Apart from primary parties that are directly involved in any EOR/AOR setup:

• the client / user company
• the service provider
• the employee

.. many other stakeholders may more or less be struggling while dealing with the concepts of EOR in their own context.  

Examples of such stakeholders are:

• regulators: governments and labour market controlling institutions
• federations of employers / HR service industry colleagues
• labour lawyers being asked for advice on this rather disruptive concept of EOR/AOR in their client base

Although the concepts of EOR / AOR have been developing for quite a number of years already, particularly in the last few years also the negative effects of their principles start to really ripple through at every level, also at these stakeholders. 

As an early (and somewhat activisitic) adopter of the concepts, I’ve had the pleasure of discussing aspects of EOR with governmental regulators and labour authorities in a number of EU countries. Organizations that had been or still are struggling with properly classifying the concept of EOR vis-a-vis existing labour regulations. Regulators see the benefits and positive aspects EOR/AOR bring to the market, but also recognize the mismatch with (what) their labour market protecting legislation is designed for.

As in most countries, EOR behaves very differently from existing labour market concepts, on which regulation is often designed and developed. Which leads EOR providers to often use the argument ‘EOR is not defined in labour law’, so how can it be forbidden. A position that regulators and labour lawyers may have their personal views on. 

For federations that unite the typical/traditional HR Services industry (those on temporary agency work), the discussion is often focused on ‘level playing field’ and ‘unfair competition’ in the labour market. Positions around which one could state that EOR and Agency work in fact are totally different ballgames, with very different purpose, behaviour, dynamics. Requiring very different rules of play…