1. Movement Outpaces the Rules
Remote collaboration has blurred the geographical boundaries of work. Some handle accounting for Tokyo-based firms from their homes in Taipei; others design for European brands while living in Okinawa. Cross-time-zone meetings and cloud-based deliveries have become the norm. In Japan, this phenomenon is called transboundary employment. More people now take on side projects or freelance work beyond their main job. In Taiwan, the spread of digital tools and multilingual communication has made such cross-border work equally common.
For companies, this mobility brings new challenges of governance and compliance. Labor laws and tax systems have yet to catch up, widening the gap between workers and institutions. Existing regulations still assume single employers, fixed sources of income, and company-based social insurance — assumptions that no longer match the reality of global, fluid work.
For companies, this mobility brings new challenges of governance and compliance. Labor laws and tax systems have yet to catch up, widening the gap between workers and institutions. Existing regulations still assume single employers, fixed sources of income, and company-based social insurance — assumptions that no longer match the reality of global, fluid work.
2. How Institutions Try to Catch Up
Institutional reform is not an abstract theory but a series of practical efforts unfolding across different sectors. Governments, corporations, and professional organizations are all seeking ways to make systems catch up with the movement of people. The focus of governance is gradually shifting—from maintaining traditional employment relationships to building structural tools that support mobile and flexible work. Although these reforms have yet to form a complete framework, the direction is becoming increasingly clear.
- Policy Adjustments: In recent years, the Japanese government has promoted Work Style Reform and the Side Job and Multiple Employment Promotion Program, gradually bringing part-time, side jobs, and remote work into formal policy discussions. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and related research institutes have also been studying the issue of cross-border work (越境ワーク), assessing how social insurance and labor laws can be applied to new forms of employment.
Taiwan has yet to establish a dedicated framework for cross-border remote workers, but the topic has entered the policy and academic arena. The Executive Yuan, Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of Labor have begun to examine how digital economies and remote employment affect taxation and social insurance. Scholars are also exploring the legal and governance challenges faced by individuals in Taiwan who are employed by overseas companies. Questions of identity classification, social protection, and cross-border data coordination remain unresolved.
Overall, both Japan and Taiwan are searching for ways to bridge the gap between institutional design and social reality. The focus of governance is gradually shifting from fixed employment relationships toward the management of information and accountability, allowing mobile work to be properly recognized by both law and system.
- Corporate Governance Innovation: Corporations have been quicker to act. Major Japanese companies have introduced external talent participation systems, allowing non-full-time professionals to join projects under contract-based arrangements, with payments recorded and audited through digital systems. In Taiwan, many startups have adopted cloud-based collaboration platforms and electronic signature tools to manage projects and payments efficiently.
These mechanisms make collaboration traceable and integrate the work of external professionals with internal systems. By ensuring process transparency, companies build a foundation of accountability. The focus of governance has shifted from controlling behavior to maintaining traceability, enabling cooperation to take place under clear and transparent conditions.
- Professional Bodies and Industry Standards: As work styles diversify, some industries have begun to establish self-regulatory standards. The IT sector has developed security guidelines for remote collaboration, while the creative industry has introduced model contracts and recommended compensation tables for freelancers. These scattered initiatives are gradually accumulating institutional experience, helping companies find a stable rhythm of governance in practice.
At the same time, demand for cross-disciplinary collaboration is growing. Companies are turning to external consultants to fill institutional gaps—signaling that professional services are becoming an emerging force in shaping and adjusting systems.
3. The Role of Professional Services
During institutional transformation, professional advisers have become the most direct source of support. Accounting firms today go beyond traditional bookkeeping and tax execution, acting as interpreters of systems and managers of risk. They help companies define the tax positions of collaborative relationships, establish reporting processes for diverse forms of compensation, and assist individuals in confirming their tax residence and social insurance obligations—reducing errors and disputes.
As ESG reporting and sustainability disclosure become part of everyday corporate practice, the role of accountants extends further into governance. Companies are now expected to explain how they manage human resources and ensure transparency in collaboration, while accounting firms help design disclosure frameworks that make flexibility and compliance verifiable. These efforts make trust visible to society and push the boundaries of institutional accountability.
The value of professional services lies not only in interpreting rules, but in helping organizations absorb change in an orderly way. Institutional reform takes time, and professional engagement provides both stability and direction throughout that process.
As ESG reporting and sustainability disclosure become part of everyday corporate practice, the role of accountants extends further into governance. Companies are now expected to explain how they manage human resources and ensure transparency in collaboration, while accounting firms help design disclosure frameworks that make flexibility and compliance verifiable. These efforts make trust visible to society and push the boundaries of institutional accountability.
The value of professional services lies not only in interpreting rules, but in helping organizations absorb change in an orderly way. Institutional reform takes time, and professional engagement provides both stability and direction throughout that process.
4. Teaching Institutions to Move Along
Institutional reform often begins with pressure from the field, not from amendments to the law. When accountants, legal advisers, and companies confront institutional gaps together, the shape of governance gradually takes form through practice. Institutions are not merely rules or structures—they are living systems capable of interacting with society.
The rise of cross-border work has forced governance to redefine visibility and accountability. Tax reporting, information disclosure, payment procedures, and worker classification have all become testing grounds for whether institutions can keep pace with reality. When companies manage information transparently, governments adjust legal rhythms in response to real-world cases, and professionals continue refining the language of regulation, social trust can remain stable amid constant movement.
Those who temporarily operate outside existing systems are expanding the boundaries of institutions. They make visible the gray zones once ignored, and in doing so, compel society to reconsider the meaning of employment and trust itself.
The rise of cross-border work has forced governance to redefine visibility and accountability. Tax reporting, information disclosure, payment procedures, and worker classification have all become testing grounds for whether institutions can keep pace with reality. When companies manage information transparently, governments adjust legal rhythms in response to real-world cases, and professionals continue refining the language of regulation, social trust can remain stable amid constant movement.
Those who temporarily operate outside existing systems are expanding the boundaries of institutions. They make visible the gray zones once ignored, and in doing so, compel society to reconsider the meaning of employment and trust itself.