Top 30 Employers for Flexible Work 2027

Institutional - Employer Category

This report forms part of The Economy Rankings’ Workplace Excellence portfolio. The assessment compares significant employee access to adaptable work locations or schedules, within the populations and conditions stated for each employer.

Flexible work is a relationship between employee choice and the way responsibilities are organized. It can involve a different working location, a self-designed schedule, a shorter standard week or several formal work-preference pathways. These options have different practical implications and should be described on their own terms.

This ranking assesses employers with significant, documented access to adaptable locations or schedules. It considers who can use the arrangement, how it operates and which decisions remain subject to approval. A single exception for one employee does not establish a substantive employment model.

Market Overview

Flexibility is often discussed through an office-attendance number, but that describes only one part of the employment relationship. An employee may choose home or office while keeping predictable core hours. Another may work remotely with greater control over timing. A third may use a manager-approved schedule around client responsibilities.

Formal access needs operational support. Equipment, onboarding, workspace resources and information routines can determine whether location choice is practical. Written coordination, agreed check-ins and clear service coverage can make personal control compatible with dependable work. Neither autonomy nor accountability needs to remain an undefined slogan.

Coverage is also important. Employee arrangements differ from contractor terms, and international employers retain local legal and hiring boundaries. A geographically distributed team does not imply that an employee can relocate without permission. Similarly, a schedule policy does not establish actual hours, leave-taking or employee satisfaction.

Industry Trend — 2027

The reviewed arrangements illustrate several current approaches to making flexibility operational. Each creates a different balance between personal choice and shared work requirements.

Flexible-work direction	Documented arrangement	Practical implication
Daily location choice	Some employers expressly permit home or office on a given day.	An employee can choose the environment while retaining coordination requirements.
Explicit schedule design	Published models describe self-designed schedules, shorter weeks or no core hours.	Timing flexibility should be stated precisely rather than inferred from remote access.
Results-based organization	Some frameworks link autonomy to outcomes and client or team responsibilities.	Approval and service boundaries matter to the practical choice available.
Visible preference pathways	Employers distinguish home, flexible and office populations.	Actual participation can be assessed separately from policy availability.
Support for access	Equipment, onboarding and optional workspaces accompany location choice.	Usable flexibility requires resources as well as permission.
Bounded mobility	Country, work-rights and time-zone conditions remain explicit.	Remote compatibility does not automatically settle relocation or travel permission.

Methodology — Core Eligibility Criteria

Five tailored editorial criteria assess employee control, implementation, work organization, safeguards and evidence. Policy is read with current workforce or implementation records; an employer logo or a single promotional testimonial is insufficient.

An identifiable active employer or clearly defined employing group, counted once.
Formal, significant employee access to an adaptable work location or schedule.
Published policy and robust evidence of actual operation, including current employee roles or documented working patterns.
Employee populations distinguished from client workers, independent contractors, volunteers and unassessed affiliates.
Role, manager, client, country and authorization conditions retained where relevant.

Methodology — Ranking Factors

Flexibility design and employee control — 30%: The significance of the location or schedule choice, its formal basis and the decisions employees can actually make.
Implemented access and coverage — 25%: Current sustained use or a corroborated operating model, with clear employee eligibility and coverage.
Work-organization results — 20%: Documented working patterns, adoption or evaluated implementation. Availability is distinguished from measured productivity or satisfaction.
Equity and safeguards — 15%: Practical support, coordination, decision boundaries and clear treatment of role and country constraints.
Evidence integrity — 10%: Current employer-specific policy, implementation corroboration and accurate workforce scope with candid limitations.

The five criteria carry weights of 30%, 25%, 20%, 15% and 10%, respectively. The assessment combines documented employment practices with the evidence required for this particular series. Published employee research is attributed to its original provider and assessed within its stated workforce scope; The Economy Rankings has not conducted a new employee survey. Country-specific employment terms are interpreted against the applicable statutory context. Missing evidence is not treated as average performance. Licensing, sponsorship and likelihood of purchasing recognition do not influence eligibility, assessments or tier placement.

Company Profiles and Further Reference

Names appearing in this ranking are linked to their corresponding employer profiles in The Economy Wiki, where available. These profiles provide further background on employer history, principal activities, workforce scope and related editorial coverage across The Economy Network.

Each entry identifies the employing organization or assessed group and the workforce population covered by the available evidence. A policy or survey covering one country is not generalized to every global employee. The Economy Wiki profiles are maintained as editorial reference pages and may be updated as new public information becomes available.

Tier I — Leading Employers for Flexible Work

1. Veeva Systems

Employing entity / assessed group: Veeva Systems — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Work Anywhere employees in documented locations; core hours apply.
Headquarters: Pleasanton, California, United States
Origins: 2007

Veeva’s Work Anywhere policy expressly allows employees to choose between home and an office on a given day. Its current description applies across locations and departments, giving the flexibility a broad stated reach. Retained office access makes this a choice of working environment rather than a requirement that every employee establish a permanent home-only workplace.

Predictable core hours are an explicit part of the model. That makes the distinction between location and timing autonomy unusually clear: employees can choose where to work while colleagues retain a dependable period for coordination. Current employee-role records corroborate implementation alongside the published policy.

Veeva is included for a straightforward, continuing location-choice framework with visible coverage and coordination conditions. The assessment does not describe it as unrestricted scheduling or permission to work in any country. Its software for regulated industries is separate from this employer judgment. The supported proposition is practical employee choice within an operating model, not a measured conclusion that every employee prefers the arrangement.

2. 37signals

Employing entity / assessed group: 37signals — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in documented remote roles.
Operating model: Fully remote; no physical headquarters
Origins: 1999

37signals gives employees substantial location and scheduling autonomy within a clearly described operating rhythm. Its handbook sets out six-week cycles, a cooldown period and written check-ins. These mechanisms explain what colleagues need to communicate, making independence more concrete than a general statement that employees are trusted to manage themselves.

The handbook favors asynchronous work and says constant communication should not be the normal requirement. It also specifies a forty-hour week, shorter summer hours and compensating time where on-call or emergency work falls outside normal hours. These are published operating expectations, rather than a newly measured record of every employee’s actual hours.

37signals is included for combining autonomy with explicit coordination and working-time safeguards. Employees must inform People Operations about moves, particularly across borders, preserving an important boundary around location choice. The assessment concerns direct employees, with practical onboarding and work-expense support providing additional evidence that the arrangement operates beyond a recruitment slogan.

3. HubSpot

Employing entity / assessed group: HubSpot — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Employees eligible for documented work-preference pathways; role/country conditions apply.
Headquarters: Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
Origins: 2006

HubSpot gives employees defined work-preference pathways, distinguishing @home, @flex and office-based arrangements. That makes flexibility more specific than a single company-wide label. The policy also sets conditions for reviewing a preference and for temporary authorized mobility, preserving important differences between changing a work pattern and obtaining permission to work in another country.

The company publishes current preference proportions, including substantial use of @home and a smaller @flex population. These are implementation figures, not satisfaction results. Virtual onboarding, shipped equipment, monthly support and local meetups provide practical ways to participate outside a daily office routine, with particular benefits and eligibility kept within their stated scope.

HubSpot is included for a visible choice architecture supported by actual workforce adoption and operating resources. Its assessment here covers the eligible preference populations, rather than office-specific roles being assumed flexible. The evidence does not establish that every employee receives a requested change, has unrestricted hours or can relocate without approval.

4. GitLab

Employing entity / assessed group: GitLab — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in eligible employing countries; contractors excluded.
Corporate address / operating model: San Francisco, California, United States (corporate address); all-remote operations
Origins: 2014 (company incorporation); 2011 (project origins)

GitLab treats location flexibility as an operating condition for its employees, with an all-remote model supported by a public handbook. The useful distinction is between personal control over a working environment and an unrestricted right to relocate. Employment geography and authorization still apply, even when a role has no normal office commute.

Implementation is visible through instructions for joining the company, obtaining equipment and setting up an ergonomic workplace. These give location choice a practical foundation: a person needs access to information and colleagues as well as permission to work elsewhere. The documented framework is assessed alongside current employee recruitment records.

GitLab is included for connecting broad location autonomy with an inspectable employment system. Its published processes make the arrangement less dependent on an individual manager making an exception. The assessment concerns direct employees in eligible countries, and does not turn community participation or the capabilities of its development software into evidence about employment.

5. Todoist

Employing entity / assessed group: Todoist/Doist — assessed operating group
Assessed workforce: Todoist/Doist operating-group employees in documented employing locations.
Registered address / operating model: Distributed operations; Wilmington, Delaware, United States (published registered address)
Origins: 2007 (Todoist business origins)

Todoist’s current careers proposition expressly allows employees to design their working schedule, while encouraging eight-hour days and no more than forty hours a week. That combines timing autonomy with a stated expectation about the scale of work. The fully remote model adds location choice, subject to the employee’s actual employment and legal circumstances.

Onboarding projects, a mentor, hardware and workspace-related budgets make the arrangement more usable in practice. Current careers material and employer-specific recruitment records corroborate an operating distributed team. Retreats and in-person mentoring provide deliberate contact without being described as a fixed weekly office schedule.

Todoist is included for explicit employee control over timing as well as a documented remote framework. The entry assesses the Todoist/Doist operating group: current public legal pages use different company names and addresses, so an unverified legal-name-change date is not invented. Schedule autonomy is not treated as evidence that workloads always remain within the published expectation or that relocation requires no authorization.

Tier II — Established Employers for Flexible Work

(Alphabetical order)

Atlassian

Employing entity / assessed group: Atlassian — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Team Anywhere employees in eligible countries; role and authorization conditions apply.
Headquarters: Sydney, Australia
Origins: 2002

Atlassian’s Team Anywhere framework permits remote or office employment within defined conditions. It treats location flexibility as a continuing arrangement, while retaining requirements concerning an employing entity, work authorization, compatible time zones and leadership support. Those boundaries are important to the employee proposition rather than exceptions that can be left out of the description.

Current hiring and independent employee-role records corroborate implementation. US employee information separately identifies remote support and ergonomic resources, giving practical context without assuming identical benefits worldwide. The model therefore connects location choice with both a work organization framework and locally specified support.

Atlassian is included for a documented relationship between autonomy, eligibility and coordination. A person considering a move can see that remote compatibility alone does not settle the legal or operational decision. The assessment recognizes the current employment framework, while avoiding a claim that relocation is automatic, that all roles have the same options or that participation proves a particular satisfaction or productivity outcome.

Automattic

Employing entity / assessed group: Automattic — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct group employees in documented remote roles.
Corporate base / operating model: San Francisco, California, United States (corporate base); fully distributed
Origins: 2005

Automattic’s distributed employment model gives employees a substantial alternative to organizing life around a single company office. Its working arrangements emphasize written communication and collaboration across locations. The flexibility concerns the organization of employment itself, rather than occasional permission to work at home during an otherwise office-based week.

The company’s account of its twentieth anniversary documents the evolution of distributed operations and employee gatherings. Current employment records provide separate corroboration that the model continues to be used. Periodic personal meetings are part of the arrangement; daily location choice should not be confused with an assurance that travel will never be required.

Automattic is included for sustained implementation of a geographically distributed employee model and a working system designed around it. The assessed population excludes independent WordPress contributors and other community participants. The evidence supports location flexibility and continuity of operation, while leaving actual employee satisfaction, individual working hours and cross-border permissions to their own evidence.

Buffer

Employing entity / assessed group: Buffer — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in the documented distributed team.
Published business base: Distributed team; San Francisco, California, United States business base
Origins: 2010

Buffer makes working-time design unusually visible alongside location flexibility. Its published model describes four workdays and a flexible, meeting-free fifth day that can accommodate overflow tasks or personal time. That distinction matters: the disclosed arrangement should not be simplified into a claim that no employee ever works on a fifth day.

The distributed team’s recruitment, public time-off information and an employee account provide evidence of operation. The account also explains how team coverage needs shape individual scheduling. Flexibility therefore involves coordinating a workable pattern, rather than assuming every person can choose entirely separate hours without considering service responsibilities.

Buffer is included for connecting an explicit schedule design with a sustained remote employment model. Its transparency helps explain both the available autonomy and its practical limits. The assessment concerns direct employees, and does not infer a measured reduction in burnout, fewer actual annual hours or a universal work-life outcome merely from the structure of the working week.

Docker

Employing entity / assessed group: Docker — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in documented hiring regions.
Corporate base: Palo Alto, California, United States
Origins: 2008 (dotCloud origins); 2013 (Docker launch)

Docker’s remote-first employment model offers location flexibility while retaining hubs in Paris and Seattle for personal collaboration. The arrangement is therefore broader than a choice between commuting every day and working without access to colleagues. Physical spaces can complement the remote default without becoming an assumed weekly attendance requirement for all employees.

Published benefits and onboarding guidance explain home-office support, learning resources and the process of joining remotely. Current employee recruitment and independent role records corroborate implementation across documented hiring regions. Those records establish a substantive working arrangement, while leaving individual travel and attendance requirements to the relevant role.

Docker is included for connecting a location-flexible default with practical workplace and onboarding support. Its assessment concerns employees rather than the large population using its development tools. The availability of a hub is not treated as proof of a sustained hybrid schedule, and a home-office provision is not converted into a measured satisfaction result or an assurance that employees may relocate without approval.

DuckDuckGo

Employing entity / assessed group: DuckDuckGo — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in specified hiring countries.
Published business base: Paoli, Pennsylvania, United States
Origins: 2008

DuckDuckGo’s hiring information explicitly states that the company has no core hours, giving schedule choice a clearer meaning than a generic promise of flexibility. Its remote-first model also allows employees to work away from a regular company office. Eligibility remains tied to the countries and employment conditions identified for the particular role.

Current company information and independent employee listings corroborate actual remote hiring. Coworking support and company gatherings add practical ways to maintain a suitable workspace and contact with colleagues. These arrangements address different needs: choosing the timing of concentrated work does not remove the need to coordinate shared decisions or attend agreed activities.

DuckDuckGo is included for a documented combination of timing autonomy and substantive location flexibility. Country-specific health provisions are kept within their local scope. The assessment does not convert the absence of core hours into a guarantee of no meetings, unrestricted travel or a measured employee wellbeing outcome; it recognizes the employment design supported by the reviewed records.

Grafana Labs

Employing entity / assessed group: Grafana Labs — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in documented employing countries.
Headquarters: New York, New York, United States
Origins: 2014

Grafana Labs explicitly links fully remote work to accountability for outcomes rather than hours or location. That gives the flexibility proposition a stated management principle as well as a place-of-work policy. Employees still have responsibilities to colleagues and customers; the principle is not interpreted as removing deadlines, coverage requirements or agreed coordination.

Current careers information and employee recruitment establish the continuing operating model. Virtual onboarding, in-person onboarding events and learning gatherings provide practical mechanisms for joining and developing within it. These are identifiable work patterns, rather than evidence that every employee uses the same schedule or experiences the arrangement identically.

Grafana Labs is included for connecting location autonomy with a documented outcomes-based approach and organized support. The assessment concerns direct employees in documented employing countries. Published accounts of learning and connection help explain implementation, while neither a vendor engagement claim nor the success of the company’s software is used as a substitute for representative employee findings about flexibility.

Remote

Employing entity / assessed group: Remote — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Internal employees; EOR client workers and contractors excluded.
Published business base: San Francisco, California, United States; distributed operations
Origins: 2019

Remote’s internal employment offer combines flexible working hours with a distributed employee model. Its careers material identifies a team across six continents, giving the policy a documented operating population. The assessment concerns those internal employees, rather than the much larger set of people whose employment the company administers for customers.

Home-office setup, a coworking allowance and a learning budget provide several ways to support the arrangement. These are practical components of access: location choice becomes more useful when an employee can establish a suitable working environment and continue developing professionally. Current employee recruitment provides corroboration alongside the company’s own operating description.

Remote is included for making timing flexibility and workplace support visible within its employment framework. Country-specific benefits and hiring conditions remain explicit, and flexible hours are not interpreted as freedom from team responsibilities. No global benefit equivalence, employee-satisfaction score or cross-border work entitlement is inferred from the company’s name or the capabilities of its payroll and employment services.

Toggl

Employing entity / assessed group: Toggl — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in documented hiring countries.
Registered seat / operating model: Tallinn, Estonia (registered seat); distributed operations
Origins: 2006 (business origins)

Toggl’s current employment material describes remote work and asynchronous coordination as normal features of its operating model. The emphasis on autonomy is supported by a public handbook and an explicitly distributed team. This gives employees an alternative to a shared daily workplace, while making the expected way of collaborating available before they join.

The company documents remote operation since 2014, with current recruitment and independent employment records supporting continued implementation. Its disclosed supports include a laptop, home-office resources and team gatherings. Those provisions help make location flexibility workable without assuming that every employee wants or needs exactly the same physical workspace.

Toggl is included for a sustained employment model that connects personal autonomy with accessible operating information. The assessed scope remains employees in documented hiring countries, with the employing entity and local conditions determined by the vacancy. The ranking does not extend employee terms to contractors or claim that asynchronous coordination establishes unrestricted hours, universal satisfaction or permission to work in any jurisdiction.

Workiva

Employing entity / assessed group: Workiva group — US operations.
Assessed workforce: US direct employees in the published provider cohort; contractors excluded.
Headquarters: Ames, Iowa, United States
Business origins: 2008

Workiva’s Work Where You Work Best framework describes remote, office and hybrid arrangements, linking location choice with trust, accountability and team connection. The policy therefore offers more than permission to work at home occasionally. It identifies several ways to organize employment while retaining responsibilities to colleagues and the requirements of the particular work.

Current careers and benefits disclosures provide the operating context, including learning opportunities and a bounded geographic-mobility provision. The latter is interpreted within its conditions rather than as unrestricted international travel. An independent US workforce profile offers employer-specific corroboration, without its broad culture finding being converted into a measure of satisfaction with flexibility.

Workiva is included for connecting location options with explicit coordination principles and an inspectable support framework. The assessed employee scope is the documented US population, with eligibility and role conditions preserved. Available options do not establish identical uptake across teams, and the ranking does not infer that employees can independently change country or disregard agreed working responsibilities.

YNAB

Employing entity / assessed group: YNAB group — US operations.
Assessed workforce: US direct employees in the published provider cohort; contractors excluded.
Published company location / operating model: Lehi, Utah, United States (published company-profile location); remote operations
Business origins: 2004

YNAB’s documented four-day working week makes scheduling design a central part of the employment proposition. The model also includes a minimum-vacation expectation and a year-end company break, giving time away from work a visible place in the operating framework. Those provisions are assessed as published arrangements rather than as a measured record of actual hours or leave taken.

Current careers information distinguishes US and UK employees from contractors in other countries. That is important to coverage: the wider distributed team should not be treated as a single population with identical employment terms. Separate learning and book resources add support without being confused with working-time autonomy itself.

YNAB is included for a clear and sustained schedule proposition within an identifiable employee population. Its employer-specific independent workforce profile provides corroborating context, while the general workplace percentage is not used to prove a work-life outcome. The assessment recognizes the formal design and its disclosed reach, retaining local and engagement-type differences rather than making a global promise.

Tier III — Specialist Employers for Flexible Work

(Alphabetical order)

Affirm

Employing entity / assessed group: Affirm — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Remote-eligible employees within their home country.
Headquarters: San Francisco, California, United States
Origins: 2012

Affirm’s remote-first model permits eligible employees to work within their home country, making the geographic boundary explicit. That provides meaningful location choice without implying that an employee may move to another jurisdiction merely because ordinary duties can be performed online. The policy is assessed within the remote-eligible population rather than assigned to every possible group role.

Current careers information, an annual filing and independent employee-role records support continuing implementation. Technology and other employee spending wallets provide practical context for the arrangement. These sources establish the employment framework and available support, while not measuring how every person uses a budget or divides time between possible workplaces.

Affirm is included for a documented combination of remote access, geographic clarity and operating evidence. Its financial products and customer experience are separate from the employer judgment. The assessment recognizes location flexibility inside an intelligible boundary, with no assumption of unrestricted scheduling, identical local benefits or a particular improvement in staff wellbeing as a result of the policy.

Aha!

Employing entity / assessed group: Aha! — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in specified US, Canadian and other eligible locations.
Headquarters / operating model: Distributed team in the United States and international locations
Origins: 2013

Aha! describes fully remote employment and identifies a distributed team across the United States and international locations. For the documented employee roles, this removes dependence on a single daily office while preserving country and vacancy conditions. The company’s current description of its own organization provides the basis for the assessment, rather than an assumed physical headquarters from older records.

Current openings, team information and independent employee records corroborate implementation. Published benefits and manager development support provide additional context, while regular interaction and gatherings establish that location flexibility can coexist with deliberate personal connection. These mechanisms concern the internal workforce, separately from customers using the company’s planning software.

Aha! is included for sustained access to a remote working environment with identifiable employment supports. The ranking does not infer complete timing autonomy or a universal employee preference for the model. Applicants’ work authorization, role requirements and local terms remain material, even where the daily operating arrangement does not depend on attending a company office.

Canonical

Employing entity / assessed group: Canonical — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Home-based employees in documented hiring countries; required travel retained.
Headquarters: London, United Kingdom
Origins: 2004

Canonical’s home-based employment model removes a normal daily office requirement for the assessed roles. That provides substantial location flexibility within the countries in which the company employs staff. It is distinct from complete freedom over the working calendar: current role information retains a material expectation of travel for company gatherings.

The published arrangement includes company-funded sprints, with some roles requiring travel twice yearly for periods of up to two weeks. Current employee roles and external employment records establish that home-based work is an operating model rather than an occasional accommodation. The recurring travel condition is considered part of the offer, not omitted to make the model appear less demanding.

Canonical is included for broad, sustained access to home-based employment and clear disclosure of an important coordination requirement. Its technical community is not counted as an employee population. The assessment recognizes location autonomy while distinguishing it from employee-controlled travel, unrestricted working hours or a measured improvement in personal work-life balance.

Close

Employing entity / assessed group: Close — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct remote employees; local benefit and hiring eligibility retained.
Published business base: Distributed company; United States business base
Origins: 2013 (Close launch); 2012 (ElasticSales business origins)

Close’s careers material describes entirely remote and asynchronous work, making both location and coordination part of its employment proposition. Employees can perform documented roles away from a daily company office, while written and delayed communication support collaboration across the team. This remains a working arrangement with responsibilities, rather than an assurance of complete independence from colleagues.

Current employee recruitment and external employer records corroborate implementation. Paid work tools provide practical support, and annual gatherings create a planned opportunity for personal contact. Local benefits and hiring conditions are retained within their actual scope; the US package is not automatically assigned to employees in every country.

Close is included for connecting location flexibility with an explicit asynchronous operating model. Its assessment concerns direct employees, not customers or teams using its sales software. The evidence supports a substantive alternative to office-centered work, while not establishing unrestricted international mobility, the absence of agreed meeting times or a representative employee finding about the effectiveness of the arrangement.

Deel

Employing entity / assessed group: Deel — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Internal employees; EOR client workers and contractors excluded.
Published business base: San Francisco, California, United States (documented business base)
Origins: 2019

Deel describes its own team as fully remote and identifies local flexibility within its employee rewards proposition. This gives the assessment a specific employment basis, separate from customer payroll and hiring services. Location flexibility is considered within the countries and engagement types documented for internal roles, rather than treated as a borderless entitlement.

Current recruitment spans several internal functions, with independent employee-role records corroborating remote implementation. The company’s culture disclosure also makes clear that compensation and benefits are localized. That is relevant to interpreting coverage: a broad group-level proposition does not mean employees everywhere receive identical terms or have the same relocation options.

Deel is included for substantive internal location flexibility supported by current workforce records. The ranking does not use the number of customer workers as a participation measure for Deel employees. It also keeps contractors distinct and avoids assuming that every localized reward is discretionary above law. The documented operating model supports inclusion without establishing a particular work-life or satisfaction outcome.

Dropbox

Employing entity / assessed group: Dropbox — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Virtual First employees; role-specific exceptions retained.
Headquarters: San Francisco, California, United States
Origins: 2007

Dropbox’s Virtual First approach makes remote work the normal basis for the assessed employee population, with intentional personal collaboration as a complementary activity. That offers location flexibility without assuming that every useful interaction must take place through a screen. The distinction concerns how work is organized, rather than simply counting days inside or outside an office.

The public Virtual First toolkit provides practical routines for collaboration, while current employer-specific employee records corroborate the continuing model. These operating resources help explain implementation beyond a policy label. They are considered as guidance for work, not as a new measurement of how every team divides its time.

Dropbox is included for a formal location-flexible framework supported by published working practices. Role-specific exceptions remain relevant, and planned gatherings are not converted into an invented weekly hybrid schedule. The assessment does not assume that virtual work removes the need for synchronous decisions, travel or shared accountability. It recognizes a documented arrangement rather than a guaranteed personal employment experience.

Elastic

Employing entity / assessed group: Elastic — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Employees in documented distributed roles; contributors and contractors excluded.
Registered office / operating model: Amsterdam, Netherlands (registered office); distributed operations
Origins: 2012

Elastic describes its employment model as distributed by design. For employees in documented remote roles, location flexibility is part of the organization’s normal operating approach rather than a special exception granted after joining. The assessed scope preserves vacancy conditions and does not assume that every group role can be performed from every country.

Current recruitment, published hiring guidance and independent employee-role records corroborate operation. The recruiting material makes expectations for joining a distributed organization visible before employment begins. This is useful implementation evidence, while it does not supply a universal adoption percentage or a representative finding about satisfaction with the arrangement.

Elastic is included for a sustained distributed framework and identifiable employment access. The assessment distinguishes the registered office from employees’ daily workplaces, and excludes community contributors and contractors from inferred coverage. Its location model is assessed on its own employment evidence; the search and observability capabilities of its products do not establish worker autonomy, schedule freedom or the quality of an individual manager’s decisions.

GitBook

Employing entity / assessed group: GitBook — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in documented, principally European-time-zone roles.
Published corporate address: Covina, California, United States (published corporate address); remote operations
Origins: 2014

GitBook’s careers material describes fully remote, mostly asynchronous work, together with a preference for similar time zones during onboarding. Current roles specify European time-zone compatibility. That combination gives location flexibility a practical boundary: employees need not share an office, but the timing of collaboration can still constrain where a role can be performed.

A laptop, a home-setup budget and optional coworking support address the physical conditions of work. Twice-yearly gatherings in Europe provide planned personal contact. Current full-time recruitment and employer-specific employment records corroborate implementation, rather than leaving the arrangement at the level of a general employer statement.

GitBook is included for an intelligible connection between autonomy, equipment and coordination. The assessment does not treat travel language as unrestricted immigration permission or generalize principally European-time-zone vacancies into worldwide hiring. Its published corporate address is labelled separately from remote operations. The result is a location-flexible employee proposition with visible requirements, rather than a claim that work can be performed anywhere without conditions.

Mozilla

Employing entity / assessed group: Mozilla Corporation
Assessed workforce: Mozilla Corporation employees; volunteers, contractors and Foundation-only staff excluded.
Headquarters: San Francisco, California, United States
Origins: 2005 (Mozilla Corporation)

Mozilla Corporation publishes office-optional and remote-friendly employment arrangements, with gathering spaces available for planning and collaborative work. This provides meaningful location flexibility for the documented employee roles. The proposition is assessed at the Corporation level, rather than assigning identical terms to every organization and community using the Mozilla name.

Current named remote positions and independent employee-role records support actual implementation. The workplace description combines asynchronous communication with periodic personal connection, making clear that remote access does not imply the absence of shared work. Country and role requirements remain relevant even where ordinary duties can be carried out away from an office.

Mozilla is included for a documented option to work remotely alongside access to collaborative spaces. Foundation-only staff, volunteers and contract roles are excluded from inferred Corporation coverage. The assessment recognizes the location choice supported by employment records without assuming unlimited scheduling control, a universal adoption rate or a particular employee-experience outcome from the organization’s public-interest reputation.

n8n

Employing entity / assessed group: n8n — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Employees in Europe, UK and selected US locations.
Headquarters: Berlin, Germany
Origins: 2019

n8n’s employee offer combines remote-first work with access to physical workspaces and regular in-person meetings. Its careers material presents autonomy alongside accountability, giving location choice a defined relationship to the work. The relevant population covers employees in Europe, the United Kingdom and selected US locations, with individual vacancy conditions retained.

Current roles and named employee accounts provide implementation context, while independent employee recruitment corroborates the remote model. Learning resources and build weeks create organized opportunities to develop and work with colleagues. These arrangements help explain how distributed employment can include shared activity without requiring the same office location every day.

n8n is included for a documented location-flexible model with practical support and explicit operating regions. The assessment does not turn a positive individual account into representative workforce sentiment. Nor does it assume that every role has identical timing autonomy. The evidence supports the employment arrangement actually described, with geography, collaboration and employment type remaining important to an applicant’s own circumstances.

Oyster

Employing entity / assessed group: Oyster — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Internal employees; EOR client workers and contractors excluded.
Headquarters / operating model: San Francisco, California, United States; fully distributed
Origins: 2020

Oyster’s own employee careers offer describes a fully distributed organization. The relevant flexibility is the internal team’s ability to work across documented locations, separately from the employer-of-record services offered to customers. A company that helps other organizations employ people internationally still needs evidence about the arrangements used by its own workforce.

Current corporate and careers material identifies an operating internal employee footprint across countries. The company also publishes a remote-team playbook based on its distributed working experience. These records support substantive implementation, while local employment requirements remain relevant to each individual’s contract and location.

Oyster is included for connecting an internal distributed model with published operating guidance. It is not credited with every flexible arrangement used by a customer organization, nor with unrestricted employee mobility. The assessment retains the distinction between a global recruitment proposition and legal permission to work in a particular country. Its current partnership with Vistra is not presented as evidence that Oyster has been acquired.

Ryan, LLC

Employing entity / assessed group: Ryan, LLC (U.S. assessed group)
Assessed workforce: US direct employees in the published provider cohort; contractors excluded.
U.S. employer headquarters / base: Plano, TX, US
Reported U.S. profile business origins: 1991

Ryan’s myRyan model organizes professional flexibility around agreed results and client responsibilities. Its published careers material describes flexible schedules subject to manager approval. That gives the employee proposition both a source of autonomy and a decision boundary: the arrangement is neither a rigid attendance-only model nor an unconditional right to choose any hours.

Current careers and people-and-culture disclosures identify the operating framework alongside professional development and qualification support. These provide concrete employment context for a tax advisory workforce whose responsibilities vary with clients and assignments. The independent US employee profile supplies corroboration about the employer, while its overall endorsement is not presented as a separate work-life measure.

Ryan is included for an established results-oriented scheduling model with stated accountability. The assessment concerns the evidenced US employee population and retains role, manager and client requirements. It does not assume every schedule request is approved or use sabbatical availability as proof of actual leave-taking. The supported proposition is significant, bounded scheduling flexibility within professional employment.

Shopify

Employing entity / assessed group: Shopify — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in documented remote-eligible roles and countries.
Corporate base / operating model: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (corporate base); digital-first operations
Origins: 2006 (Shopify launch)

Shopify’s Digital by Design approach makes digital work the daily operating basis for documented remote-eligible employee roles. Optional Port workspaces provide a physical alternative for connection and collaboration. This gives location flexibility a particular form: the company does not need to turn every office visit into a universal weekly attendance rule for the model to include personal contact.

Current careers material and independent employee-role records corroborate continuing remote implementation. The assessment retains country and vacancy requirements, rather than treating the broad operating description as worldwide hiring permission. It also distinguishes the company’s own employees from merchants, partners and the other people whose work depends on its commerce services.

Shopify is included for a sustained employment framework that combines a digital default with optional shared spaces. The ranking does not infer an employee-controlled schedule from location choice alone. Nor does it treat the success of a merchant’s business as evidence about Shopify staff. Its position rests on the documented internal arrangement and the scope actually supported.

Wikimedia Foundation

Employing entity / assessed group: Wikimedia Foundation
Assessed workforce: Direct staff employees; volunteers, affiliates and contract-only roles excluded.
Headquarters: San Francisco, California, United States
Origins: 2003

The Wikimedia Foundation’s direct staff roles include substantive remote employment across documented hiring locations. That creates location flexibility for professional employees working in support of the organization’s mission. It is important to distinguish this workforce from volunteer contributors, independent affiliates and the contract positions that also appear in the wider recruitment material.

Current employee listings and external employment classifications corroborate the remote arrangement. Jobs information also identifies People support and country hiring conditions, providing a framework for joining an international organization without assuming employment is available everywhere. The evidence supports the defined employee roles rather than every relationship through which the wider Wikimedia movement operates.

The Foundation is included for implemented location flexibility within a precisely bounded professional workforce. Its inclusion does not rest on the accessibility of Wikipedia or the activity of volunteers. The assessment also avoids assuming that remote staff choose all their working hours independently. Individual employment location, coordination needs and benefits remain matters for the applicable role and local terms.

Zapier

Employing entity / assessed group: Zapier — assessed group
Assessed workforce: Direct employees in eligible countries; contractors and interns excluded.
Published business base: Distributed organization; San Francisco, California, United States business base
Origins: 2011

Zapier’s employee proposition combines a remote operating model with an emphasis on asynchronous communication. This can separate parts of the working day from the need for colleagues to share a room or respond simultaneously. The documented arrangement offers a meaningful form of location flexibility while retaining responsibilities to the team and the requirements of a particular vacancy.

Current careers information and independent employee-role records establish that remote employment is being recruited in practice. Growth plans, defined career pathways and an internal job board add a professional-access dimension. Employees working away from a headquarters still need a visible route to development and internal opportunities.

Zapier is included for an implemented distributed model supported by identifiable employment processes. The ranking does not assume that asynchronous work removes deadlines, meetings or all time-zone requirements. Its scope is direct employees in eligible countries; interns and contractors are not automatically assigned the same terms. No productivity gain or representative satisfaction result is inferred from the policy.

Remarks

The tiers compare documented flexibility arrangements. Location choice and schedule control are distinct, and employers can qualify through a significant formal provision in either dimension. Remote and hybrid labels alone do not determine placement.

Published current employee roles, operating records and detailed policy provide the implementation evidence. No confidential employer HR submission has been assumed. Individual accounts are interpreted as examples, while preference proportions are adoption findings rather than representative satisfaction measures.

The assessment preserves country, role and engagement-type boundaries. It does not give comparative benefit credit for statutory entitlements or treat a registered corporate address as an employee’s daily workplace. Corporate product quality and customer outcomes are separate from employer merits.

Applicants should confirm the conditions relevant to their own role, including core hours, travel, approval, equipment and employment location. Arrangements can change. Recognition reflects the scoped editorial assessment at the review date and does not guarantee a particular personal outcome or future working condition.

Recognition

Inclusion in the Top 30 Employers for Flexible Work 2027 ranking is an editorial determination of The Economy Rankings and does not require licensing, advertising, sponsorship, or other commercial participation.

Ranked organizations may factually refer to their inclusion in the ranking in their own communications. When describing the result, entities should accurately reflect the tier structure and methodology used in the published ranking.

How the ranking should be interpreted

Tier I represents the Top 5 entities, and the published order within Tier I reflects the ranking order.
Tier II represents entities ranked within the Top 15, following Tier I. Entities within Tier II are displayed alphabetically; their displayed order should therefore not be interpreted as an individual numerical ranking.
Tier III represents entities ranked within the Top 30, following Tiers I and II. Entities within Tier III are also displayed alphabetically, and their displayed order should not be interpreted as an individual numerical ranking.
An entity's tier, rather than its alphabetical position within Tier II or Tier III, should therefore be used when describing its standing.

Referencing the ranking

Depending on the entity's published tier, appropriate factual descriptions may include:

Tier I: “Ranked Tier I” or “Ranked among the Top 5”
Tier II: “Ranked Tier II” or “Ranked among the Top 15”
Tier III: “Ranked Tier III” or “Ranked among the Top 30”

Entities should not describe an alphabetical position within Tier II or Tier III as a specific numerical rank.

Use of The Economy Rankings recognition materials

Editorial inclusion in a ranking does NOT by itself grant permission to use The Economy Rankings badges, seals, logos, official recognition graphics, licensed quotations, or other proprietary recognition materials.

Organizations wishing to use official The Economy Rankings recognition materials in corporate websites, marketing materials, investor communications, client presentations, social media, press releases, or other external communications should refer to the applicable licensing terms and usage policies:

The Economy Rankings License Structure — available licence levels and permitted recognition uses
The Economy Rankings License Structure | The Economy Rankings
The Economy Rankings License Policy — licensing conditions governing use of The Economy Rankings recognition, marks, and related materials
The Economy Rankings License Policy | The Economy Rankings
Recognition Use Guide — guidance on permitted wording, presentation, attribution, and use of ranking recognition
Recognition Use Guide | The Economy Rankings

Purchasing or holding a recognition-materials licence does not confer inclusion or a higher tier.

Recognized organizations may reference the designation in: