2. Is mobility cost management proving a challenge?
Do you actively manage the total spend
on your mobility program? Could a revised
policy, enhanced controls or process
efficiencies result in a reduction in spend,
penalties or professional fees?
Managing projected vs. actual costs of
assignments and programs is a complex task for
many organizations. Assessing the cost base
begins with the choice of policy applied.
A review of the underlying policy budgets
can be the starting point to assess whether
proposed spend is in line with strategic and
operational priorities.
Throughout the assignment life cycle,
multiple systems are often used in parallel to
capture and track data related to immigration
application time lines, social security obligations,
payroll and tax.
With no holistic view, there is a greater risk of
non-compliance, and resulting penalties add
unnecessary cost to the program. Combined
with fees incurred from engaging professional
advice to help rectify any compliance
errors, the task of forecasting, managing
and potentially reducing total spend can be
extremely challenging.
Getting informed
Understanding mobility strategy, policy obligations and related vendor costs is the first stage
of estimating the total mobility cost. Step-by-step approaches to assignment coordination, data
monitoring and risk awareness will identify any control weaknesses and help eliminate unexpected
and unnecessary spend.
Accelerate the journey to effective mobility program cost management
Policy: review cost base, e.g., that benefits and allowances are appropriately apportioned in relation
to assignee expectations and rank
Desktop review: focus on key “geographic corridors” in your program, or high-risk, high-cost
locations in order to target spiraling costs
Communication: evaluate connectivity between home and host HR and payroll teams to ensure no
duplication, e.g., social security contributions
Process: consider options to drive efficiency and transparency, e.g., data storage or usage, vendor
scope and assignee communications
Resources: assess internal understanding and timely practice of interpreting legislative change that
may affect current or future assignees
Only 20% of companies who took part in EY’s Global Mobility Effectiveness Survey
perform a reconciliation of projected mobility program cost versus actual spend.
EY Global Mobility Effectiveness Survey — Your talent in motion
3. Quantifying the issue
By considering a set of key questions, you can
begin to assess your current level of focus on
cost management and determine the value of
addressing any gaps:
►► Can you accurately forecast and track the
total annual spend of your mobility program?
►► Do you have the processes and tools in place
to manage the critical milestones of each
assignment?
►► Do you experience unpredicted assignment
costs or unexpected interest, penalties and
professional fees?
►► Have you been subject to revenue authority
audits (employer and employee)? ►
►► Do you believe you could drive down costs
by benchmarking or achieving economies of
scale across your vendor landscape?
Managing mobility program costs: EY experience
International bank
Our client was using an outsourced provider
for global moving and relocation support
Lack of accountability and transparency
of service delivery resulted in the client
incurring additional service fees and not
being able to measure KPIs and justify final
costs to the business.
Our team carried out a full assessment of
the service delivery and the scope provided
to the mobility team. We identified areas
where the client would save money both
in the short term and long term as well as
being able to increase service levels through
providing support with contractual and
industry-specific insight.
As a result, our client’s short-term cost
savings were £0.5m plus ongoing savings
throughout the length of the contract.
Global technology company
Our client was managing its global social
security compliance process in-house
Despite an awareness of new totalization
agreements coming into force and applying
the correct treatment for new assignees
going forward, they failed to take this
into account in the context of their active
assignee population.
As a result, social security contributions
were paid in both home and host country
for a significant number of assignees.
EY worked with the client to obtain
retroactive certificates of coverage and
secure refunds of overpaid host country
social security contributions in the region
of $6m.