B2B Audits: New Rules, Risks, and Practical Tips for Companies

The new B2B inspection rules require greater operational discipline from companies. Below you will find how an inspection works in practice, what the risks are and how to safeguard your cooperation model.

B2B inspections after 8 July 2026: how PIP assesses actual cooperation and which elements most often lead to reclassification?

After 8 July 2026, inspections of B2B cooperation entered an entirely new phase. The National Labour Inspectorate gained tools allowing it to assess more quickly and more effectively whether a relationship with a contractor is genuinely business in nature or displays the features of employment. In practice this means moving away from analysing the wording of the contract alone towards examining the actual manner in which the services are performed, and therefore the level of independence, the organisation of work and the way instructions are given.

For companies using B2B, this is the moment at which putting processes in order and verifying risk becomes necessary. PIP’s new powers, including the ability to issue an administrative decision on the existence of an employment relationship, mean that the cooperation model must be not only well described, but also consistent with day-to-day operational practice.

What changed after 8 July 2026? Key facts for management boards and HR

After 8 July 2026, companies using the B2B model must operate under entirely new supervisory conditions. The reform of the National Labour Inspectorate not only broadened the scope of inspections, but above all changed the way cooperation with contractors is assessed. This means that the risks associated with B2B are more tangible today, and the responses of the supervisory authorities faster and more effective than ever before.

An administrative decision on the existence of an employment relationship

From 8 July 2026, a district labour inspector may independently establish that B2B cooperation displays the features of an employment relationship. An administrative decision replaces lengthy court proceedings, which significantly shortens the response time and increases the risk of immediate financial consequences. This is a fundamental change, because for the first time an inspection authority may directly determine the nature of the engagement.

PIP’s two-stage mode of operation

The new provisions introduced a procedure in which the inspector first issues an order to remedy infringements, indicating the elements of the cooperation requiring correction. Only a failure to respond on the company’s part opens the way to an administrative decision being issued. This model is preventive in nature, but it requires organisations to put processes and documentation in order quickly.

Remote inspections and electronic document flow

PIP may conduct inspections entirely remotely: analysing documents online, questioning the parties by videoconference and issuing electronic inspection reports. This increases inspectors’ availability and allows more frequent inspections, especially in companies operating in a hybrid or distributed model.

Joint risk analysis: PIP, ZUS and KAS

Following the reform, state institutions exchange data on employment, contributions and cooperation models. As a result, companies are selected for inspection on the basis of risk analysis rather than solely on the basis of reports. Consequently, organisations with a large number of contractors or with repetitive settlement patterns may appear more frequently on the list of entities to be verified.

A 12-month adjustment period (until 8 July 2027)

The provisions envisage a one-year period in which companies may put their B2B cooperation model in order without the risk of financial sanctions. Inspections still take place, but their purpose is to identify irregularities and allow them to be remedied. This is the time for a process audit, for standardising documentation and for making sure that the way services are performed is consistent with the wording of the contracts.

How does PIP assess B2B cooperation? Practice counts, not the contract

After 8 July 2026, the National Labour Inspectorate assesses B2B cooperation primarily through the lens of the actual manner in which the services are performed, rather than the wording of the contract. This means that even a correctly drafted contract does not protect the company if day-to-day practice resembles an employment relationship. Inspectors analyse the facts, including the organisation of work, the way instructions are given, the level of the contractor’s independence and the nature of the remuneration, and then compare them with the criteria arising from Article 22 of the Labour Code.

Subordination and the way work is managed

One of the key elements of the assessment is whether the contractor acts independently or is subject to the company’s ongoing direction. Inspectors pay attention to who decides how tasks are performed, who sets priorities, who monitors progress, and whether the contractor can organise their own work independently. If the process resembles typical employee supervision, this is a strong risk signal.

Time and place of performance of the services

PIP analyses whether the contractor is free to choose their working hours and place of work, or whether they operate within a fixed schedule imposed by the company. Fixed hours, mandatory presence in the office or an obligation to report attendance may indicate features of employment. What is crucial is whether the contractor actually enjoys independence, and not merely whether it is written into the contract.

Personal performance of the services and the possibility of substitution

Inspectors examine whether the contractor may entrust the performance of tasks to another person, which is a natural element of business activity. If the cooperation is based on mandatory, personal performance of the services and the company does not allow substitutes, the relationship may be assessed as one of employment. PIP focuses on practice, not merely on the wording of the contract.

The nature of the remuneration and economic risk

In a B2B model the provider should bear economic risk, and their remuneration should reflect the nature of the services. Fixed, lump-sum rates paid regardless of the results of the work, an absence of costs on the contractor’s side or a lack of responsibility for the result may indicate that the self-employment is a sham. Inspectors also analyse whether the contractor provides services to other entities or is in fact tied to a single company only.

Integration with the team and access to benefits

PIP also assesses the degree to which the contractor is integrated into the organisational structures, including participation in team meetings, use of employee benefits, involvement in HR processes and onboarding. The more the cooperation resembles the standard functioning of an employee within the company, the greater the risk of the B2B model being challenged.

Consistency between documentation and operational practice

Inspectors compare the wording of the contract with the actual manner in which the services are performed. If the documentation indicates independence but practice indicates subordination, PIP treats the actual state of affairs as decisive. This means that companies must take care not only over the content of their contracts, but also over the consistency of their operational processes with the B2B model.

What does a B2B inspection look like in practice?

Inspections of B2B cooperation after 8 July 2026 are more dynamic, faster and based on an analysis of the actual conditions in which the services are performed. PIP inspectors use both traditional tools and new remote mechanisms, and their work is supported by data from ZUS and KAS. In practice this means that an inspection may begin unexpectedly, take several forms and cover both documents and the day-to-day organisation of work.

Forms of inspection: on-site, remote and hybrid

An inspection may take place at the company’s premises, entirely online or in a mixed model. In the case of remote inspections, inspectors use videoconferencing, electronic document flow and screen sharing, which allows them to analyse materials in real time. This mode is particularly common in companies operating in a hybrid or distributed model.

The scope of documents and information PIP may demand

An inspector has the right to demand:

• B2B contracts and amendments,
• work schedules, reports and timesheets,
• project documentation,
• correspondence concerning the manner in which tasks are performed,
• internal rules, procedures and instructions in force at the company,
• information on remuneration and the manner of settlement,
• data concerning the contractor’s other clients (where available).

PIP analyses not only formal documents, but also operational materials that show what the cooperation looks like from day to day.

Interviews with contractors and employees

Inspectors conduct interviews with the people involved in the cooperation, both contractors and the managers supervising their work. The questions concern, among other things, the way instructions are given, the organisation of working time, the scope of responsibility, the possibility of substitution and the level of independence. This is one of the key elements of an inspection, because it makes it possible to establish the actual nature of the relationship.

Analysis of operational practice

PIP compares the wording of the contract with the actual manner in which the services are performed. If the documentation indicates independence but practice indicates subordination, the inspector treats the actual state of affairs as decisive. The matters analysed include:

• the way tasks are delegated,
• the contractor’s participation in team meetings,
• access to tools and systems,
• use of benefits,
• the obligation to report work results.

It is precisely this part of the inspection that most often determines how the cooperation is assessed.

An order to remedy infringements

If the inspector finds irregularities, they may issue an order to remedy them. The document indicates the specific elements of the cooperation that need to be corrected, for example the way instructions are given, the organisation of working time or the scope of the contractor’s responsibility. The order is not yet a sanction, but it constitutes a formal warning.

An administrative decision on the existence of an employment relationship

If the company does not implement the changes indicated in the order, the district inspector may issue an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship. This is the most severe consequence of an inspection, because the decision takes immediate effect and entails an obligation to make tax and contribution corrections as well as organisational changes.

An individual interpretation from PIP

Companies may apply for an individual interpretation, which protects them against sanctions provided that the actual state of affairs corresponds to the one described in the application. This is a preventive tool, particularly useful during the adjustment period running until 8 July 2027.

What are the consequences of B2B cooperation being challenged?

Classifying B2B cooperation as an employment relationship is one of the most severe outcomes of a PIP inspection. Following the changes in the legislation, an inspector’s decision may take immediate effect through the imposition of immediate enforceability. This means rapid financial burdens, the need to reorganise processes and legal risks that may affect the stability of the entire engagement model.

Financial consequences: outstanding contributions, taxes and top-up payments

Moreover, reclassification may result in the need to pay public law liabilities, including:

• ZUS contributions,
• PIT advance payments.

And, in addition, the need to:

• top up employee entitlements, such as holiday pay equivalents, overtime supplements or other entitlements arising from the Labour Code,
• correct payroll documentation and ZUS filings.

In practice this often means corrections covering many months, which may place a significant burden on the organisation’s budget.

Organisational consequences: changes to the working model and team structures

Reclassification forces the cooperation model to be adjusted. The company must:

• employ the person concerned under an employment contract or change the way the services are provided,
• implement full employment processes: working time records, occupational health and safety rules, holidays, breaks, overtime,
• reorganise teams, if the model used to date was based on a large number of contractors,
• adapt tools, systems and procedures to labour law requirements.

In companies using B2B on a large scale, this may mean rebuilding the entire operating model.

Legal consequences: management board liability and the risk of disputes

An inspector’s decision may trigger further proceedings:

• liability of management board members for infringements of employment provisions,
• fiscal penal proceedings connected with incorrect tax settlements,
• claims by contractors, who may pursue employee entitlements for the entire period of cooperation,
• the need to correct HR and payroll documentation.

This is an area that simultaneously involves the legal department, HR, accounting and the management board.

Reputational consequences: loss of trust and destabilisation of cooperation

Reclassification may also affect the company’s image:

• it weakens contractors’ trust,
• it makes recruitment in the B2B model more difficult,
• it affects relations with business partners,
• it forces crisis communication within the organisation.

In industries based on flexibility and specialist services, this is felt particularly keenly.

Which companies are most exposed?

The risk of B2B cooperation being challenged is not spread evenly across all organisations. PIP focuses primarily on companies in which the model of cooperation with contractors is widely used and day-to-day practice may resemble an employment relationship. What matters is not only the number of people on B2B, but also the way work is organised, the structure of teams and the nature of the services provided.

Companies with a large number of contractors

Organisations that base a significant part of their operations on B2B cooperation are naturally more visible in risk analyses. This applies both to large project teams and to companies that have replaced employment positions with contracts over the years. The greater the scale of the cooperation, the greater the likelihood that PIP will want to verify whether the model complies with the law.

Industries with repetitive working patterns

The highest risk concerns sectors in which contractors work in a manner close to that of employees: at fixed hours, within teams, under ongoing managerial supervision. These are above all:

• IT and software development,
• marketing and the creative industry,
• e-commerce and logistics,
• shared services centres (SSC/BPO),
• manufacturing and industry,
• technology and design companies.

In these sectors the line between a service and employment can be especially thin.

Organisations with extensive reporting structures

Companies that require contractors to report working time, attend regular meetings, use internal tools or comply with procedures typical of employment are more exposed to inspection. PIP analyses whether the contractor actually operates as an independent entity or is integrated into the organisational structure.

Entities offering contractors employee benefits

The risk increases where contractors use benefits typical of employment, such as private medical care, sports cards, internal training or company events. Inspectors treat this as a signal that the company treats the contractor as an employee rather than as an independent service provider.

Companies with lump-sum, fixed remuneration

Fixed, recurring remuneration, independent of the results of the work or the scope of the services, is one of the elements that may suggest that self-employment is a sham. PIP pays attention to whether the contractor bears economic risk or receives remuneration in a manner typical of employment.

How to safeguard B2B cooperation? A practical plan for companies

Effectively safeguarding B2B cooperation requires a process-based approach. A correctly drafted contract is not enough, because what is crucial is that the way the services are performed genuinely reflects a business model rather than an employment one. The plan below sets out measures that genuinely reduce the risk of the cooperation being challenged by PIP.

1. Audit your contracts and operational practice

The audit should cover both documents and the day-to-day organisation of work. In practice this means analysing:

• the content of the B2B contracts, the scopes of services and the rules on responsibility,
• the way tasks are delegated and communication with contractors is handled,
• schedules, reports, timesheets and project documentation,
• the remuneration structure and settlement rules,
• contractors’ integration with the team and internal processes.

The aim is to establish whether operational practice is consistent with the B2B model.

2. Design a cooperation model consistent with the law and with PIP’s practice

On the basis of the audit, the company should implement a model that minimises the risk of reclassification. This includes, among other things:

• clearly defining the scope of services and the deliverables,
• ensuring a genuine possibility of substitution,
• avoiding fixed working hours and mandatory presence in the office,
• emphasising the contractor’s independence within operational processes,
• adjusting the remuneration structure so that it reflects the nature of the services rather than an employment pay scheme.

3. Introduce procedures governing B2B cooperation

Procedures are among the most important pieces of evidence during a PIP inspection. They should cover:

• instructions for managers on communication and delegating tasks,
• rules on onboarding contractors,
• guidelines on reporting and settlements,
• documentation confirming the provider’s independence (e.g. acceptance protocols, declarations).

Well-prepared procedures prevent practice from “drifting apart” from the wording of the contracts.

4. Train managers and teams

Most errors in the B2B model stem from a lack of operational awareness. Training should cover:

• the differences between B2B and employment,
• the rules on giving instructions,
• the elements that may lead to reclassification,
• managers’ responsibility for keeping practice consistent with the documentation.

This is a key element, because it is precisely the day-to-day actions of teams that PIP most often analyses.

5. Monitor compliance and update documentation

The B2B model requires ongoing oversight. Companies should:

• regularly verify the consistency of practice with the documentation,
• update contracts and procedures,
• respond to changes in the legislation,
• consult advisers on atypical cases.

Continuous monitoring makes it possible to maintain consistency between theory and practice.

6. Consider applying for an individual interpretation from PIP

An individual interpretation can confirm that a given cooperation model complies with the law. This is particularly useful in the case of:

• large teams of contractors,
• high-value projects,
• atypical cooperation models,
• industries with a heightened risk of inspection.

An interpretation protects the company provided that the actual state of affairs corresponds to the description in the application.

How will companies feel the new inspection rules?

The new B2B inspection rules force companies to change their approach to cooperation with contractors. A model that for years functioned mainly as a flexible alternative to employment now requires considerably greater operational discipline. Organisations must ensure consistency between documentation and day-to-day practice, clearly define the limits of providers’ independence and manage risk consciously. In practice this means the need for continuous process monitoring, greater responsibility on the part of managers and a readiness to respond quickly to signals of non-compliance. Companies that treat this area strategically may continue to use B2B, though no longer intuitively, but in a conscious and orderly way.

How does ALTO Advisory help companies through the changes?

ALTO Advisory supports companies in putting B2B cooperation in order from both a legal and an operational perspective. Our team of advisers helps carry out a risk audit, prepare a safe cooperation model, develop procedures for managers and put in place documentation that genuinely protects the company during an inspection. Ongoing support is also an important element, such as consultations on atypical cases, updating contracts and preparing the organisation for the new supervisory obligations. This allows companies to use B2B in a way consistent with PIP’s current practice.

Summary

The changes in the way B2B cooperation is inspected mean that companies need a more conscious and orderly approach to their relationships with contractors. PIP today assesses above all practice rather than the wording of contracts, which is why organisations must ensure consistency of processes, clear rules of cooperation and appropriate preparation of managers. The B2B model can still be safe and effective, but it requires greater operational discipline and continuous risk monitoring. Properly designed procedures, regular audits and expert support allow companies to make use of B2B flexibility without fear of the consequences of an inspection.