering competitiveness.

Overall, these changes underscore a regional trend toward safeguarding employee well-being, regulating digital work environments and ensuring equitable treatment across diverse employment models.Continue Reading A Year of Workforce Transformation Prioritizing Fairness

Our 2026 Looking Ahead Report explores the trends, developments, and emerging risks shaping financial services in the year ahead, covering topics like agentic AI in fintech, corporate fraud prevention, cybersecurity, workforce strategies, a regional spotlight on the Middle East and much more. Here is an excerpt:

Global workforce strategies for the financial sector

As financial institutions recalibrate their workforce strategies for 2026 and beyond, they face a rapidly shifting regulatory terrain shaped by geopolitical tensions, technological disruption and evolving societal expectations. 2025 has seen a marked acceleration in legal reforms and policy shifts across jurisdictions, with four key themes emerging at the forefront of employment and compliance planning. These trends are not isolated – they are interconnected, and they demand a proactive, globally attuned approach to workforce governance.

The Shifting DEI Landscape

While institutional diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and practices have been subject to more legal scrutiny in the US this year, other regions—particularly EMEA and parts of Asia—are deepening commitments and expanding regulatory requirements. Major US-based financial institutions have scaled back public commitments to DEI, rebranding or removing references to diversity figures and programs in corporate filings, amid heightened political scrutiny under the current US administration. In contrast, many financial institutions across EMEA remain committed to robust DEI frameworks. For example, the UK’s financial regulators have proposed regulatory standards to embed diversity and inclusion into governance structures. And in South Africa, financial and insurance activities is a sector specifically identified under new affirmative action targets now in force. This divergence underscores the need for multinational financial institutions to carefully navigate DEI policy and goals with regional nuance, balancing local regulatory pressures with global values and workforce expectations.

Employers, including those in the financial sector, are under pressure (from both employees and government authorities) to increase transparency, particularly on workforce composition and compensation. In Brazil, for example, equal pay enforcement has intensified, with hundreds of companies inspected in the last year. Some of the significant changes include the US, where certain states, including California, require gender pay reporting, and shareholder activism is driving pay equity disclosures. In the EU, the Pay Transparency Directive requires member states to implement legislation by June 2026, with gender pay gap reporting starting in June 2027. Key requirements include: mandatory pay range disclosure; banning salary history questions; and employee rights to pay information with an increased role overall for worker representatives.Continue Reading What’s On the Radar for Financial Institutions in 2026?

On December 4, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Adams’ vetoes of two bills requiring annual pay reporting and pay analyses. These bills—requiring private employers to report pay data by race and gender and mandating a city-led pay equity study—are emblematic of a nationwide trend toward greater scrutiny of compensation practices.

As we dive into the new year, here’s what employers need to know about the new NYC reporting requirements, recent changes to pay data reporting requirements in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, and the upcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive.

While pay reporting laws focus on accountability and seek to enable regulatory oversight and systemic analysis of pay equity across organizations, pay transparency regulations emphasize visibility, aiming to enable applicants and employees to make informed decisions and reduce information asymmetry. A round-up of recent pay transparency developments is included.

New NYC Pay Data Reporting Requirements

New law (Int 0982-A) requires employers with 200 or more employees inclusive of full-time, part-time and temporary employees) in the city to file annual reports detailing employee race or ethnicity and gender information across certain job categories and different pay ranges. Although the pay-reporting requirements take effect immediately, employers are not required to submit information until the city creates a process for doing so, which we may not see until as late as 2028.

  • Reporting Details: The new reporting requirements are similar to requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (and similar to reporting requirements in California and Illinois). In 2017 and 2018, the EEOC previously called for employers to submit employees’ W-2 income information broken down by gender, race/ethnicity and job category (i.e., component 2 EEO-1 data), though the rules were rescinded during the first Trump administration. The new law requires the city agency overseeing this new initiative to include this component 2 EEO-1 data in the reporting requirements, but may also request additional data, such as information about employee gender identity or other demographics. Employers will not need to provide an employee’s personal information as part of the reports, but they will have the option to submit written remarks to provide explanations or context for the data in their submission. Additionally, employers may furnish data anonymously, but will required to submit a signed statement confirming that they provided accurate pay data.

Continue Reading From New York City to the European Union: Pay Equity Developments Multinational Employers Need to Know in 2026

The Employment Rights Bill is close to being finalized. This article is an updated version of our August article, reflecting the most recent developments. In short, and as predicted, the House of Commons has rejected non-government amendments that the House of Lords made to the Bill in July, thereby restoring the government’s stated policy intentions.…

Tune into our annual Global Employment Law webinar series as we bring the world to you.

Our Global Employment Law Fastpass webinar series is here again! Every June, we offer four regionally-focused webinars to help you stay up-to-speed on the latest employment law developments around the world. From tariffs and economic uncertainty to the use…

  • Key laws and regulations, including recent changes and expected developments over the next year
  • Foundational data privacy obligations including information and notification requirements, data subject rights, accountability and governance measures, and responsibilities of data controllers and
…

CEOs leverage M&A to scale operations, diversify offerings and break into new markets. But what are the challenges to getting the best out of transformative transactions to achieve long-term growth?

To maximize value, CEOs must look beyond financial metrics, aligning acquisitions with broader organizational goals while overcoming challenges such as navigating an intricate legal and…

SHRM reports that one in four organizations currently use AI to support HR-related activities, with adoption of the technology expanding rapidly. The compliance risks arising from generative AI use also are intensifying, with an increasing number of state and local laws restricting employer use of AI tools in the United States. And not to be outdone, substantial regulation impacting multinational employers’ use of AI is emerging in other parts of the world (e.g., the EU AI Act).

One rapidly growing use case is applicant recruiting and screening, a trend likely to continue given recent increases in remote hiring and hybrid work arrangements. AI tools can streamline talent acquisition tasks by automatically sorting, ranking, and eliminating candidates, as well as potentially drawing from a broader and more diverse pool of candidates.

Employers who use AI tools must comply with significant new (and existing) laws that focus on data protection, privacy, information security, wage and hour, and other issues. The focus of this blog, however, is the legislative efforts in the US to protect against algorithmic bias and discrimination in the workplace stemming from the use of AI tools to either replace or augment traditional HR tasks.

IL Becomes the Second State (After CO) to Target Workplace Algorithmic Discrimination

On August 9, 2024, Gov. Pritzker signed H.B. 3773, making it unlawful for employers to use AI that has the effect of discriminating against employees on the basis of protected class in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, termination and other terms, privileges or conditions of employment. The law, effective January 1, 2026, also prohibits employers from using ZIP codes as a stand-in or proxy for protected classes.

Like Colorado, Illinois’ new law also contains a notice requirement: employers must notify applicants and employees when using AI with respect to “recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.”Continue Reading Illinois Joins Colorado and NYC in Restricting Generative AI in HR (Plus a Quick Survey of the Legal Landscape Across the US and Globally)

This summer SCOTUS published three major decisions impacting workplace immigration decisions. Two of the decisions may require employers to shift their strategies for managing foreign-national talent, and the third essentially preserves the status quo.

Below we outline the impact of the decisions on US-based employers:

1. SCOTUS strengthens the doctrine of consular nonreviewability limiting options for employers and visa applicants who receive unfavorable denial

      In Department of State v. Munoz (July 21, 2024), SCOTUS ruled that US citizens do not have a fundamental liberty interest in their noncitizen spouses’ ability to come to the US.

      In Munoz, the spouse of a US citizen was denied an immigrant visa by a US consulate on ground that the consulate had “reason to believe” the spouse would participate in illicit activity if admitted to the US. The consular denial provided limited explanation for the decision – simply citing the “reason to believe” statute (a legal standard under which foreign nationals can be barred from entering the country if USCIS has a “reason to believe” the individual has been involved in illicit or illegal conduct) – and was extremely slow in providing this basis for its decision. The US citizen petitioning spouse sought judicial review and argued that she had a liberty interest in the matter given her US citizenship and that the impact of the consular decision deprived her of the fundamental right to marriage. But after receiving a favorable decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reversed and held that no such liberty interest exists in this context.

      While the facts of Munoz did not involve a US employer, the underlying doctrine at issue – the ability to challenge a consulate’s decision on a visa – has direct implications to US employers who seek employment-based visas for employees. In reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Court upheld and arguably expanded the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability” – i.e. the inability to challenge the decision of a consular officer in US federal court.

      Takeaway:

      Munoz leaves employers and visa applicants with limited, if any, means for judicial redress in the event of an incorrect or unjust consular decision. Other avenues for challenging an unfavorable decision exist – including requesting supervisory review, review from the State Department’s Legal Net, or re-filing the application – but these fall short of and lack the teeth of formal judicial review.Continue Reading Triple Feature: SCOTUS Issues 3 Blockbuster Immigration Decisions This Summer Impacting Employers and Foreign National Employers

      Last month the UK voted for a new government. The Labour party promised sweeping changes to UK employment law in its manifesto, and the King’s Speech confirmed the new government’s proposals to pursue numerous employment law reforms. Immediately following these announcements, Baker McKenzie employment partners Julia Wilson, Kim Sartin, Stephen Ratcliffe and Jonathan Tuck, and…