Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2016 CRS Results

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

2016 CRS Results

  1. 1. ATLAS WORLD GROUP 49th Annual CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Results
  2. 2. THE INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE Invited via email, 445 decision-makers completed our online questionnaire between January 14 and March 7. Each respondent has responsibility for relocation and is employed by a company that has either relocated employees during the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year. • Nearly all (89%) work in human resources/personnel or relocation/mobility services departments for firms in: -Service (44%) -Manufacturing/processing (25%) -Financial (13%) -Wholesale/retail (10%) -Government/military (3%) -Other (5%) • For analysis, firms are categorized by size: -Small: Fewer than 500 salaried employees (35%) -Mid-size: 500-4,999 salaried employees (35%) -Large: 5,000+ salaried employees (30%) • Half (51%) are international firms. SMALL Fewer than 500 salaried employees MID-SIZE 500-4,999 salaried employees LARGE 5,000+ salaried employees 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% OtherGovernment/ military Wholesale/ retail FinancialManufacturing/ processing Service 25% 13% 5% 3% 44% 25% 10% Survey Highlights PAGE 2 Survey Responses PAGE 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS SURVEY Highlights Atlas has collected insights from corporate decision-makers and analyzed changes in the industry for nearly 50 years. Throughout changes in policies and practices, we remain committed to providing detailed views into how professionals answer the challenges of relocation. Atlas is in it for the long haul. For further details and graphical representations of all the data contained in this report, please go to atlasvanlines.com/survey 1
  3. 3. HIGHLIGHTS Relocation Volumes Budgets —  Overall International MoreRelocationsLastYear,MoreExpectedin2016,BudgetsContinueRebounding In 2015, essentially half of companies saw volume increases across company size, most markedly among mid-size firms (57%). Roughly half of firms relocating internationally saw volumes increase as well across firms of all sizes. Few firms saw any volume decreases overall. However, 20% of large firms saw declines in international relocation volumes. Expectations for 2016 are positive. Around four out of ten firms anticipate overall volumes to rise. Internationally, nearly half expect stability compared to 2015. A slight uptick in the percentage of firms expecting decreases is well within non- recessionary historical ranges and is not unexpected after a few years of relocation growth. As volumes increased in the years after the Great Recession, budgets did not initially keep pace. However, in both 2014 and 2015, nearly half of companies indicate relocation budgets increased, and 41% believe their budgets will increase again in 2016. Last year, regardless of size, essentially half of all firms saw budget increases, and four out of ten expect further increases in 2016. Overall, expectations for 2016 appear to be further growth or stability for budgets, with very few expecting decreases. However, a slight uptick in firms expecting a budget decrease corresponds with the slight increase in those expecting lower volumes. But this does not appear to indicate any worrisome level of retraction. • Median numbers for relocations remained at historical, non-recessionary norms for large firms again this year (200-399) and returned to normative levels for small firms (1-9) after trending higher the previous year (10-19). The median for mid-size firms remains higher overall (50-99) for the second year in a row compared to previous, non-recessionary year norms (20-49). • The greatest growth in relocation occurred among national and international firms; more than half reported increases in overall volumes last year and roughly half of these firms saw budget increases as well. More than 40% of national and international firms expect both volume and budget increases in 2016; less than a third of regional firms hold this optimism. • While roughly half or more of firms across industries saw overall relocation volumes increase last year, financial firms (63%) saw the greatest increase, and 56% of these firms saw budgets increase as well. Expectations across industries, generally speaking, are similar for volumes and budgets overall. Comparedto[lastyear],doyouanticipatethatyourrelocationbudgetfor[thisyear]will… Q7: Relocation Budget Expectation 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. DecreaseStay the sameIncrease 28% 57% 15% 18% 53% 29% 14% 55% 32% 17% 52% 31% 11% 57% 32% 14% 51% 35% 48% 38% 13% 23% 53% 24% 13% 60% 27% 14% 60% 26% 14% 66% 20% 12% 65% 22% 6% 49% 45% 2016 15% 44% 41% Q6: Overall Relocation Volume Comparedto[lastyear],doyouanticipatethatthenumberofemployeesyourcompanywillrelocateduring[thisyear]will… 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. DecreaseStay the sameIncrease 29% 58% 13% 16% 51% 33% 16% 51% 33% 20% 52% 28% 14% 56% 29% 18% 56% 25% 52% 38% 10% 26% 53% 22% 13% 58% 30% 12% 61% 26% 14% 59% 27% 15% 59% 25% 8% 47% 45% 2016 13% 47% 39% Comparedto[lastyear],doyouanticipatethatthenumberofemployeesyourcompanywillrelocateinternationallyduring[thisyear]will… Q43b: International Relocation Volume 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20152014201320122011201020092008200720062005 Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. DecreaseStay the sameIncrease 16% 57% 27% 13% 57% 30% 13% 57% 29% 15% 57% 28% 39% 46% 15% 17% 65% 18% 16% 56% 28% 16% 55% 29% 14% 57% 29% 16% 54% 30% 7% 43% 50% 2016 12% 45% 44% 32 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 2
  4. 4. Factors Affecting Relocation — External Internal RelocationforGrowth,Expansion,TalentNeeds The top three factors affecting relocation last year overall were a lack of local talent (42%), company growth (39%), and expansion efforts (37%). Company growth remains similar to previous recessionary levels, despite maintaining a substantial increase over 2009 (39% vs. 24%). Lack of local talent remains the top external factor. However, when all types of expansion are considered (facility, new territories, or international), some form of expansion affected relocation volumes for 37% of firms, nearly equal to company growth. Economic conditions affected 32% of firms last year. This remains far lower than recessionary percentages but higher than many non-recessionary years. Overall, the impact of the real estate market on relocation volumes continues to lessen; it is now at the survey’s lowest historical level (15%). Most firms have reported improved financial performances over the past six years. Combined with diminished real estate issues and budget constraints, as well as increases in relocation volumes and budgets, the picture of a full-fledged recovery appears strong. However, given the continued citing of economic conditions as a factor in relocations, the muted impact of company growth compared to historical ranges for recovery, and the depth of retraction in the Great Recession, some residual weakness may remain. The widespread, continued use of creative solutions for “doing more with less” likely reflects a permanent shift in how mobility policy is used. • The impact of factors continues to vary by company size. Large firms felt the impact on relocations from changes in corporate structure most acutely (51% – acquisitions/ mergers or corporate reorganization/restructuring), followed by company growth (46%), lack of local talent (42%), and expansion efforts (42%). Mid-size firms were similarly affected by expansion efforts (41%) and a need for talent (39%), the top two factors for medium firms last year, with company growth a close third (37%). For small firms, the biggest issue was talent (46%), followed by company growth (34%). • The impact of available talent remains markedly above the level recorded in 2009 (31%) and far above much lower levels recorded before 1996. Regardless of company size, talent shortfalls remain one of the key drivers of relocation volumes overall. • Across company size, the impact of real estate has fallen to its lowest point since measurement began in 2007 and for the first time since the housing crisis erupted. • Firms operating nationally or internationally (30% and 34%) were more likely to report that competition (domestic or international) affected relocations last year compared to regional firms (14%). Company growth was more strongly felt among national (40%) and international firms (45%) compared to regional firms (23%). • Nearly half of for-profit service, manufacturing/processing, and wholesale/retail firms indicated talent needs or some method of expansion were main factors in their relocations last year. Roughly a third or more of these firms, along with financial firms, say changes in corporate structure or growth in competition were key as well. Knowledge/skills transfers was a main factor for far more financial firms than for firms in other industries (44% vs. 28%+). The impact of the Great Recession and housing crisis is fading. As a reason for declining relocation, housing/mortgage concerns has lessened in each of the last three years; it now falls just within pre-recession levels for the first time since 2006. Only small firms indicate its influence exceeds pre-recessionary numbers, although well below recessionary highs. For the third straight year, family issues/ties retains the top spot among firms of all sizes. Spouse/ partner employment appears in second place for the third year in a row as well—and remains near the highest levels recorded since the turn of the century. Understandably, families that came through the Great Recession may be reluctant to gamble financial security on single salaries, placing a higher priority on keeping a dual-income household. The impact of this factor fell to a low of 39% in 2011, likely due to the difficulty of obtaining employment. Four years later, it retains a sixteen percent gain (55%). More than half of firms saw employees decline relocation last year, which is not unexpected. However, while employee reluctance (22%) falls slightly below the peaks of 2008 (28%) and 2009 (29%) and its jump in 2014 (28%), it remains above post-recession levels (11%-18%) of recent years. This suggests that spouse/partner employment may be continuing to put more pressure on firms trying to motivate employees to relocate. However, while firms are seeing reluctance at higher levels, a bit more also report decreases in reluctance over the past two years, although at lower levels than those seeing increased reluctance. • Far more small firms (48% vs. a third on average, historically) saw employees decline relocation last year, similar to 2014 (47%). While reluctance fell from 2014 (27%) it remained within recessionary levels (17% vs. 15%-19%). Reluctance at mid-size firms also remains at recessionary highs (30%) and has been for the past two years. However, reluctance among large firms falls far lower than recessionary levels (19% vs. 40%+) and dips within recovery ranges post-recession (7%-21%). • More than half of firms of all sizes cite spouse/partner employment as a reason employees declined relocation last year, near the highest levels since 2002. For large firms, it nearly equals family issues/ties (57% vs. 62%). Employees Declining Relocation ImpactofHousing/MortgageConcersContinuesToFall,Spouse/PartnerEmploymentRemainsHigh Whatexternalfactorshadthemostsignificantimpactonthenumberofyouremployeerelocationsin[lastyear]? Q13: Select External Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume 1988-2015 36%25% 24% 38% 40% 37% 0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200219981997199619951994199319921991199019891988 2015 22% 17% 16% 14% 18% 37% 46% 47% 21% 20% 17% 32% 34% 38% 48% 58% 52% 52% 31% 51% 49% 44% 35% 48% 49% 38% 38% 29% 34% 24% 25% 51% 24% 40% 28% 25% 22% 28% 23% 44% 40% 39% 46% 53% 34% 30% 43% 21% 38% Lack of qualified people locally Economic conditions Real estate market Note: 1999-2001 results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable. 42% 32% 15% Q14: Select Internal Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: 1988-2015 What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year]? Budget ConstraintsCompany Growth 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200219981997199619951994199319921991199019891988 Note: 1999-2001 results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable. 2015 64% 10% 13% 25% 28% 28% 28% 31% 22% 22% 15% 13% 12% 13% 18% 10% 9% 13% 22% 29% 21% 14% 15% 12% 19% 53% 47% 38% 39% 47% 47% 63% 55% 64% 58% 46% 46% 55% 57% 59% 40% 33% 24% 37% 39% 46% 46% 43% 17% 39% Q11a: Select Reasons Relocations Declined: 2002-2015 What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002 79% 83% 57% 52% Family Issues/TiesHousing/Mortgage Concerns Spouse’s/Partner’s Employment 49% 76% 70% 60% 45% 69% 55% 41% 71% 64% 65% 45% 64% 52% 42% 67% 58% 37%39% 77% 51% 43% 81% 84% 49% 50% 30% 53% 32% 62% 48% 61% 25%23%26% 2015 69% 55% 32% 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 4 5 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  5. 5. While the vast majority of firms expect either stability or improvement to the U.S. economy this year, the percentage expecting further gains dips considerably from the past three years of recovery (41% vs. 51%+). A similar trend appears in relation to the U.S. real estate market; the number of firms expecting more improvement trends lower than in the past three years (43% vs. 52%+). Neither expectation falls within previous recessionary territory, and they may indicate stability rather than expansion/growth for the coming year. The vast majority of firms expect improvement in their overall financial performance this year, similar to post-recession levels, with nearly all expecting improvement or stability. Generally, any expectations for a leveling out in the U.S. economy or real estate markets do not dim a company’s individual prospects. • Across company size, nearly two-thirds or more of firms anticipate better performances in 2016. About half expect improvements in emerging economies and in developed economies around the world. However, expectations for the U.S. trend a bit lower, with around four out of ten firms across sizes expecting improvements. • Overall, across firms of all sizes, 2015 experiences line up with projections for 2016 in regard to company performance, emerging and developed markets. For the U.S. economy, however, while 45% of mid-size and 56% of large firms saw improvement to the domestic economy in 2015, only 38% and 40%, respectively, project further gains in 2016. The outlook for the U.S. real estate market plays out similarly—49% of mid- size firms and 57% of large firms saw improvement in 2015, but only 40% and 44%, respectively, expect the same for 2016. Generally, higher percentages of mid-size and large firms expect stability rather than growth domestically. • Expectations for global markets differ from the domestic outlook and trend a bit more growth-oriented for 2016. Small and large firms are the most optimistic regarding emerging markets, with half or more expecting improvement. Half of firms across all sizes project gains in developed global economies this year. Economic Outlook OutlookTiltsTowardStabilityOverImprovement Spousal Assistance The seismic shift in spouse/partner employment that last year affected relocations almost always or frequently remains in place. Nearly two-thirds of firms saw this as an issue over the past two years, far more than at any time during the previous twelve years (62% and 63% vs. roughly half or less). While small firms have historically seen this around half the time, it ticks up again to 60% from 58% last year, which was slightly above average. The effect remains much more amplified among larger firms. An increase of more than 20 percentage points since 2013 remains in effect for mid- size firms (68% vs. 43%) after hitting 54% in 2014 and 65% in 2015. The impact among large firms is nearly double that of 2014 (61% vs. 32%) for the second year in a row. With the importance of spouse/partner employment at far higher levels over the past two years compared to historical averages, far more firms continue to respond with offers of spouse/partner employment assistance. Firms of all sizes have offered this over the past two years far more than previously. However, for the first time this year, we see similar levels across company size, rather than as a likely perk among mid-size and large firms. • The most popular form of employment assistance for all firms is networking assistance, with around a third offering resume preparation assistance. In the past, far more differences appeared in types of assistance by company size; this year levels are more consistent overall. The only marked differences: small firms are less likely than mid-size or large firms to offer payment for outplacement/career services from an outside firm (16% vs. 27% and 32%) and reimbursement of career transition expenses (16% vs. 25% and 31%). • Small firms indicate that 27% of relocating employees with a spouse/partner used this type of assistance, while usage trends are around a third for mid-size and large firms. International Two-thirds of companies offer to help find jobs for spouses or partners relocating internationally, down from 77% in 2015, but remaining notably higher than in any previous year. From 2008 to 2014, levels of spousal assistance for international and domestic moves were nearly identical. They shifted last year as spouses/ partners were more likely to be offered this assistance internationally (77% vs. 65% for domestic). The difference remains in 2016, to a slightly lesser degree (67% vs. 61%). Also, for the second year in a row, availability is similar across company size; historically, it has been more often associated with mid-size and large firms. • Similar to domestic trends, the extension of different kinds of employment assistance is similar across company size, with two major differences. Mid-size firms seem most willing to find spouses/partners employment within their companies (35% vs. 15% for small firms and 18% for large firms). Mid-size firms appear to be more eager than large firms to look for employment outside the company (26% vs. 10%). • Manufacturing/processing firms are twice as likely as for-profit service firms to pay for outplacement services for spouses/partners (23% vs. 12%). FamilyAssistance For the second year in a row, far greater accommodations are being made overall for childcare (62% vs. 31%-43%, historically) and elder care (49% vs. 16%-26%, historically), even if provisions are merely lists of possible centers and service providers for support. The impact of family issues/ties as a main factor in declined relocations may be impacted by the fact many employees in the mid-level and higher positions could be finding themselves caring for both older family members and children at the same time due to trends of later marriage/childbearing ages of higher educated/affluent members of the general population. These people tend to be in the highly educated pool employers tap for relocation. This can create a “sandwich” effect on employees in the prime years of their careers, squeezed by responsibilities for both job and family. While larger firms have typically offered family assistance more frequently than small firms, this year, akin to the trend for spouse/partner employment assistance, it is similar among firms of all sizes. The percentages offering assistance remain substantially above historical levels among firms of all sizes for the second year in a row. Comparedto[lastyear],pleaseindicatewhatyouanticipatefor[nextyear]: Q16: Anticipated Performance YOUR COMPANY 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006 4% 20% 76% 5% 32% 63% 5% 23% 72% 3% 28% 70% 4% 29% 67% 4% 29% 67% 5% 23% 72% 2% 23% 74% 9% 32% 59% 40% 34% 27% 2016 6% 28% 65% U.S.REAL ESTATEMARKET Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20152014201320122011201020092008 Better Same Worse 78% 59% 8% 12% 52% 57% 32% 10% 5% 6% 55% 36% 35% 60% 3% 37% 60% 52% 42% 40% 29% 12% 15% 7% 2016 9% 43% 48% U.S. ECONOMY 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006 10% 42% 11% 9% 13% 53% 36% 45% 46% 45% 25% 65% 45% 50% 5% 54% 40% 6% 44% 48% 7% 9% 54% 38% 54% 41% 5% 51% 44% 5% 2016 41% 44% 15% Q38: Spouse Employment Impact How frequently is an employee's relocation affected by the employment status of that employee's spouse/partner? Seldom/Never 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 45% 42% 2015 42% 58% 42% 58% 44% 56% 43% 57% 52% 48% 61% 42% 58% 40% 60% 46% 54% 39% 61% 46% 54% 48% 52% 62% 38% 63% 37% 39% Almost Always/Fre Seldom/Never 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 45% 42% 2015 42% 58% 42% 58% 44% 56% 43% 57% 52% 48% 61% 42% 58% 40% 60% 46% 54% 39% 61% 46% 54% 48% 52% 62% 38% 63% 37% 39% Almost Always/Frequently 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 6 7 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  6. 6. Relocation Policy Practice MultiplePolicyTypesPracticesLeveraged,TraditionalAssignmentsRemainMajority As policy types expanded to meet the demands and constraints created by the Great Recession, corporate professionals took responsibility for more kinds of relocation programs. The vast majority of professionals continue to maintain formal policies for domestic (80%) and international relocations (80%); many others are managing policies for permanent international transfers (67%), international localization (66%) and short-term/temporary assignments (65%). More than half have international intra-regional (58%) and extended business travel policies (52%) in place as well, and 40% state a policy exists for long-distance commuter arrangements. • Mid-size and large firms continue to be more likely to maintain policies for specialized arrangements outside general domestic and international policies. And they are more likely to maintain formal domestic and international policies overall. • Besides an increasing variety of policies, most firms continue to define tiers or levels within policies. The larger the firm, the more likely its domestic policy will have a tiered structure. Firms using tiers, on average, manage two or more such policies across company size. Levels are based on a variety of factors; the top two across company size, domestically and internationally, are job/grade level and position/job title. CandidateAssessments Candidate assessments have gained widespread use over the past two years as a means to ensure successful relocations. In both 2015 and 2016, roughly three-fourths of firms assessed candidates prior to relocation, compared to around half of firms that performed some level of vetting the previous three years. Assessments for all relocations remains the most popular (46%), similar to last year (48%) and roughly double previous levels (21%, 2012-2014). Past years saw far more differences in the use of candidate assessments and types of implementation among firms of different sizes. This year, those differences are minimized and the usage levels overall for both assessments and implementation methods are mostly similar, regardless of company size. Core/FlexPolicy Over the past two years, relocation volumes increased despite unique pressures from many sources. The incorporation of core/flex elements into policies is now nearly universal to allow for creative implementation. For 2015-2016, nearly 9 out of 10 firms use aspects of core/flex in policy, a decided increase over roughly three-fourths of firms in 2013-2014. And, over the past two years, the use of core/ flex policy has reached similar levels at companies of all sizes. Previously, such tailoring of benefits was more likely in mid-size and large firms. Coverage for core components continues to be the most popular aspect across firms of all sizes (either across all employee levels/categories or depending on employee level/category). But percentages of firms in 2015-2016 offering flexible use, whether for the full relocation benefit or a portion of it, remain essentially doubled compared to 2013-2014, except for flexible use of a portion dependent on employee level/category, which returned close to previous levels. Since coverage of core components is the most popular means of implementation, we dug a little deeper to see what types of costs it included. Overall, the top components are travel expenses (74%), temporary housing (67%), and household goods shipping (64%). The percentages of firms viewing travel expenses as core was nearly identical across company size, but differences emerged for other costs. Mid-size and large firms are a bit more likely to view temporary housing as a core benefit compared to small firms (74% and 68% vs. 59%). Large firms are more likely to see household goods shipping as core (76%) compared to mid-size or small firms (61% and 58%). Less than half of firms overall view storage, miscellaneous allowances, real estate assistance/transaction costs or rental assistance as core/flex benefits. However, company size plays a role in these elements as well. More mid-size and large firms see storage as a core benefit (47% and 56%) compared to small firms (37%). More large firms than mid-size or small firms see miscellaneous allowances (55% vs. 41% and 36%) as core. Incentives While use of incentives dropped in 2013, they rebounded and leapt to historical highs in 2014 and 2015 with the vast majority of firms offering them. With employee reluctance rising to recessionary levels in 2014 and remaining elevated in 2015, tailoring policy to individual needs remains a key option in the toolbox of professionals. With housing/mortgage pressures subsiding as real estate stabilized, far fewer firms offered extended temporary housing in 2014-2015 than did in 2013 (58% and 57% vs. 72%). Yet this benefit remains one of the top three incentives over the past seven years. Relocation bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in salary again round out the top three incentives across company size, similar to the past two years. • Among large firms, 40% offered a guaranteed buyout option for origin homes last year, similar to 2014 (41%), and 32% offered a buyer value option, down from 42% in 2014. Smaller firms were much less likely to offer these. And, while 37% of large firms offered loss-on-sale protection in 2015, only around half as many mid-size firms (19%) and only around a fifth as many small firms (7%) offered this option. Incentives continue to be highly successful in convincing employees to relocate: nine out of ten firms say incentives worked almost always or frequently, similar to historical levels. Q10b: Additional Incentives Offered (Top 3) 2013-2015 Whichofthefollowingadditionalnon-standardincentivesorexceptionsdidyour companyoffertoencourageemployeerelocationsoverthepastyear? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% COLAs in salary at new location Relocation bonuses Extended temporary housing benefits 50% 2014 2015 2013 57% 58% 72% 56% 59% 54% 58% 45% Percentages of firms offering this assistance: Questions 39a 43k: Spouse/Partner Employment Assistance Overall Internationally 42% 27% 42% 42% 42% 42% 44%44%45%46% 39% 39% 22% 41% 41% 41% 40%38% 38% 33% 33% 24% 44% 50% 65% 77% 10% 35% 60% 85% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 61% 67% 2016 Q19a: Core/Flex Policy Doesyourrelocationpolicyutilizeaspects ofcorecoverage/flexpolicy? 50% 100% 77%2013 71%2014 86%2015 85%2016 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Long-Distance Commuter Extended Business Travel Localization (Intl)* Short-Term/ Temporary Assignments Permanent Transfers (Intl)* Domestic * Percentage of those who indicated they relocate employees internationally (Q2) ¹ Not included in 2015 survey 2015 2016 International* 80% 81% 65%65% Intra-Regional Assignments (Intl)*¹ 58% 52%52% 40%41% 66% 59% 67% 70%80% 83% Q17 43f: Formal Relocation Policies 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 8 9 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  7. 7. CostContainment With economic conditions still a factor, as well as the potential for market weakness even as relocation volumes have increased, cost containment remains popular for the second straight year after decreasing progressively in 2012-2013. The creative solutions adopted during the recession now appear to be key tools for the vast majority of firms, regardless of size, even as budgets recover. “Doing more with less” looks increasingly like the new normal with each passing year. The use of cost containment methods in 2015 jumped to the highest level historically among large firms, similar to the levels recorded during the recession and first two years of recovery (84% vs. 78%- 81%). Compared to previous historic levels, notably more small and mid-size firms used such tools in 2014-2015, although use among mid-size firms dropped notably from 2014 (74% vs. 84%). Generally, capping relocation benefit amounts remains the most popular method; most other methods saw usage remain higher than in 2013, even if they dipped below 2014 levels. The biggest shifts were in the use of pre-decision counseling, which remains nearly double that of 2013 (22% vs. 12%), and far fewer restructuring policy tiers/eligibility (18% vs. 30%) compared to 2014. • Large firms tend to use more cost-containment methods than smaller firms overall. The biggest differences last year were the use of reviewing/renegotiating supplier contracts and offering pre-decision counseling. Large firms were far more likely than mid-size or small firms to use these measures (36% vs. 21% and 17%, 33% vs. 19% and 17%, respectively). Additionally, large firms were much more likely than small firms to modify COLA offering policy (24% vs. 7%). OVERALLBYCOMPANY SIZE Didyourcompanyofferadditionalnon-standardincentivesorexceptionstoencourageemployeerelocationsoverthepastyear? Q10a: Additional Incentives Offered: 2008-2015 0 20 40 60 80 100 2014201320122011201020092008 64% 63% 64%73% 80% 80% 61% 54% 67% 74% 61% 86% 93% 78% 69%57% 63% 78% 69% 80%76% 5,000+ 500-4,999 Less than 500 2015 89% 87% 82% 0 20 40 60 80 100 2014201320122011201020092008 60% 66% 65% 86% 67% 73% 76% 2015 86% Q19b: Use of Core/Flex Policy in Relocation Whichofthefollowingaspectsofcorecoverage/flexpolicydoesyourrelocationpolicyincorporate? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 2014 2015 2016 Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) dependent on employee levels/categories 51% 44% 48% Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (all employees) 35% 30% 16% Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category) 32% 27% 12% Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (all employees) 23% 22% 10% Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category) 20% 16% 12% Other 1% 1% 2% Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) across all employee levels/categories 49% 54% 45% Q19c: Relocation Costs Considered Core Coverage/Fixed Benefits Whattype(s)ofrelocationcostsareconsideredcorecoverage/fixedbenefitwithinyourrelocationpolicy? Respondentsweregivenalistofpossiblecostcontainmentmeasures;theanswersreceivedindicatethat… Q21: Cost Containment Methods Used 2009-2015 Less than 500 500-4,999 5,000+ 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 201420132012201120102009 73% 65% 81% 80% 63%60%64% 69% 50% 58% 42% 84% 71%76% 62% 78% 44% 54% 2015 74% 84% 70% 201420132012201120102009 64% 61% 70% 77% 60% 54% 2015 76% BY COMPANY SIZE OVERALL Less than 500 500-4,999 5,000+ 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 201420132012201120102009 73% 65% 81% 80% 63%60%64% 69% 50% 58% 42% 84% 71%76% 62% 78% 44% 54% 2015 74% 84% 70% 201420132012201120102009 64% 61% 70% 77% 60% 54% 2015 76% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Real estate assistance/ transaction costs Miscellaneous allowances StorageHousehold goods shipping Temporary housing Travel expenses 5,000+ 500-4,999 Less than 500 Rental assistance/ transaction costs 73%74%74% 68% 74% 59% 76% 61% 58% 56% 47% 37% 55% 41% 36% 42% 34%34% 48% 41% 34% 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 10 11 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  8. 8. AlternativeAssignments Although not typical historically, the majority of firms used arrangements outside traditional relocations in the past two years. Roughly two-thirds of firms now use alternative assignments (64%), similar to last year (65%) and far more often than in the previous three years. The percentages of large firms using such arrangements progressively increased from 2012 to 2014 (60%, 62%, 66%) and remains on par with 2015 this year (72% vs. 73%). Usage among mid- size firms remains nearly twice that of 2014 (68% vs. 37%) and similar to 2015 (75%), while usage among small firms inches upwards again over last year (54% vs. 48%) and continues to be more than twice that recorded in 2014 (19%). The mobility policy methods for alternative assignments vary widely. In the past, achieving strategic business goals was the overwhelming policy driver. Now, usage levels are similar for most methods. Nearly every potential policy method is used by roughly a third or more of all firms. However, a few differences appear across company size. Far more small and mid-size firms than large firms use alternative assignments in place of traditional short-term assignments (41% and 39% vs. 19%). And large firms are more likely than small and mid-size firms to use alternative assignments in addition to traditional short- term arrangements (29% vs. 17% and 13%). This year the survey added business need as a choice for the question about what key factors determine alternative assignment use. Roughly two-thirds of firms across company size saw it as the top consideration; around half of firms overall chose assignment purpose, job function and cost. Assignment purpose dropped last year compared to previous levels (53% vs. 66%+) and dips slightly more this year (48%), with a similar decline occurring for cost (44% vs. 51%, 54% and 64%). Job function dips as well for the first time from historically higher levels (45% vs. 53%+), supporting the notion that business planning now drives alternative assignments more than operational concerns do. 41% 43% 43% 43% 37% 39% 28% 28% 19% 42% 50% 52% 59% 54% 2013 2014 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Homeowners Renters Entry level employees Transferees New hires Experienced professionals Executives 2015 61% 59% 45% 45% 44% 36% 23% Didyourcompanyuseanyofthefollowingcostcontainmentmeasuresinrelocationpolicy/practiceoverthepastyear? Q21: Cost Containment Measures (Top 7) 2013-2015 0% 20% 40% 2013 2014 2015 Cap relocation benefit amounts 30% 35% 35% No additional cost containment measures 23% 46% 24% Limit miscellaneous allowance benefits 21% 27% 26% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 18% 25% 24% Offer pre-decision counseling 12% 22% 22% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for benefits 16% 30% 18% Offer short-term/EBT/commuter arrangements 11% 24% 18% 50% 100% 2015201420132012 46% 41% 37% 65% 2016 64% Is your company utilizing “alternative assignments” (i.e. extended business travel, cross-border commuting, rotational, localization, permanent internationaltransfers, etc.)? Q27: Alternative Assignments Used: 2012-2016 Q27b: Alternative Assignment Use Determining Factors What are the key factors that determine if an “alternative assignment” method will be used? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 2014 2015 2016 Business need* 63% 53% 66% Assignment purpose 48% 53% 57%Job function 45% 54% 51%Cost 44% 5% 2%Other 2% 39% 30% Career development 34% 43% 31% Employee requests 37% * Not included in 2014 and 2015 survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Other Used in addition to traditional short-term assignments Used to maximize budget/corporate resources Used to develop internal talent Used to accommodate employee needs Used in place of traditional short-term assignments Used in addition to long-term assignments Used in place of long-term assignments Used to meet strategic business goals 57% 41% 22% 41% 34% 16% 35% 36% 33% 37% 32% 34% 30% 23% 26% 1% 5% 39% 2014 2015 2016 38% 34% 33% 33% 32% 31% 28% 20% 2% Q27a: Alternative Assignment Use In Employee Mobility Policy How are these “alternative assignment” arrangements incorporated into your organization’s overall employee mobility strategy? 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 12 13
  9. 9. As assistance grows more tailored to the specific needs of employees and employers, a multitude of reimbursement methods remains in place. For the second year, full reimbursement of expenses for new hires (36%) falls to the lowest level historically, remaining out of favor in comparison to lump sum payments (45%). Full reimbursement for transferees dips lower compared to last year (55% vs. 66%) and matches the lowest level measured in the past thirteen years (2007). While the offering level of full reimbursement to transferees is similar to 2006-2007, 2010, 2011 and 2014 (55%+) it is well below historically higher levels of nearly two-thirds or more of firms providing this type of reimbursement. Popularity of other reimbursement methods for transferees is similar for almost all of the past eight years, with close to half using lump sum payments and roughly four out of ten using partial reimbursement. • Small firms are least likely to offer full reimbursement to either transferees or new hires, but they are much more likely to extend it to current employees as opposed to new hires (47% vs. 25%). Large firms are the most likely to offer full reimbursement to transferees (64%), followed by mid-size firms (55%). By comparison, large and mid-size firms are much less likely to offer this to new hires (45% and 38%). • While near the lowest levels historically, nearly half of large firms still use full reimbursement for new hires, far more than the fourth of small firms. More than a third of firms, regardless of size, use partial reimbursement for either transferees or new hires. • Use of lump sums for either transferees or new hires dips slightly overall but remains similar to nearly all of the past eight years. The biggest shift appears among mid-size firms. More than half used lump sums for transferees over the last five years, as they did five of the last six years for new hires. However, their usage in 2016 drops to 42% for transferees and 38% for new hires. The use of lump sums among small and mid- size firms are near historical eight-year norms. Companies estimate roughly half of their relocations were either partially reimbursed or paid by lump sum only. Before the turn of the century, full reimbursement was by far the method used most for both transferees and new hires. Differentiating for full reimbursement continues, with 55% flexing the option for transferees, 36% for new hires. While lump sums or partial reimbursement have more similar usage levels for transferees and new hires, current employees appear to have a better chance of receiving full coverage of costs. Relocation Reimbursement/Payment MultipleMethodsStillFavored,LessFullCoverage The use of lump sums by roughly half of firms continues, and so does our deeper investigation into how these are used. Overall, around a fourth of firms use lump sums to pay for entire relocations. However, lump sums are also used in a supplemental manner to cover specific costs associated with relocation. This year’s survey continues to probe these uses, and notable trends have emerged. Among firms that use lump sums, far more now include temporary housing costs (50%) than in previous years (38%-43%). For the second year in a row, nearly as many used lump sums to cover real estate assistance/transactions (25%) or rental assistance/transactions (32%), considerably above averages from 2011-2014 (11%+ and 16%+, respectively). The percentage of firms using lump sums for household goods shipping/storage continues a trend of steady growth from 2011 (28%) to a historic high (44%). Roughly half of firms use lump sums to cover five of the seven cost types, underscoring the diversity of these tools for relocation management. While 44% use them for the entire relocation cost, supplemental use occurs among these firms as well. In other words, lump sum relocations may include moves that are lump sum only as well as those that use lump sums in supplemental ways. • Overall, small and mid-size firms are more likely than large firms to use lump sums to cover household goods/shipping costs (45% and 51% vs. 34%), while large and small firms are more likely than mid-size firms to use lump sums for miscellaneous allowances (59% and 49% vs. 38%). • In the past, far more differences appeared among company sizes for how lump sums were applied; now the usages are mostly similar. EmployeeandRelocationTypesReceiving LumpSums Companies using lump sums indicate domestic relocations overwhelmingly as the most frequent application (85%), true for the vast majority of firms of all sizes. Around a third overall use lump sums for short-term/temporary assignments or international long-term assignments. Only around one-seventh of all firms use lump sums for alternative assignments. Mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms to use lump sums for short-term/temp assignments (40% vs. 29%); they are a bit more likely as well to use them for international long-term assignments (35% and 38% vs. 26%). The use of lump sums across employee types continues to bend and shift in response to the changing environment of relocation. When first measured in 2011, around half or more of firms said most employee types, except for homeowners, commonly received lump sum payments. Gaps began widening in 2012 and, in 2013-2014, new hires were more likely than transferees to receive lump sums. However, the landscape is changing. For 2015 and 2016, far more firms report using lump sums for executives than in prior years (59% and 54% vs. 32%+), and far fewer firms are using them for new hires (44% and 43% vs. 59%+). These changes for executives are being driven by increases in use by mid-size and large firms, even as usage dips slightly from last year among small firms. The continued decreased use of lump sums for new hires continues to drop this year among small firms and remains lower than prior to 2015 among mid-size firms (40% vs. 58%+). However, it increases a bit for large firms (56%) after dropping considerably in 2015 (44% vs. 63%). And while the use of lump sums for experienced professionals last year was similar to historical norms (52%), it jumps markedly this year (61%). Mid-size firms, in greater number than ever before (74%), are driving this change. Last year also saw usage dip for entry level employees, for renters, and for homeowners; but these returned closer to historical norms in 2016. • Among large firms, more than half use lump sums across employee levels and employee types; far fewer base lump sum offerings on renter (42%) or homeowner (33%) status. • New hires are more likely to receive lump sums from large firms than from mid-size or small firms (56% vs. 40% and 39%). • Mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms to provide lump sums to executives (67% and 63% vs. 48%). Large firms are more likely than small firms to offer lump sums to entry level employees (63% vs. 44%). Mid-size firms are least likely overall to offer lump sums to entry level staff (29%). Mid-size firms are most likely to offer lump sums to experienced professionals (74%) compared to small firms (57%) and large firms (52%). • Relocating homeowners are more likely to receive lump sums from large firms than from mid-size or small (33% vs. 18% and 20%). As lump sum usage has grown, the survey has incorporated questions about the ranges offered for various categories of reimbursement. Looking at the past three years, most offerings are more generous and more frequent than in 2013 and above or on par with 2014, despite some dips below the higher ranges in 2015. Overall, median ranges for real estate assistance/transactions, household goods shipping/storage, and entire relocation costs remain at four- year highs, while ranges for rental assistance/transactions, travel expenses, temporary housing, and miscellaneous allowances dip one range lower. • Median amounts offered by large and small firms were the same for the following categories (mid-size firms were slightly more generous): entire relocation cost ($10,000-$14,999), rental assistance/transactions ($1,000-$2,499), and travel expenses ($1,000-$2,499). • Median amounts offered by small and mid-size firms were the same for the following categories (large firms were slightly less generous): real estate assistance/ transactions ($5,000-$9,999) and household goods shipping/storage ($5,000-$9,999). • The median amount offered by mid-size and large firms for miscellaneous allowances was the same ($2,500-$4,999), with small firms slightly less generous. The median amount offered for temporary housing was the same across company size ($2,500-$4,999). Lump Sum ContinuedUseasSupplementalandFullProgramOptions To what extent does your company reimburse: Transferees? New Hires? Q31: Transferee/New Hire Reimbursement 2003-2016 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 70% 74% 69% 65% 63%63% 63% 58% 59% 59% 66% 57%55% 30% 22%25% 24% 22% 33% 30% 25% 32% 32% 44% 37% 45% 40% 40% 36% 34% 40%44%41% 49% 48% 49% 48%47% 47% Partial ReimbursementLump SumFull Reimbursement 2016 55% 38% 42% TRANSFEREE 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 70% 74% 69% 65% 63%63% 63% 58% 59% 59% 66% 57%55% 30% 22%25% 24% 22% 33% 30% 25% 32% 32% 44% 37% 45% 40% 40% 36% 34% 40%44%41% 49% 48% 49% 48%47% 47% Partial ReimbursementLump SumFull Reimbursement 2016 65% 38% 42% Full Reimbursement Lump Sum Partial Reimbursement 51% 15% 30% 45% 60% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 56% 38% 30% 59% 36% 24% 56% 35% 28% 47% 43% 42% 43% 54% 51% 32% 31% 49% 45% 49% 41% 55% 50% 51% 50% 38% 41% 51% 57% 53% 51% 40% 37% 34% 47% 48%46%49% 45% 38% 36% 2016 NEWHIRE Full Reimbursement Lump Sum Partial Reimbursement 51% 15% 30% 45% 60% 2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 56% 38% 30% 59% 36% 24% 56% 35% 28% 47% 43% 42% 43% 54% 51% 32% 31% 49% 45% 49% 41% 55% 50% 51% 50% 38% 41% 51% 57% 53% 51% 40% 37% 34% 47% 48%46%49% 45% 38% 36% 2016 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 14 15 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  10. 10. 41% 43% 43% 43% 37% 39% 28% 28% 19% 42% 50% 52% 59% 54% 2013 2014 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Homeowners Renters Entry level employees Transferees New hires Experienced professionals Executives 2015 61% 59% 45% 45% 44% 36% 23% 2013 2014 2015 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2016 43% 41% 39% Temporary housing 50% 55% 53% 40% Misc. allowances 49% 42% 42% 43%Entire relocation cost 44% 32% 16% 21% Rental assistance/transactions 32% 14% 15% 28% Real estate assistance/transactions 25% 4% 6% 5%Other 3% 47% 47% 43% Travel expenses 53% 33% 32% 37% Household goods shipping/storage 44% This year we dug deeper into how job/grade level and position/ job title impact cost coverage. For the first time, we asked about the composition of relocations – the percentages of executive/top level, mid-level, and entry level positions. We found that around half of relocations in 2015 were mid-level jobs, a little more than a fourth were executive/top level positions, and roughly a fifth were entry level jobs, regardless of company size. While larger firms have more relocation volume than smaller firms, the composition of employee levels are similar, with relocations for mid-level positions happening roughly twice as often as for executive/top level or for entry level employees. EmployeeLevelImpactsOfferings As expected, cost coverage for specific items is more likely for mid-level and executive/top level relocations than for entry level positions. However, the likelihood of firms offering lump sums or not paying for relocation costs varied little across relocation level for firms of similar size. The biggest differences in cost coverage occur by company size. Small firms are the most likely across levels to use only lump sum or simply not pay especially when compared to mid- size or large firms. The largest differential concerns the executive/ top level, with small firms the most likely to leverage this option (25%) compared to mid-size (15%) and large firms (4%). • Offers to cover individual costs for entry level relocations vary little across company size, with two exceptions: far more mid-size and large firms offer to pack all items (35% and 41%) compared to small firms (25%), and far more large firms offer moves via containerized shipment (32%) than do small (19%) or mid- size companies (21%). • Variances are more pronounced for mid-level relocations. Large firms are much more likely than mid-size or small firms to cover costs for more than half of the individual items listed. Across company size, mid-level employees enjoy similar coverages for moving exercise equipment, partial/custom unpacking, moving pets, permanent/extended storage, belongings picked up from a secondary residence, and moving a boat. • Differences by company size are most marked at the executive/top level; coverages for almost all items listed are far more likely at large firms than at mid-size or small. The only exceptions are for moving pets, moving a boat, and having belongings picked up from a secondary residence, which are similar regardless of firm size. Mid-size and large firms are similar in their offers for moving exercise equipment (45% vs. 50%), recreation/lawn equipment (40% vs. 49%), unlimited weight (42% and 50%), containerized shipment (41% vs. 47%) and partial/custom unpacking (39% vs. 44%). Cost CoverageWhat types of relocating employees most commonly receive lump sum payments? Q32b: Types of Employees Receiving Lump Sum Payments 41% 43% 43% 43% 37% 39% 28% 28% 19% 42% 50% 52% 59% 54% 2014 2015 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Homeowners Renters Entry level employees Transferees New hires Experienced professionals Executives 2016 61% 59% 45% 45% 44% 36% 23% For what types of relocation costs are lump sum payments typically offered to relocating employees (transferees OR new hires)? Q32a: Lump Sum Payment Application to Relocation Costs 2013 2014 2015 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2016 43% 41% 39% Temporary housing 50% 55% 53% 40% Misc. allowances 49% 42% 42% 43%Entire relocation cost 44% 32% 16% 21% Rental assistance/transactions 32% 14% 15% 28% Real estate assistance/transactions 25% 4% 6% 5%Other 3% 47% 47% 43% Travel expenses 53% 33% 32% 37% Household goods shipping/storage 44% For the applicable cost types below, what are the typical ranges of lump sums offered? Median amounts shown: Q32c: Lump Sum Ranges Median Amounts Less than 500 500-4,999 5,000 or more Grand Total Real Estate Assistance/ Transactions $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 Household Goods Shipping/Storage $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 Entire Relocation Cost $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$19,999 $10,000-$14,999 $10,000-$14,999 Rental Assistance/ Transactions $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 Travel Expenses $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 Temporary Housing $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 Misc. Allowances $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 16 17 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  11. 11. The majority of firms, regardless of size, continue to offer assistance specific to homeowners/renters overall. To gain a better understanding of how this assistance differed across employee levels, this year we asked about the types of assistance offered to homeowners or renters across levels, regardless of status as transferee or new hire. Homeowners Generally, assistance for specific items is more likely for mid-level and executive/top level relocations than for entry level positions. However, the overall likelihood of simply offering a lump sum or no assistance varied little across relocation level for firms of similar size. The biggest differences occur by company size. Small firms are most likely across levels to only use lump sum or not offer assistance; roughly a third opt for lump sums or non-assistance regardless of employee level. Levels of assistance offered vary little across company size for most entry-level relocations. Among the differences: • Far more mid-size and large firms offer temporary housing allowances (28% and 32%) or storage (28% and 30%) compared to small firms (19% and 15%). • Far more large firms than small firms offer home marketing assistance (24% vs. 10%), reimburse/pay for home purchase costs (20% vs. 11%), or offer bonuses/incentives for employee-generated home sales (12% vs. 6%). • Twice as many mid-size firms offer a buyer value option for the origin home than do small firms (12% vs. 6%) even if the percentage overall remains low. For mid-level relocations, larger firms in general are markedly more willing to provide homeowner assistance across categories overall. Large firms by far provide the highest levels of assistance, and mid-size firms are much more generous than small firms across most categories. However, the offering of mortgage subsidies or allowances for mid-level employees is similar across company size with only 18% of firms offering this assistance overall. Additionally, small and mid-size firms share a similar likelihood of offering temporary housing allowances (36% and 42%), homefinding trips (36% and 39%), storage (28% and 37%), duplicate housing assistance (19% and 19%), and reimbursing/paying for home sale costs (22% and 30%). Differences by company size are also pronounced at the executive/ top relocation level. Large firms are most likely to offer individual types of homeowner assistance across nearly every category compared. The exceptions are duplicate housing assistance (33% vs. 25% of small firms and 27% of mid-size firms) and mortgage subsidies or allowances (27% vs. 24% of small and mid-size firms). Mid-size firms share a similarity with large firms regarding their likelihood to reimburse/pay for loss-on-sale (32% vs. 40%) and cover federal tax liability (34% vs. 36%). But for the majority of other assistance items, mid-size firms are more similar to small firms. For the instances where mid-size firms are notably more generous than small firms, they remain much less likely than large firms to offer the assistance: reimburse/pay home sale costs (45% vs. 30% of small firms and 63% of large firms), home purchase costs (39% vs. 26% and 56%), offer home marketing assistance (32% vs. 20% and 51%), and bonuses/incentives for employee-generated home sale (23% vs. 14% and 34%). Specialized Assistance for Homeowners/Renters Executive/Top Level Entry Level Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% y for apartment search /finder’s fees ffer homefinding trips ary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level for lease cancellation y for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% y for apartment search /finder’s fees ffer homefinding trips ary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level for lease cancellation y for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay home purchase costs Offer storage Reimburse/pay home sale costs Offer temporary housing allowance 25% 44% 43% 39% Mid-Level Offer homefinding trips Offer home marketing assistance 49% 26% 45% 46% 20% 33% 45% 22% 40% 34% 16% 33% 32% 16% Q29: Homeowner Assistance (Top 6) When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire), is a home owner who will be buying (not renting), does your company . . . Q23: Relocating Employee Composition In 2015, what approximate percentage of your company's relocating employees were (at origin): For relocating employees (transferees OR new hires), does your company reimburse/pay to… Q28: Cost Coverage (Top 7) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Move exercise equipment Unpack all items Move a second automobile Pack all items 32% 55% 45% 33% Move an automobile Move via containerized shipment 61% 33% 55% 60% 17% 33% 48% 22% 44% 38% 24% 42% 34% 21% 60% Executive/Top Level Entry Level Mid-Level Move recreation lawn equipment 41% 39% 24% Entry Level Executives/Top Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 5,000+ 500-4,999 Less than 500 22% 50% 27% Mid-Level Overall 28% 23% 48% 28% 19% 53% 28% 23% 50% 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 18 19 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  12. 12. Renters Generally, renter assistance for specific items is more likely for mid-level and executive/top level relocations than for entry level positions. However, the overall likelihood of simply offering lump sum or not offering renter assistance varied little across employee level for firms of similar size. The biggest differences are by company size. Small firms are the most likely across levels to only use lump sum or not offer assistance—more than a fourth do so regardless of employee level. • For entry level employees, nearly half of the assistance types are offered at similar levels across company size. However, there are differences. Mid-size and large firms are much more likely than small firms to offer reimbursement/payment of lease cancellation (33% and 42% vs. 24%) or storage (30% vs. 20%). Large firms are much more likely than small firms to offer temporary housing allowances (36% vs. 23%) or reimbursement/payment of apartment search or finder’s fees (27% vs. 16%). • For mid-level employees, large firms are by far the most likely overall to offer renter assistance compared to mid-size or small firms. There are four exceptions where the types of renter assistance offered are similar across firm sizes: offering of rental subsidies/allowances (21% of large firms vs. 21% of mid-size firms and 14% of small firms), reimburse/pay hook-up fees (21% vs. 25% and 26%), reimburse/pay security deposits (19% vs. 26% and 25%), and reimburse/pay for furniture rental (17% vs. 15% and 21%). • Overall, large firms offer the majority of renter assistance categories roughly 50% of the time or more to top-level employees, far more often than mid-size or small firms. Only one assistance type is offered at similar levels, regardless of company size: rental subsidies or allowances (18-21%). Also, mid-size firms tend to offer assistance more often than large firms do for reimbursement/payment of security deposits (35% vs. 24%) and hook-up fees (28% vs. 20%). Duration Until last year, the typical duration for international assignments among most firms was 1-3 years. This fell notably in 2015 (44% vs. 59%) and remains lower in 2016 (48%). The remaining half of firms are now split nearly evenly between assignments that are less than a year (25%) or three years or longer (27%). • Small and mid-size firms use shorter international assignments far more often than large firms (40% and 34% vs. 10%). The use of short assignments is nearly equal to the popularity of standard assignment lengths at small firms (40% vs. 36%), but has fallen out of favor among large firms, compared to last year (10% vs. 33%) returning closer to historical norms. Overall, use of shorter assignments by mid-size and small firms remains roughly double or more than it was 2-3 years ago. • Standard assignment lengths (1-3 years) are still much more popular than alternate lengths among large firms, with 57% reporting them as typical, far more than at mid- size firms (44%) or small firms (36%). • Use of longer term assignments as “typical” among mid-size and large firms fell to nearly half of that of recent years in 2015, and while it has increased slightly in 2016 it remains markedly lower overall. However, among large firms it returns to a third, rebounding from 23% in 2015 and at typical averages of the previous 2-3 years. • Overall, firms estimate around five out of ten relocations were traditional long-term assignments of 1-3 years, one-sixth were short-term, and roughly a fourth were permanent transfers. Almost one in ten were another type of assignment (commuter, rotational, etc.). Interestingly, 40% of small and large firms and 50% of mid-size firms expect the use of short-term/temporary assignments to increase this year. International Assignments Destination The volume of relocations into the United States made it one of last year’s top international destinations again this year as more than a fourth indicate this was a destination of their company's international transfers. Relocations originating in the U.S. went to many regions, with Canada (34%), Asia (29%), United Kingdom (23%), Western Europe (22%) and Eastern Europe (22%) rounding out the top six. The United States was again the top region for intraregional transfers of expatriates, indicating both immigration to the U.S. and movement of foreign nationals within the U.S. remain markedly higher for the second year (34% vs. 39% in 2014). Asia came in second place for intraregional transfers (28%), followed closely by Canada (25%). The United States and the United Kingdom were the top destinations for interregional transfers (31% and 30%), followed closely by Asia (26%), Canada (24%), Western Europe (22%) and Eastern Europe (21%). However, if European destinations were combined (U.K., Eastern and Western Europe), it would eclipse other regions across all types of international relocations. Policy The majority of firms, regardless of size, use tiers within their different policies (overall, permanent transfer, localization, and intraregional). On average, each type of policy has slightly more than two tiers. For overall policy, the top two criteria, regardless of company size, are position/job title (59%) and job/grade level (52%), similar to domestic policy criteria (57% and 55%). However, assignment length (38%), Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Executive/Top Level Entry Level 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Reimburse/pay for apartment search /finder’s fees Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 47% 43% 38% Mid-Level Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Reimburse/pay for security deposits 51% 29% 44% 50% 29% 45% 48% 26% 36% 33% 21% 28% 24% 17% Offer storage Q30: Home Renter Assistance (Top 6) When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire), will be renting (not buying), does your company . . . Respondents were given a list of international relocation types; the answers received indicate that… Q43d: Average Percentage of International Relocations 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 5,000+500-4,999Less than 500Total 25% 8% Lump sum onlyFully covered/reimbursed Permanent transfersShort-term temporary assignmentsTraditional long-term assignments 60% 51% 26% 16% 25% 6% 47% 35% 16% 20% 6% 55% 25% 17% 30% 9% 51% 23% 16% 24% 5% Q12b: Most Frequent Destinations What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer? 0% 20% 40% 60% BetweenTwo Foreign Countries/RegionsWithin Single Foreign Country/RegionBetween the U.S. and Another Country/Region 29% 22% 23% 34% 22% 26% 28% 17% 20% 25% 16% 34% 26% 30% 24% 21% 31% United StatesCanadaUnited KingdomEurope (Western) Europe (Eastern)Asia 22% 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 2120 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  13. 13. assignment location/region (37%) and assignment objectives (34%) carry much more weight internationally than domestically (24%, 23% and 17%), while the relative weights of other factors are more similar between international and domestic status. For the second year in a row, the vast majority of firms, near the highest percentages historically, report differences between domestic and international policies. Dramatic increases among small firms account for most of these differences. However, even as more firms differentiate policies, the percentages of those offering additional tax considerations is similar to last year and far lower than two years ago (42% vs. 44% and 61%) as are those making allowances for children to attend certain schools (39% vs. 42% and 54%). Other policy considerations are similar to last year and retain stark increases compared to two years ago: additional leave time (33% vs. 28% and 18%) and extended per diems (24% vs. 28% and 11%). Firms maintained increases in financial services assistance compared to previous levels (36% vs. 18% in 2012) while many other considerations remain below historical highs. However, the number of those offering financial assistance, security support programs, and extended per diems are close to historical highs (36% vs. 39%, 26% vs. 31%, 24% vs. 28%, respectively). The percentages of firms offering higher relocation allowances (42%) or higher rent allowances (38%) internationally remain near historically normative levels as well. A new policy consideration this year–international transportation allowance (i.e., rental car, commuting costs, etc.)—is offered by about four out of ten firms across company size. • While the percentage of small firms offering policy considerations reached historical highs over the last two years, certain aspects drop considerably compared to last year: allowances for children to attend certain schools (15% vs. 29%), security support program (9% vs. 22%), and intercultural language training (13% vs. 22%). However, those offering additional leave time continue to increase (34% vs. 25%) approaching historic highs after the dramatic lows of 2010-2014 (8%+). Increased allowances for permanent storage also rebounds to a near historic high after major cuts the past three years (36% vs. 14%+). • While most offerings for mid-size firms remain similar to last year, policy considerations dip notably in some areas: allowances for children to attend certain schools (29% vs. 40%), additional leave time that includes a visit back to home country (25% vs. 43%), and security support systems (22% vs. 37%). School allowances and leave time changes show marked declines from historical averages. However, security support systems remains slightly above all previous years except 2015. • Policy considerations at large firms remain similar to last year for nearly all categories with three exceptions: financial services assistance (50% vs. 41%) and additional leave time (33% vs. 23%), which increase markedly, and extended per diems (23% vs. 32%) which decrease. The largest percentage of large firms historically offer financial services assistance. While the increase in additional leave time is notable compared to recent years, it’s still roughly half that of 2003-2007 (62% on average). Also, while those offering extended per diems dropped from the historical high of 2015, the percentage still doing so is within historically normative ranges overall. Outsourcing More than three-fourths of companies outsourced relocation services in 2015, surpassing the peaks of 2011 and 2014 and marking the highest percentage in more than a decade. Compared historically, outsourcing is near the highest levels recorded for small, mid-size and large firms. However, large and mid-size firms continue to practice outsourcing to a greater extent with a greater variety of services than do small firms. Outsourcing for different service categories remained at levels similar to 2014. Five categories saw marked declines in 2014 compared to 2013 and remain lower in 2015, as fewer firms outsourced the following: real estate sales/marketing (28% vs. 42%), real estate purchase (22% vs. 40%), household goods carrier contracts (27% vs. 42%), expense tracking/reimbursement (22% vs. 33%), and tax gross-up assistance (18% vs. 28%). Most other categories fell within historical mid-ranges. With the housing crisis in the past and the restricting of assistance by employee type, some services may have simply been less necessary. • Continued lower levels of outsourcing for real estate sales/marketing, real estate purchase, household goods carrier contracts, expense tracking/ reimbursement and tax gross up assistance remain driven by far lower levels among mid-size and large firms compared to two years prior. Outsourcing by these firms for most other categories remained similar to 2014 with a few exceptions. Slightly fewer large firms outsourced counseling about company policy (25% vs. 36%), or about half as many as did in 2013 (51%). And far fewer large firms than last year outsourced counseling about the planning and details of relocation (30% vs. 45%) and orientation tours (28% vs. 42%), both of which are now at historical lows. Overall, outsourcing across categories typically fell in historical low to mid-ranges, well below historical highs. • Among small firms, most outsourcing categories last year fell in low to middle ranges on average, similar to their numbers in 2014. International Similar to the previous two years, far more firms outsourced internationally in 2015 than outsourced overall (85% vs. 76%). International outsourcing is at historical highs. It is used heavily across firms of all sizes, although mid-size and large firms continue to outsource a greater variety of services than small firms do. • Levels of international outsourcing remained similar to 2014 or declined for most service categories, with levels falling in either the mid or lower ranges historically. Three areas saw marked declines in outsourcing compared to the previous year: coordination/monitoring of international shipment (28% vs. 36%), management of international relocation program (24% vs. 35%), and arrangement of family’s international transportation (22% vs. 30%). Declines for the first two reflect fewer mid-size and large firms outsourcing them, while the decline in outsourcing of international transportation arrangements was driven by fewer large and small firms doing so. • While outsourcing across categories in 2015 for mid-size and large firms mostly declined or essentially stabilized compared to the previous year, small firms saw greater stability across categories with some marked increases over 2014: visa and immigration services (38% vs. 20%), counseling about company policy concerning international relocation (26% vs. 14%), and family temporary accommodations arrangements (21% vs. 11%). Among companies that outsourced relocation services domestically, the percentage that also outsourced internationally is the second highest historically (95%), just under 2014 level (98%). Firms that outsource domestic services for the second straight year almost universally outsource international services if they relocate employees abroad. Large firms continue to be the most active international outsourcers: around a third or more outsourced more than two-thirds of all listed categories. Did Not OutsourceOutsourced 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002 45% 42% 55% 2015 61% 39% 66% 34% 63% 37% 55% 45% 58% 42% 55% 45% 61% 39% 55% 45% 66% 34% 72% 28% 63% 37% 59% 41% 73% 27% 76% 24% Did Not OutsourceOutsourced 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002 45% 42% 55% 2015 61% 39% 66% 34% 63% 37% 55% 45% 58% 42% 55% 45% 61% 39% 55% 45% 66% 34% 72% 28% 63% 37% 59% 41% 73% 27% 76% 24% Q40: Outsourcing Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services; the answers received indicate that… Did Not OutsourceOutsourced 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002 45% 42% 55% 2015 61% 39% 66% 34% 63% 37% 55% 45% 58% 42% 55% 45% 61% 39% 55% 45% 66% 34% 72% 28% 63% 37% 59% 41% 73% 27% 76% 24% Q43j: International Outsourcing Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced international relocation services; the answers received indicate that… Did Not Outsource Outsourced 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003 30% 38%42% 38% 28%34% 26% 28% 37% 23% 70% 62%58% 62% 72%66% 74% 72% 63% 77% 15% 85% 33% 67% 2015 15% 85% 2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS 22 23 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY
  14. 14. The following information is based upon the findings of Atlas World Group’s 49th Annual Survey of Corporate Relocation Policies conducted from January 14 through March 7, 2016 via the Internet. This year, 445 online questionnaires were completed. Unless otherwise noted, all data refers to domestic relocations occurring in 2015. Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/– 1%) due to rounding, unless otherwise noted. Other questions totaling above 100% are due to multiple responses. Complete findings are as follows: A. RELOCATION VOLUMES BUDGETS 1. How many employees did your company relocate in 2015? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 3% None 5% 2% 1% 26% 1 - 9 54% 17% 3% 10% 10 - 19 13% 11% 5% 12% 20 - 49 10% 19% 5% 12% 50 - 99 5% 18% 13% 12% 100 - 199 7% 14% 16% 9% 200 - 399 1% 10% 18% 16% 400 or more 5% 8% 38% 20 - 49 Median 1 - 9 50 - 99 200 - 399 2. Do you ever relocate employees between countries? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 48% % of companies answering “Yes” 34% 44% 70% 3. Is your company. . . Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 22% Regional 39% 17% 9% 27% National 29% 37% 13% 51% International 32% 46% 78% 4. Compared to 2014, did the number of employees you relocated in 2015… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 11% Increase Significantly 8% 12% 14% 39% Increase Somewhat 37% 45% 35% 40% Stay About the Same 47% 31% 41% 7% Decrease Somewhat 6% 8% 7% 3% Decrease Significantly 2% 3% 3% 5. Compared to 2014, did your 2015 relocation budget… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 11% Increase Significantly 10% 10% 11% 37% Increase Somewhat 35% 39% 35% 44% Stay About the Same 46% 41% 45% 6% Decrease Somewhat 5% 7% 7% 3% Decrease Significantly 3% 3% 2% For further details and graphical representations of all the data contained in this report, please go to http://www.atlasvanlines.com/survey SURVEY Responses 25 2016 RESULTS RESPONSES 24
  15. 15. 6. Compared to 2015, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2016 will… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 11% Increase Significantly 11% 12% 12% 28% Increase Somewhat 27% 30% 27% 47% Stay About the Same 47% 44% 52% 10% Decrease Somewhat 10% 10% 9% 3% Decrease Significantly 5% 5% 1% 7. Compared to 2015, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2016 will… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 12% Increase Significantly 10% 11% 15% 29% Increase Somewhat 30% 33% 24% 44% Stay About the Same 44% 41% 47% 11% Decrease Somewhat 11% 11% 13% 4% Decrease Significantly 5% 5% 1% 8. Did any employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2015?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 61% % of companies answering “Yes” 48% 62% 76% *excludes those who don’t know 9. Does declining the opportunity to relocate usually hinder an employee’s career? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 32% % of companies answering “Yes” 34% 32% 30% 10a. Did your company offer additional non-standard incentives or exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 86% % of companies indicating “Yes” 82% 87% 89% 10b. Which of the following additional non-standard incentives or exceptions did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 10a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% Extended temporary housing benefits 52% 56% 63% 56% Relocation bonuses 56% 61% 51% 50% Cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) 44% 52% 54% in salary at new location 27% Extended duplicate housing benefits 23% 27% 32% 26% Guaranteed buyout option for origin home 13% 25% 40% 26% Guarantee of employment contract (for specified length of time) if relocation accepted 26% 29% 22% 25% Telecommuting option (one or two days each week) to curtail commuting costs 28% 21% 26% 21% Buyer value option for origin home 13% 21% 32% 20% Loss-on-sale protection 7% 19% 37% 15% Mortgage payoffs/loans (if property sale 13% 14% 18% won’t cover employee mortgage debt) 2% Other 2% 1% 4% 10c. How often did offering the above incentives or exceptions prove successful in convincing an employee to relocate?* Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 10a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% Almost always 38% 31% 36% 55% Frequently 49% 61% 55% 9% Seldom 12% 7% 8% 1% Never 2% 0% 1% *excludes not applicable/don’t know responses 11. Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2015...* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 22% Increase from the 2014 level 17% 30% 19% 63% Remain about the same as the 2014 level 71% 52% 66% 15% Decrease from the 2014 level 12% 18% 15% *excludes those who don’t know 11a. What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? Of those who answered “Yes” to Question 8: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 69% Family issues/ties 74% 72% 62% 55% Spouse’s/partner’s employment 53% 55% 57% 41% No desire to relocate 47% 41% 37% 37% Personal reasons (non-disclosed) 40% 33% 38% 32% Housing/mortgage concerns 36% 32% 28% 29% Cost of living in new location 29% 25% 33% 15% Job security concerns 16% 17% 13% 5% Other 0% 2% 12% 12a. How many employees did your company relocate in 2015 in each of the following: Within the U.S. Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 4% None 5% 6% 1% 28% 1-9 55% 21% 4% 13% 10-19 17% 15% 7% 13% 20-49 10% 21% 7% 11% 50-99 4% 14% 16% 30% 100 or more 8% 24% 62% 1% Don’t know 0% 1% 2% Between the U.S. and Canada Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 58% None 77% 57% 39% 18% 1-9 14% 19% 23% 5% 10-19 3% 5% 8% 5% 20-49 1% 7% 7% 3% 50-99 2% 5% 4% 7% 100 or more 2% 6% 12% 3% Don’t know 1% 1% 7% Between the U.S. and Another Country Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% None 76% 52% 27% 16% 1-9 11% 17% 19% 7% 10-19 5% 8% 7% 5% 20-49 3% 6% 7% 8% 50-99 2% 8% 15% 9% 100 or more 2% 7% 19% 3% Don’t know 1% 1% 6% (question 12 results continued on next page) 26 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 2016 RESULTS RESPONSES 27
  16. 16. Within a Single Foreign Country Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 65% None 85% 70% 36% 9% 1-9 7% 7% 15% 4% 10-19 2% 5% 5% 3% 20-49 1% 3% 5% 5% 50-99 1% 6% 7% 6% 100 or more 1% 6% 12% 8% Don’t know 3% 3% 20% Between Two Foreign Countries Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 66% None 86% 70% 39% 7% 1-9 5% 5% 11% 4% 10-19 2% 4% 8% 4% 20-49 3% 7% 4% 4% 50-99 1% 6% 6% 8% 100 or more 1% 6% 18% 6% Don’t know 3% 3% 15% 12b. What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer… Within the U.S.* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 31% Midwest 30% 29% 35% 30% Northeast 21% 32% 39% 30% South 25% 32% 32% 25% West 27% 25% 23% 16% Southwest 16% 17% 14% 13% Central 9% 17% 12% *excludes N/A responses Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 34% Canada 39% 40% 27% 29% Asia 17% 28% 35% 26% United States 30% 33% 17% 23% United Kingdom 17% 22% 27% 22% Europe (Western) 13% 21% 28% 22% Europe (Eastern) 11% 26% 24% 11% Middle East 4% 13% 14% 10% Australia/Pacific Rim 9% 6% 13% 9% South America 2% 17% 5% 6% Central America/Caribbean 2% 10% 5% 2% Russia 0% 1% 3% 1% Africa (North) 0% 1% 2% 1% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 0% 1% 1% 0% Other 2% 0% 0% *excludes N/A responses Within a Single Foreign Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 34% United States 43% 29% 28% Asia 33% 26% 25% Canada 29% 24% 20% United Kingdom 21% 20% 17% Europe (Western) 19% 14% 16% Europe (Eastern) 19% 17% 11% South America 14% 9% 10% Australia/Pacific Rim 10% 13% 8% Middle East 10% 9% 4% Russia 10% 0% 4% Central America/Caribbean 2% 6% 2% Africa (North) 2% 1% 0% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 0% 0% 2% Other 0% 3% *excludes N/A responses / Less than 500 base size too small to report Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 31% United States 37% 31% 30% United Kingdom 23% 32% 26% Asia 35% 20% 24% Canada 30% 22% 22% Europe (Western) 16% 29% 21% Europe (Eastern) 21% 23% 17% Middle East 21% 15% 13% Australia/Pacific Rim 7% 18% 11% South America 14% 9% 8% Central America/Caribbean 5% 12% 6% Russia 9% 5% 3% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 7% 2% 2% Africa (North) 0% 3% 1% Other 0% 2% *excludes N/A responses / Less than 500 base size too small to report B. FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONS 13. What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2015? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 15% External conditions had no impact 14% 17% 15% 42% Lack of qualified people locally 46% 39% 42% 32% Economic conditions 26% 32% 38% 22% Growth of domestic competition 20% 23% 22% 15% Real estate market 14% 12% 19% 13% Growth of international competition 10% 16% 14% 10% Affordable Care Act/U.S. health care 7% 15% 9% legislation requirements/implementation 9% Political/regulatory environment – 8% 10% 10% domestic or international (i.e. employment legislation/policies) 5% Natural/man-made disasters – domestic 6% 5% 2% or international (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, system failures (oil/nuclear/other), etc.) 4% Other 4% 4% 4% 14. What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2015? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 4% Internal conditions had no impact 6% 3% 1% 39% Growth of company 34% 37% 46% 33% Knowledge/skills transfers 34% 29% 36% 25% Corporate reorganization/restructuring 17% 20% 41% 25% Promotions/resignations 25% 26% 23% 20% Expansion into new territories 12% 24% 24% 19% Acquisitions/mergers 12% 19% 28% 17% Budget constraints 12% 22% 18% 17% Expansion of facility 17% 18% 16% 15% Increased production 14% 21% 11% 13% International expansion 6% 13% 20% (question 12 results continued) (question 14 results continued on next page) 28 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 2016 RESULTS RESPONSES 29
  17. 17. 11% Technology deployment/integration 7% 14% 13% 11% Use of short-term assignments 10% 12% 10% 10% Closing of facility 7% 9% 15% 9% Use of frequent business travel/ 5% 10% 13% telecommuting 2% Other 2% 3% 1% 15. Compared to 2014, from your company’s perspective, please rate the following in 2015: Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 66% Better than 2014 61% 65% 73% 24% Same as in 2014 27% 22% 22% 10% Worse than 2014 12% 13% 5% Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 49% Better than 2014 43% 46% 56% 41% Same as in 2014 44% 44% 36% 10% Worse than 2014 13% 10% 7% Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 48% Better than 2014 44% 48% 51% 41% Same as in 2014 40% 40% 41% 12% Worse than 2014 16% 12% 7% The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 49% Better than 2014 47% 45% 56% 37% Same as in 2014 40% 37% 33% 14% Worse than 2014 14% 18% 11% The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 52% Better than 2014 51% 49% 57% 37% Same as in 2014 37% 38% 36% 10% Worse than 2014 11% 12% 7% 16. Compared to 2015, please indicate what you anticipate for 2016: Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 65% Better than 2015 60% 64% 74% 28% Same as in 2015 33% 29% 22% 6% Worse than 2015 7% 7% 4% Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 48% Better than 2015 50% 41% 53% 42% Same as in 2015 41% 47% 40% 10% Worse than 2015 10% 13% 8% Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 48% Better than 2015 49% 48% 47% 43% Same as in 2015 43% 39% 48% 9% Worse than 2015 8% 13% 6% The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% Better than 2015 43% 38% 40% 44% Same as in 2015 41% 44% 49% 15% Worse than 2015 16% 18% 10% The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Better than 2015 45% 40% 44% 48% Same as in 2015 46% 48% 50% 9% Worse than 2015 9% 13% 6% C. POLICY ADMINISTRATION 17. Does your company have a formal policy for the following? General/Domestic Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 80% Domestic Relocations 64% 84% 93% 65% Short-Term/Temporary Assignments 50% 68% 78% 52% Extended Business Travel 46% 53% 57% 40% Long-Distance Commuter 32% 42% 47% % of companies answering “Yes” 18a-1. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its domestic relocation policy? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% No tiers or levels/single policy 46% 38% 20% 27% Two tiers 28% 32% 20% 21% Three tiers 19% 21% 22% 11% Four tiers 6% 8% 20% 7% Five tiers or more 1% 2% 17% 2.3 Average Number of Tiers 1.9 2.1 2.9 (of companies with tiers/levels) 18a-2. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its short-term/temporary assignments relocation policy? Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 17) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 59% No tiers or levels/single policy 57% 55% 65% 19% Two tiers 25% 21% 13% 13% Three tiers 11% 17% 8% 6% Four tiers 4% 5% 8% 4% Five tiers or more 3% 2% 7% 1.8 Average Number of Short-Term/ 1.7 1.8 1.8 Temporary Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) 18a-3. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its extended business travel policy? Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 17) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 50% No tiers or levels/single policy 40% 56% 53% 25% Two tiers 31% 27% 19% 13% Three tiers 18% 8% 13% 7% Four tiers 6% 8% 8% (question 14 results continued) (question 18 results continued on next page) 30 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 2016 RESULTS RESPONSES 31
  18. 18. 5% Five tiers or more 4% 3% 7% 1.9 Average Number of Extended Business 2.0 1.7 2.0 Travel Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) 18a-4. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its long distance commuter policy? Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 17) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 52% No tiers or levels/single policy 52% 48% 56% 26% Two tiers 24% 33% 20% 10% Three tiers 15% 8% 8% 8% Four tiers 7% 6% 10% 5% Five tiers or more 2% 5% 7% 1.9 Average Number of Long-Distance Commuter 1.8 1.9 1.9 Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) 18b. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with domestic tiers/levels: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 18a-1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% Job or Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, 58% 55% 57% professional, etc.) 55% Position/Job Title 58% 53% 54% 29% New Hire/Current Employee Status 23% 26% 37% 28% Homeowner/Renter Status 23% 27% 32% 24% Length of Assignment 18% 25% 27% 23% Assignment Location/Region 21% 31% 18% 17% Assignment Objectives (i.e. developmental, etc.) 17% 15% 19% 15% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 18% 12% 15% 19a. Does your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy (i.e. fixed benefits/flexible benefits)? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 85% % of companies indicating “Yes” 81% 88% 87% 19b. Which of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy (i.e. fixed benefits/ flexible benefits) does your relocation policy incorporate? Of those using core coverage/flex policy Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried elements: (see Question 19a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 49% Relocation benefit coverage of specific 42% 46% 59% items (i.e. core/fixed components) across all employee levels/categories 44% Relocation benefit coverage of specific 40% 43% 50% items (i.e. core/fixed components) dependent on employee levels/categories 30% Flexible use of full relocation benefit 29% 35% 26% coverage amount (all employees) 27% Flexible use of full relocation benefit 25% 32% 22% coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category) 22% Flexible use of a portion of relocation 20% 25% 21% benefit coverage (all employees) 16% Flexible use of a portion of relocation 16% 15% 17% benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category) 1% Other 2% 1% 1% 19c. What type(s) of relocation costs are considered core coverage/fixed benefit within your relocation policy? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 74% Travel expenses 74% 74% 73% 67% Temporary housing 59% 74% 68% 64% Households good shipping 58% 61% 76% 46% Storage 37% 47% 56% 44% Miscellaneous allowances 36% 41% 55% 40% Real estate assistance/transaction costs 34% 41% 48% 36% Rental assistance/transaction costs 34% 34% 42% 2% Other 1% 1% 4% 7% None of the above are considered core coverage 8% 5% 7% /fixed benefits 20a. Does your company have a centralized relocation department/team? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 83% % of companies indicating “Yes” 70% 86% 96% 20b. Does your company’s centralized relocation department/team...* Of those with a centralized relocation Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried department: (see Question 20a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 61% Manage domestic relocation programs 46% 58% 75% 52% Development/maintenance of relocation policy 44% 50% 61% 44% Control household goods carrier selection 44% 37% 50% 43% Control additional relocation services 30% 38% 58% provider(s) selection 39% Manage international relocation programs 25% 34% 56% 34% Control freight carrier selection (air, land, 24% 34% 43% sea or rail) 31% Handle air travel via commercial airlines 35% 29% 29% 30% Handle office relocations 29% 38% 24% 28% Impact talent management/recruitment decisions/processes 28% 21% 36% *excludes those who don’t know 21. Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 24% No cost containment measures beyond 30% 26% 16% typical relocation policy or program utilized 35% Cap relocation benefit amounts 35% 32% 38% 26% Limit miscellaneous allowance benefits 27% 21% 31% (coverage items, amounts) 24% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 17% 21% 36% 22% Offer pre-decision counseling 17% 19% 33% 18% Offer short-term/extended travel/commuter 17% 16% 21% arrangements rather than relocate employees 18% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for 11% 18% 24% certain benefits (i.e. add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement core/flex, etc. 16% Incentivize renting rather than home purchase 19% 14% 13% at destination 15% Modify COLA offering policy 7% 16% 24% 9% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 6% 14% 9% 0% Other 1% 1% 0% 22. How many salaried (non-hourly) people are employed by your company? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 100% 35% 35% 30% 23. In 2015, what approximate percentage of your company’s relocating employees were (at origin):* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 52% Transferees 46% 51% 60% 47% New Hires 53% 49% 40% (question 18 results continued) (question 23 results continued on next page) 32 ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY 2016 RESULTS RESPONSES 33

×