Recruiting from Nepal, India and the Philippines into Finland: what the origin country asks

Finnish Immigration Service guidance (migri.fi/en/working-in-finland, 2026) states that the Finnish permit chain is the same whatever the origin country, and that the employer is responsible for reporting the terms of employment. The difference sits in the origin country: the Philippines requires employer accreditation and Nepal a licensed recruitment agency before the worker may leave.

The Finnish side is fixed, the origin side is not

An employer should treat the hire as two parallel processes that end on the same flight. The first is the Finnish permit chain, in which Migri (migri.fi/en/working-in-finland, 2026) decides the residence permit and the employer supplies the terms of employment at its own stage. It runs the same way whether the applicant is in Kathmandu, Chennai or Manila. The stages and the fee structure are set out in the guide to Finland's permit clock and cost.

The second process is the origin country's own exit clearance, and it has nothing to do with Finnish authorities. It can still stop the worker at the airport even when the Finnish residence permit has been granted and is valid. That combination produces most of the delays: the Finnish employer watches only the Migri status and assumes a decision means the worker is ready to fly.

Salary, though, is common to both. Migri (migri.fi/en/income-requirement, 2026) sets the income requirement between 1 030 and 1 210 euros net per month depending on the municipality of residence, and it applies to every origin country alike. The origin authorities in turn compare the contract salary against their own minimum terms, so the same contract has to pass two separate checks.

What each origin country requires

In the Philippines the Department of Migrant Workers (dmw.gov.ph) requires employer accreditation and verification of the employment contract before the worker departs. Accreditation attaches to the employer, not to the worker, and it has to be done once before any Filipino worker can leave. An employer who starts accreditation only after the Finnish decision has added a stage that could have run in parallel.

In Nepal the Department of Foreign Employment (dofe.gov.np) issues the labour approval stamp only for a demand submitted through a licensed recruitment agency. A Finnish employer therefore cannot deal with the authority directly, and the licence holder is a mandatory party. Check the licence yourself; the method is described in verifying a licensed Nepali recruiter.

In India no equivalent employer accreditation applies across all roles, so on Indian hires the Finnish side usually sets the pace, while legalising documents and translating certificates is the stage that produces delay.

The timing difference matters. Migri (migri.fi/en/working-in-finland, 2026) targets a decision within two weeks on the fast track, but Philippine accreditation and the Nepali demand routed through a licensed agency do not speed up with that target. Started only after the Finnish decision, a fast permit shortens the start date not at all.

It also helps to know who does what at the origin end. In the Philippines the accreditation is filed by the licensed local agency under the employer's power of attorney, and it submits the contract for verification. In Nepal the same role belongs to the licence holder, who files the demand with the authority. The Finnish employer supplies both with its company documents, the contract template and the workplace details, and these are worth keeping ready as one pack.

Zero cost policy is a budget question for the employer

The zero cost policies of Nepal and the Philippines move recruitment charges onto the employer. In practice the worker may not be charged for recruitment, and costs that other models leave with the worker are employer expenses. They typically include the agency fee, the medical examination, origin country official fees and the flight.

It helps to set the Finnish permit fee next to that list. Under the fees in force from 1 January 2026, a first residence permit for an employed person costs 750 euros filed online and 950 euros on paper (migri.fi). The agency fee, the medical examination, the origin country charges and the flight are each of the same order or larger, and unlike the permit fee none of them is published in any price list. An employer who prices only the 750 euros has priced the smallest line on the sheet.

Budget these before applying for the permit rather than afterwards, because some fall due before the Finnish decision exists. An employer who counts only the Finnish permit fee finds the gap when the origin invoice arrives and no decision has yet been made. The background to the principle and its effect on the chain are covered in ethical recruitment and zero cost in Nepal.

Zero cost is also something to verify, not merely to promise. If the worker has paid an intermediary at the origin end, responsibility returns to the employer regardless of who took the money. For that reason the employment contract and the recruitment agreement should state plainly which items the employer pays and what is never charged to the worker.

The practical conclusion is simple. Start the origin country requirements on the same day as the Finnish application rather than after it, and keep the cost list visible throughout.