Editorial policy

Employ Borderless is an independent advisory platform. We help companies choose between third-party EOR, PEO, and global payroll providers - we do not operate as one. This page sets out the editorial standards that apply to everything we publish, from educational explainers ( "what is an EOR") to ranked provider reviews.

Two related pages cover the operational detail:

• -Our methodology page explains the Borderless Standard, our research process, evidence sources, and how often we update what we publish.
• -Our disclosure page explains how we make money - affiliate, referral, and revenue-share arrangements - and why compensation does not determine our rankings.

Employ Borderless is co-founded and edited by Robbin Schuchmann and Paul Jansen. Robbin leads editorial and is the named author on most provider reviews and educational articles. His background is in global hiring advisory - he has personally selected, contracted, and managed EOR and payroll providers across multiple markets before starting this site.

Paul leads the international business side and contributes on entity structuring, expansion strategy, and country-specific compliance questions. Where guest experts contribute, they are credited by name on the article with their relevant experience.

We write for people who are actually making these decisions - not for search engines, and not for providers.

Editorial independence at Employ Borderless means something specific: the people commercially negotiating with providers are not the people scoring those providers. Our pillar criteria are public, applied identically across the category, and finalised before any commercial conversation.

Concretely:

• -Providers do not see scores or article drafts before publication.
• -Providers can submit factual corrections (wrong pricing, outdated feature, country no longer supported). We verify those independently and update.
• -Providers cannot negotiate inclusion in a "best of" listicle, position in a ranking, or removal of a competitor.
• -Commissioned research (where a provider funds deeper coverage) funds the depth of the work, not the conclusion. Pillar scores are determined by the same framework either way.

Every factual claim on a provider page traces back to one of two sources: information verified directly with the provider, or independent public data (third-party ratings, regulatory filings, published security reports, our own testing). We do not blend the two without indicating which is which.

Pricing, country coverage, and contract terms are verified with the provider directly on a quarterly cycle, with the verification date shown via the "Last reviewed" timestamp. Third-party ratings (G2, Trustpilot, Capterra, Glassdoor) are pulled directly from the source platforms and refreshed on a rolling basis. The full evidence-source breakdown lives on our methodology page.

We use AI tools to assist with research synthesis (summarising long provider documentation, parsing forum discussions, comparing structured data across providers), draft structure, and copy editing. We do not use AI to make recommendations, assign pillar scores, or write provider-specific judgement calls.

Every published page is reviewed, fact-checked, and shaped by a named human editor before it goes live. Where an AI tool produced the first draft of a section, a human editor revises it against primary sources - we do not publish unedited AI output. Scores, rankings, and "best for" recommendations are made by humans applying the public criteria.

When we find or are told about a factual error, we fix it on the page and update the "Last reviewed" timestamp. For substantive corrections that change a score, ranking, or material claim, we add a short correction note at the top of the page describing what changed and when. We do not silently rewrite published content.

If you find something inaccurate - let us know. We respond to every message and we take corrections seriously, whether they come from a reader, a provider, or a competitor.