A survey of immigration lawyers across 34 jurisdictions has confirmed what many employers already suspected: no universal definition of "digital nomad" exists, and the gap is complicating regulatory approaches to tax, social security and immigration worldwide.

The International Bar Association's Global Employment Institute (IBA GEI) published its introductory "Digital Nomad Report" in April 2026, drawing on the 34-jurisdiction survey plus a review of academic and industry literature. The report is the first phase of a multi-part research project.

The stakes for employers are structural, not cosmetic.

"For multinational employers, the rise of digital nomads is less a lifestyle trend than a structural compliance challenge. Even short-term remote work across borders can trigger immigration, employment law, tax and social security risks if not properly assessed," IBA GEI officers said in a statement.

"Companies need to move from ad hoc decisions to coordinated, cross-functional frameworks that balance flexibility for employees with legal certainty for employers, protecting their business and ensuring compliance across all aspects."

Who counts as a digital nomad?

The report defines the population functionally: digital nomads work remotely over the internet, usually from outside their employer's jurisdiction, and do not enter the host country's labour market. That last element is what separates them from ordinary foreign workers in the eyes of regulators.

In practice, the report found, nomads typically enter host countries on tourist visas while continuing to work. Governments have responded with dedicated digital nomad visa schemes as a partial fix. These schemes share common features:

• They permit work only for companies based outside the host country
• They rest largely on an existing employment contract
• They do not grant access to the local labour market

Countries with warm climates have led the rollout of these schemes, alongside Eastern European states such as Estonia.

What problem does the definitional gap create?

Because each jurisdiction defines and regulates digital nomads differently, efforts to harmonise tax and social security obligations keep stalling. A worker who qualifies for a nomad visa in one country may fall outside the category in another, triggering different tax residency and social security outcomes for the same person and the same employer.

The report covers four risk areas for cross-border remote arrangements:

• Immigration, where short stays can still breach visa conditions
• Employment law and employer responsibilities in the host country
• Taxation, including potential permanent establishment exposure
• Social security coordination between sending and receiving states

The immigration angle forms the core of this first report, addressing legal uncertainty within existing immigration frameworks.

What comes next?

The IBA GEI plans follow-up releases covering employment law implications, then taxes and social security considerations. Together, the phases aim to give multinational employers a comprehensive, cross-disciplinary framework for managing digital nomad arrangements.

Until those standards arrive, employers approving cross-border remote work requests — even for short periods — should treat each placement as a jurisdiction-specific compliance question rather than a routine HR decision. The report itself offers a framework, not individual legal advice; companies with active nomad arrangements should consult the IBA GEI publication and qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.