49th Annual CO RPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Results · Atlas has collected insights from corporate...

ATLAS WORLD GROUP

49th Annual CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Results

THE INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY

RESPONDENT PROFILEInvited 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.

SMALLFewer than 500

salaried employees

MID-SIZE500-4,999 salaried

employees

LARGE5,000+ 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 HighlightsAtlas 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

HIGHLIGHTSRelocation Volumes & Budgets — Overall & International More Relocations Last Year, More Expected in 2016, Budgets Continue Rebounding

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.

Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that your relocation budget for [this year] 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 VolumeCompared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during [this year] will…

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003


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%

Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during [this year] will…Q43b: International Relocation Volume

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20152014201320122011201020092008200720062005


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%

3

2

2016 RESULTS SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS

ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY

2

Factors Affecting Relocation — External & InternalRelocation for Growth, Expansion, Talent Needs

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 RelocationImpact of Housing/Mortgage Concerns Continues To Fall, Spouse/Partner Employment Remains High

What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year]?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: 1988-2015What 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: 2002-2015What 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%


4 5

ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEYATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY

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 OutlookOutlook Tilts Toward Stability Over Improvement

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%).

Family Assistance

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.

Compared to [last year], please indicate what you anticipate for [next year]:Q16: Anticipated Performance

YO

UR

C

OM

PAN

Y

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

. RE

AL

ESTA

TE M

AR

KE

T

Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20152014201320122011201020092008

BetterSameWorse

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

. E

CO

NO

MY

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

201520142013201220112010200920082007200610%

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 ImpactHow 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/Frequently

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


6 7

ATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEYATLAS WORLD GROUP CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY

Relocation Policy & PracticeMultiple Policy Types & Practices Leveraged, Traditional Assignments Remain Majority

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.

Candidate Assessments

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/Flex Policy

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) 2013-2015Which of the following additional non-standard incentives or exceptions did your

company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

COLAs in salary at new location

Relocation bonuses

Extended temporary housing bene�ts

50%

20142015

201357%

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 PolicyDoes your relocation policy utilize aspects

of core coverage/flex policy?

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

20152016

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


8 9


Cost Containment

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%).

OV

ER

ALL

BY

CO

MPA

NY

SIZ

E

Did your company offer additional non-standard incentives or exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year?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+500-4,999Less 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 RelocationWhich of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy does your relocation policy incorporate?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

201420152016

Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) dependent

on employee levels/categories51%

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 BenefitsWhat type(s) of relocation costs are considered core coverage/fixed benefit within your relocation policy?

Respondents were given a list of possible cost containment measures; the answers received indicate that…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 estateassistance/transaction

costs

Miscellaneousallowances

StorageHouseholdgoods

shipping

Temporaryhousing

Travelexpenses

5,000+500-4,999Less 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%


10 11


Alternative Assignments

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%

20132014

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%

Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year?Q21: Cost Containment Measures (Top 7) 2013-2015

0% 20% 40%

201320142015

Cap relocation bene�t amounts30%

35%

35%

No additional cost containment measures 23%46%

24%

Limit miscellaneous allowance bene�ts21%

27%

26%

Review/renegotiate supplier contracts18%

25%24%

O�er pre-decision counseling12%

22%22%

Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for bene�ts16%

30%18%

O�er short-term/EBT/commuter arrangements11%

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 international transfers, etc.)?

Q27: Alternative Assignments Used: 2012-2016

Q27b: Alternative Assignment Use Determining FactorsWhat are the key factors that determine if an “alternative assignment” method will be used?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

201420152016

Business need* 63%

53%

66%

Assignment purpose48%

53%

57%Job function45%

54%

51%Cost44%

5%

2%Other2%

39%

30%

Career development34%

43%31%

Employee requests37%

* 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%

201420152016

38%

34%

33%

33%

32%

31%

28%

20%

2%

Q27a: Alternative Assignment Use In Employee Mobility PolicyHow are these “alternative assignment” arrangements incorporated into your organization’s overall employee mobility strategy?


12 13

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/PaymentMultiple Methods Still Favored, Less Full Coverage

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.

Employee and Relocation Types Receiving Lump Sums

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 SumContinued Use as Supplemental and Full Program Options

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%

TRA

NSF

ER

EE

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

NE

W H

IRE

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


14 15


41%

43%

43%

43%37%

39%28%

28%19%

42%

50%52%

59%

54%

20132014

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Homeowners

Renters


Transferees

New hires


Executives

2015

61%

59%

45%

45%

44%

36%

23%

201320142015

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

2016

43%41%

39%Temporary housing50%

55%53%

40%Misc. allowances49%

42%42%

43%Entire relocation cost44%

32%16%

21%Rental assistance/transactions

32%

14%15%

28%Real estate assistance/transactions25%

4%

6%5%Other

3%

47%47%

43%Travel expenses53%

33%32%

37%Household goods shipping/storage44%

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.

Employee Level Impacts Offerings 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%

20142015

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Homeowners

Renters


Transferees

New hires


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

201320142015

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

2016

43%41%

39%Temporary housing50%

55%53%

40%Misc. allowances49%

42%42%

43%Entire relocation cost44%

32%16%

21%Rental assistance/transactions

32%

14%15%

28%Real estate assistance/transactions25%

4%

6%5%Other

3%

47%47%

43%Travel expenses53%

33%32%

37%Household goods shipping/storage44%

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


16 17


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

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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


25%

44%

43%

39%

Mid-Level


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 CompositionIn 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 containerizedshipment

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%


18 19


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 AssignmentsDestination

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 forapartment search

/finder’s fees


Offer temporaryhousing allowance

33%

47%

43%

38%

Mid-Level

Reimburse/pay forlease cancellation

Reimburse/pay forsecurity 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%


/finder’s fees



33%

47%

43%

38%

Mid-Level



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%


/finder’s fees



33%

47%

43%

38%

Mid-Level



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%


/finder’s fees



33%

47%

43%

38%

Mid-Level



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 DestinationsWhat were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer?

0%

20%

40%

60%

Between Two 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%


21

20


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.

OutsourcingMore 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%


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: OutsourcingRespondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services; the answers received indicate that…


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 OutsourcingRespondents 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%


22 23


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 & BUDGETS1. 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

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%


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



27

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 RELOCATIONS13. 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)




29

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 ADMINISTRATION17. 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%





31

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)?


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%


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%





33

51% Homeowners 53% 50% 49% 39% Renters 36% 39% 44% 10% N/A (Neither Homeowners/Renters) 11% 11% 7% 28% Executives/Top Level 28% 28% 27% 50% Mid-Level Employees 48% 53% 50% 22% Entry Level 23% 19% 23%


24. How long does an employee have to…

a) Accept a relocation offer* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 15% 1 week or less 17% 9% 21% 35% Up to 2 weeks 34% 37% 35% 12% Up to 3 weeks 11% 10% 15% 21% Up to 1 month 23% 24% 16% 7% Up to 2 months 9% 8% 2% 6% Up to 3 months 4% 8% 6% 4% More than 3 months 2% 4% 6%


b) Report to work at the new location* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5% 1 week or less 4% 5% 5% 14% Up to 2 weeks 13% 19% 11% 13% Up to 3 weeks 16% 11% 13% 31% Up to 1 month 29% 28% 39% 17% Up to 2 months 19% 18% 15% 12% Up to 3 months 13% 14% 8% 7% More than 3 months 7% 5% 10%


25. How many of the following does your company allow for an employee undergoing relocation?*

Expense-Paid House-Hunting Trips with Spouse/Partner to the New Location Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Shown) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.5

Expense-Paid Days for Employees to Use for House-Hunting Trips (total amount allowed)

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Shown) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 3.8 3.3 3.8 4.4


26. How was the Internet/technology used for relocation-related matters in 2015? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5% Did not use the Internet/technology for 9% 3% 3%

relocation-related matters in 2015 80% Communicate via e-mail with relocating employees 76% 78% 86% 48% Complete online forms for employee relocation 34% 51% 60% 38% Initiate/execute employee relocation services 26% 38% 53% 38% Access relocation company website for reporting 29% 33% 54% or other services 36% Research relocation-related matters 24% 37% 47%

(policy, benchmarking, etc.) 35% Communicate via text/messaging with 38% 34% 32% relocating employees 28% Research relocation service providers 21% 29% 34%

28% Audit/verify prices quoted for relocation services 33% 27% 23% 19% Utilize mobile applications from relocation providers 12% 21% 26% 17% Utilize social media/networking tools 17% 17% 16% 1% Other 1% 1% 1%

27. Is your company utilizing “alternative assignments” (i.e. extended business travel, cross-border commuting, rotational, localization, permanent international transfers, etc.)?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 36% No, and we do not plan to do so 46% 32% 28% 26% Yes, domestically (limited basis) 25% 29% 24% 24% Yes, internationally (limited basis) 13% 28% 32% 17% Yes, domestically (frequently) 14% 16% 20% 11% Yes, internationally (frequently) 6% 10% 17% 9% No, but we plan to do so in the coming year 10% 9% 7% 0% Other 0% 1% 0%

27a. How are these “alternative assignment” arrangements incorporated into your organization’s overall employee mobility strategy?

Of those utilizing “alternative assignments”: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 27) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 38% Used in place of long-term assignments 37% 44% 32% 34% Used to meet strategic business goals 31% 34% 35% 33% Used in place of traditional short-term 41% 39% 19% assignment arrangements 33% Used in addition to long-term assignments 29% 33% 35% 32% Used to accommodate employee needs 30% 33% 32% 31% Used to develop internal talent 25% 32% 33% 28% Used to maximize budget/corporate resources 28% 31% 24% 20% Used in addition to traditional short-term 17% 13% 29%

assignment arrangements 2% Other 1% 2% 3%

27b. What are the key factors that determine if an “alternative assignment” method will be used?

Of those utilizing “alternative assignments”: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 27) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 63% Business need 60% 63% 65% 48% Assignment purpose 43% 49% 53% 45% Job function 49% 48% 38% 44% Cost 39% 43% 49% 37% Employee requests 39% 36% 36% 34% Career development 35% 37% 30% 2% Other 1% 1% 3%

D. RELOCATION COSTS28. For relocating employees (transferees OR new hires), does your company

reimburse/pay to *... Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 71% Move an automobile 62% 68% 86% 70% Pack all items 57% 67% 90% 56% Move a second automobile 50% 52% 66% 54% Move exercise equipment 51% 53% 58% 52% Unpack all items 46% 46% 66% 52% Move recreation and lawn equipment 47% 51% 58% 51% Move via containerized shipment 48% 48% 59% 49% Move unlimited weight 41% 50% 57% 48% Partial/custom unpacking of items 41% 51% 53% 48% Move collections of highly valuable objects 43% 45% 57% like statuary, paintings, antiques





35

44% Move pets 44% 46% 43% 44% Carry items down from the attic 38% 43% 52% 44% Have permenent/extended storage 42% 43% 48% of some possessions 42% Have belongings picked up from a secondary 41% 42% 41% residence (summer home, relative’s home, etc.) 34% Move a boat 35% 32% 35% 25% Company does not pay for these items 35% 22% 17% or only offers lump sum

*composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower)

29. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a homeowner who will be buying (not renting), does your company *...

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 56% Offer homefinding trips 52% 51% 67% 55% Offer temporary housing allowance 48% 52% 66% 53% Reimburse/pay for home sale costs 39% 53% 69% 50% Offer storage 41% 48% 63% 49% Reimburse/pay for home purchase costs 36% 48% 63% 42% Offer home marketing assistance 27% 45% 57% 37% Reimburse/pay for federal tax liability 27% 41% 44% 37% Reimburse/pay for loss-on-sale 26% 39% 46% 36% Offer guaranteed buyout/appraised value 27% 35% 47% option for origin home 36% Offer qualified home sale program 25% 35% 48% 35% Offer duplicate housing assistance 31% 34% 40% 33% Offer mortgage subsidy or allowance 32% 35% 33% 33% Offer buyer value option for origin home 26% 31% 43% 28% Offer bonuses/incentives for employee- 19% 28% 39% generated home-sale 28% Company does not offer any of these benefits 41% 24% 19% or only offers lump sum


30. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) will be renting (not buying), does your company *...

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 59% Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation 49% 54% 76% 55% Offer temporary housing allowance 46% 52% 68% 54% Offer homefinding trips 46% 50% 67% 49% Offer storage 39% 48% 61% 42% Reimburse/pay apartment search or finder’s fees 32% 42% 54% 36% Reimburse/pay for security deposits 34% 41% 31% 33% Reimburse/pay for hook-up fees 32% 38% 28% 31% Reimburse/pay for furniture rental 30% 30% 33% 28% Offer rental subsidy or allowance 26% 30% 27% 28% Company does not offer any of these benefits 39% 26% 18% or only offers lump sum


31. To what extent does your company reimburse relocation expenses:

Transferees Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 47% 55% 64% 42% Lump sum payment 38% 42% 45% 38% Partial reimbursement based 39% 36% 40% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 9% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 14% 7% 6%

New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 36% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 25% 38% 45% 45% Lump sum payment 49% 38% 47% 38% Partial reimbursement based 34% 39% 42% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 11% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 13% 10% 11%

32. What approximate percentage of your relocations were:

Payment Type Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Fully reimbursed/cost covered by company 36% 45% 49% 26% Lump sum payment only (entire relo) 31% 21% 24% 23% Partially reimbursed by company 23% 25% 21% 9% Not reimbursed (employee paid) 10% 9% 6%

Category (Domestic Only) Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 70% Traditional/permanent relocations 69% 70% 72% 15% Short-term relocation assignments 17% 15% 14% 9% Alternative assignments 10% 9% 8% (i.e. rotational, commuter, etc.) 5% Other 5% 6% 4%

32a. For what types of relocation costs are lump sum payments typically offered to relocating employees (transferees OR new hires)?

Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% Travel expenses (i.e. housing hunting trips, 56% 53% 51% final move, etc.) 50% Temporary housing 48% 50% 52% 49% Miscellaneous allowances 49% 38% 59% 44% Entire relocation cost 43% 46% 44% 44% Household goods shipping/storage 45% 51% 34% 32% Rental assistance/transactions 34% 31% 29% 25% Real estate assistance/transactions 28% 22% 23% 3% Other 3% 4% 3%

32b. What types of relocating employees and relocation types most commonly receive lump sum payments? Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees

Employee Types 61% Experienced professionals 57% 74% 52% 59% Executives 48% 67% 63% 45% Entry level employees 44% 29% 63% 45% Transferees 43% 40% 52% 44% New hires 39% 40% 56% 36% Renters 37% 31% 42% 23% Homeowners 20% 18% 33% 2% Other 1% 1% 4%

Relocation Types 85% Domestic relocations 85% 77% 93% 36% Short-term/temporary assignments 29% 40% 40% 32% International long-term assignments 26% 35% 38% 14% Alternative assignment types 11% 17% 16% (i.e. commuters, EBTs, etc.) 2% Other 2% 3% 0%


36



37

32c. For the applicable costs types below, what are the typical ranges of the lump sums offered?

Real estate assistance/transactions Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 27% No lump sum offered for this benefit 25% 18% 40% 22% Less than $5,000 24% 28% 12% 10% $5,000 – $9,999 9% 13% 9% 35% $10,000 or more 37% 36% 32% 5% Don’t know 4% 6% 6%

Household goods shipping/storage Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 18% No lump sum offered for this benefit 17% 10% 27% 30% Less than $5,000 31% 35% 23% 14% $5,000-$9,999 18% 13% 12% 32% $10,000 or more 31% 35% 30% 6% Don’t know 3% 7% 8%

Entire relocation cost Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 7% No lump sum offered for this benefit 6% 5% 10% 14% Less than $5,000 15% 12% 14% 20% $5,000-$9,999 24% 15% 20% 54% $10,000 or more 53% 59% 49% 6% Don’t know 2% 8% 7%

Rental assistance/transactions Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 25% No lump sum offered for this benefit 24% 19% 31% 30% Less than $2,500 30% 29% 30% 16% $2,500-$4,999 22% 13% 11% 25% $5,000 or more 23% 31% 20% 5% Don’t know 1% 7% 8%

Travel expenses Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% No lump sum offered for this benefit 14% 7% 21% 41% Less than $2,500 44% 39% 38% 15% $2,500-$4,999 19% 14% 11% 25% $5,000 or more 21% 30% 24% 5% Don’t know 1% 9% 6%

Temporary housing Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 19% No lump sum offered for this benefit 23% 10% 23% 21% Less than $2,500 26% 22% 15% 21% $2,500-$4,999 19% 23% 20% 34% $5,000 or more 30% 38% 36% 5% Don’t know 3% 7% 6%

Miscellaneous allowances Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% No lump sum offered for this benefit 18% 13% 11% 37% Less than $2,500 46% 34% 30% 12% $2,500-$4,999 8% 10% 19% 30% $5,000 or more 24% 34% 33% 7% Don’t know 4% 9% 8%

32d. How is lump sum spending/allocation per employee tracked by your company?

Performed by: Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% Human Resources staff member 66% 62% 42% 32% Finance/procurement department 31% 41% 23% 32% Relocation team staff member 22% 35% 41% 25% Relocating employee 26% 28% 22% 16% Outsourced 11% 13% 26% 1% Other 1% 0% 3% 2% Not Tracked 1% 0% 4%

Method: Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 50% Submission of expense reports 55% 49% 45% 33% Excel spreadsheet 34% 40% 25% 29% Online reporting tool 25% 36% 26% 26% In-house software report 18% 35% 27% 17% Outsourced 12% 17% 23% 2% Other 3% 1% 3% 2% Not Tracked 1% 1% 5%

E. EMPLOYEE, SPOUSAL & ASSISTANCE ISSUES33. What is the age range of your most frequently relocated salaried employee?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 12% Less than 30 years 16% 9% 12% 31% 30 – 35 years 31% 36% 24% 34% 36 – 40 years 31% 34% 40% 16% 41 – 45 years 14% 18% 16% 6% More than 45 years 8% 4% 8%


34. Does your organization perform candidate assessments prior to relocation offers? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 24% No, candidate assessments are not performed 22% 26% 24% 46% Yes, for all relocations 46% 48% 44% 16% Yes, for domestic relocations 19% 17% 12% 11% Yes, for new hires 14% 12% 8% 9% Yes, on an “as needed/requested” basis 8% 7% 13% 8% Yes, for transferees 10% 7% 6% 7% Yes, for international relocations 4% 7% 12% 3% Yes, based on policy tier/reimbursement level 3% 2% 4% 1% Other 1% 1% 1%

35. In 2015, what approximate percentage of your relocations involved:* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Percent) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 21% Female employees 17% 23% 25% 31% Wife/female partner (Trailing spouse) 25% 30% 38% 22% Husband/male partner (Trailing spouse) 19% 26% 23% 38% Employees with children 31% 39% 45%

*excludes those who don’t know 38



39

36. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee for elder care?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% No elder care assistance 54% 48% 52% 24% Provide paid personal leave days 26% 28% 18% 23% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 22% 26% 21% 20% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for 18% 21% 20%

outside care 19% Provide list of nursing homes 19% 21% 16% and/or day-care centers 14% Relocate an elderly relative that does not 11% 12% 20% live with the employee currently, but will either live with the employee at the new location or at a nearby residence/facility 2% Other 1% 3% 1%

37. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee for childcare? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 38% No childcare assistance 43% 35% 36% 32% Provide list of childcare providers/services 25% 35% 37% and/or agencies 32% Provide list of local schools/educational options 25% 41% 30% 27% Provide paid personal leave days 27% 30% 23% 25% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 26% 27% 22% 25% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for 22% 26% 28%

outside care 2% Other 2% 1% 3%

38. How frequently is an employee’s relocation affected by the employment status of that employee’s spouse/partner?*

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 16% Almost always 18% 15% 14% 48% Frequently 43% 53% 47% 30% Seldom 30% 26% 34% 7% Never 10% 6% 5%


39. Does your company allow the hiring of spouses of employees?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Yes, but not in the same department/division 52% 54% 60% 24% Yes, without restriction 22% 24% 25% 8% Yes, but not at the same location 7% 8% 9% 13% No 20% 14% 6%


39a. Does your company assist an employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location?


39b. How does your company assist an employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location?

Of those who did not answer Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried “No assistance” to Question 39a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 44% Provide networking assistance 45% 46% 41% 33% Provide resume preparation assistance 30% 39% 30%

30% Provide interviewing skills training 26% 34% 30% 26% Find employment within company 23% 32% 24% 25% Pay for outplacement/career services 16% 27% 32% from an outside firm 24% Reimburse for career transition expenses 16% 25% 31% (i.e. interview trips, certifications, etc.) 23% Find employment outside company 23% 28% 18% 5% Other 3% 1% 5%

39c. What approximate percentage of relocated employees with a spouse or partner used this employment assistance?*

Of those who did not answer “No assistance” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 39a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 31% Average Percent 27% 34% 31%


F. SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT40. Which of the following services did your company outsource to a relocation service,

HRO or brokerage firm in 2015? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 24% Did not use a relocation service, HRO or 37% 25% 10%

brokerage firm in 2015 28% Real estate sales/marketing 15% 30% 40% 27% Contract of household goods carrier 15% 30% 39% 26% Counseling about the planning and details 16% 32% 30% of relocation 24% Management of full relocation program 15% 25% 34% 24% Coordination and monitoring of shipment 12% 23% 39% 23% Arrangement of family’s transportation and 14% 30% 26% accommodations 22% Expense tracking/reimbursement services 13% 22% 32% 22% Real estate purchase 11% 23% 33% 21% Orientation tours at new location 13% 24% 28% 20% Counseling about company policy 14% 21% 25% 18% Property management 10% 18% 27% 18% Tax gross-up assistance 14% 18% 23% 17% Assistance with employee claims preparation 10% 19% 21% and submission 14% Audit and/or payment of invoice(s) 8% 12% 23% 14% Compensation services (i.e. payroll arrangements, 11% 12% 20%

tax compliance, etc.) 13% Supplementary services (appliances, cleaning, etc.) 8% 14% 18% 1% Other 1% 1% 1%

40a. Which department(s) at your company select a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm?

Of those where company outsourced: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 40) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 71% Human resources 74% 80% 59% 30% Relocation/mobility services 12% 26% 47% 24% Executive management 28% 26% 19% 23% Procurement 15% 22% 30% 2% Other 5% 2% 1%

41. Are carrier transportation expenses paid directly by the company or paid by the employee and then reimbursed?

Transferees Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% Paid directly by the company 54% 67% 81%




41

37% Paid by the employee and then reimbursed 42% 40% 27% 15% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 18% 14% 13%

New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 58% Paid directly by the company 46% 59% 72% 35% Paid by the employee and then reimbursed 39% 38% 25% 14% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 14% 18% 10%

42. Who selects the household goods carrier for your employee’s relocation? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 37% The company 30% 35% 49% 22% The company and employee together 30% 24% 10% 20% The employee 28% 19% 12% 19% A relocation firm 10% 20% 29% 2% Other 3% 2% 1%

42a. Which department(s) at your company select the household goods carrier for your employee’s relocation?

Of those where company is involved in selection: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 42) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 63% Human resources 71% 62% 53% 34% Relocation/mobility services 15% 37% 52% 19% Procurement 12% 23% 23% 18% Executive management 24% 12% 16% 2% Other 3% 1% 1%

G. INTERNATIONAL43a. Compared to 2014, did the number of employees your company relocated

internationally during 2015... Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 15% Increase Significantly 17% 16% 13% 35% Increase Somewhat 34% 38% 34% 34% Stay About the Same 40% 31% 33% 12% Decrease Somewhat 8% 13% 14% 4% Decrease Significantly 2% 1% 6%

43b. Compared to 2015, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during 2016 will...

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 17% Increase Significantly 19% 21% 14% 27% Increase Somewhat 30% 24% 27% 45% Stay About the Same 43% 46% 45% 9% Decrease Somewhat 8% 4% 13% 3% Decrease Significantly 0% 6% 2%

43c. What is the typical international relocation assignment duration for employees at your company?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5% Less than 3 months 4% 9% 3% 20% 4 to 12 months 36% 25% 6% 48% Greater than 12 months, but less than 3 years 36% 44% 57% 27% 3 years or more 25% 22% 33%

43d. In 2015, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were:* Of those who answered “Yes” to Question 2: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Percent) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Traditional long-term assignments (1-3 years) 47% 55% 51% 16% Short-term/temporary assignments

(less than 12 months) 16% 17% 16% 26% Permanent transfers 35% 25% 23% 7% Other assignment type (commuter, rotational, etc) 6% 8% 7% 6% Lump sum payment only 6% 9% 5% 25% Fully covered/reimbursed 20% 30% 24%


43e. Compared to 2015, do you expect the number of international short-term/temporary assignments (less than 12 months) in 2016 to. . .

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 11% Increase Significantly 9% 15% 10% 32% Increase Somewhat 30% 35% 30% 48% Stay About the Same 55% 37% 52% 7% Decrease Somewhat 2% 10% 6% 3% Decrease Significantly 4% 3% 2%

43f. Does your company have a formal policy for the following?

International Policies Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 80% International Relocation Assignments 55% 84% 93%

(traditional length 1-3 years) 67% Permanent Transfers (international) 53% 66% 76% 66% Localization (international) 47% 69% 73% 58% Intra-Regional Assignments (international) 34% 59% 71%

% of companies answering “Yes”

43g-1. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its international relocation policy?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 38% No tiers or levels/single policy 33% 38% 41% 26% Two tiers 35% 23% 23% 18% Three tiers 16% 26% 13% 8% Four tiers 7% 6% 10% 10% Five tiers or more 9% 6% 12%

2.2 Average Number of International Tiers 2.3 2.2 2.3 (of companies with tiers/levels)

43g-2. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its permanent transfers (international) policy?

Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 43f) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% No tiers or levels/single policy 32% 22% 43% 22% Two tiers 24% 31% 16% 22% Three tiers 28% 31% 14% 10% Four tiers 8% 9% 12% 11% Five tiers or more 8% 7% 14%

2.4 Average Number of Permanent Transfer Tiers 2.4 2.5 2.4 (of companies with tiers/levels)


42



43

43g-3. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its localization (international) policy?

Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 43f) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% No tiers or levels/single policy 24% 36% 38% 21% Two tiers 28% 18% 21% 20% Three tiers 28% 31% 10% 16% Four tiers 20% 11% 17% 8% Five tiers or more 0% 4% 14%

2.4 Average Number of Localization Tiers 2.4 2.3 2.5 (of companies with tiers/levels)

43g-4. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its intra-regional assignments (international) policy?

Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 43f) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 37% No tiers or levels/single policy 40% 37% 25% Two tiers 25% 21% 13% Three tiers 15% 11% 13% Four tiers 13% 11% 13% Five tiers or more 8% 19%

2.4 Average Number of Intra-Regional Tiers 2.2 2.5 (of companies with tiers/levels)

Less than 500 base size too small to report

43h. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with International tiers/levels: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 43g-1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 59% Position/Job Title 55% 63% 58% 52% Job or Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, 45% 50% 57%

professional, etc.) 38% Length of Assignment 31% 40% 40% 37% Assignment Location/Region 38% 45% 30% 34% Assignment Objectives (i.e. developmental, etc.) 34% 28% 38% 33% New Hire/Current Employee Status 21% 33% 40% 26% Homeowner/Renter Status 34% 25% 23% 22% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 24% 18% 25% 2% Other 0% 0% 4%

43i. Comparing your international relocation policy to your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 9% No difference between international and 17% 9% 5%

domestic relocation policies 42% Higher relocation allowances 36% 43% 46% 42% Additional tax considerations 25% 35% 57% 42% International transportation allowance 40% 38% 46% (i.e. rental car, commuting costs, etc.) 42% Additional leave time that includes at least 40% 25% 55% one visit back to the employee’s home country 39% Intercultural and language training 13% 32% 59% 39% Allowances for children to attend certain schools 15% 29% 59% 38% Higher rental housing allowance 23% 41% 45% 37% Increased allowances for permanent storage 36% 31% 43% 36% Financial services assistance (i.e. bank account 28% 35% 41% setup, specialized compensation arrangements) 33% Additional leave time 34% 34% 33% 26% Security support program 9% 22% 38% 24% Extended per diem charges 21% 28% 23% 3% Other 4% 1% 4%

43j. Which of the following international services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm in 2015?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 15% Did not use a relocation service, HRO or brokerage 25% 12% 13%

firm for international relocation services in 2015 41% Visa and immigration services 38% 37% 46% 35% Counseling about the planning and details 26% 35% 40% of relocating internationally 35% Counseling about company policy concerning 26% 41% 35% international relocation 32% Contract of household goods carrier 19% 32% 39% for international shipping 30% Securing rental property in host country 11% 31% 39% 29% Intercultural and language training 13% 22% 43% 28% Repatriation services 19% 24% 36% 28% Coordination and monitoring of international 13% 25% 39%

shipment 28% Destination services/orientation tours in 17% 18% 41% host country 27% Arrangement of family’s temporary 21% 25% 32%

accommodations 25% Property management of home at origin 17% 18% 35% 24% Management of international relocation program 19% 22% 29% 22% Arrangement of family’s international 15% 24% 24%

transportation 21% International real estate (sales/marketing 17% 21% 23%

and/or purchases) 20% Compensation services (i.e. payroll 17% 28% 16% arrangements, tax compliance, etc.) 2% Other 0% 1% 4%

43k. How does your company assist an internationally relocated employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 33% No assistance 38% 31% 33% 30% Provide networking assistance 26% 31% 32% 27% Provide resume preparation assistance 26% 26% 27% 24% Provide interviewing skills training 19% 26% 24% 23% Find employment within company 15% 35% 18% 21% Pay for work visa in new location 15% 25% 22% 20% Reimburse for career transition expenses 17% 21% 20% (i.e. interview trips, certifications, etc.) 17% Pay for outplacement/career 11% 18% 20% services from an outside firm 17% Find employment outside company 17% 26% 10% 3% Other 2% 3% 4%

43l. In 2015, what reasons were cited for an employee declining an international relocation or for an international relocation to fail?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% No international relocations declined or failed 25% 13% 9% 46% Family issues/ties 47% 41% 48% 29% Lack of spousal/partner assistance 21% 28% 35% 29% Personal reason (non-disclosed) 30% 28% 29% 24% Lack of adaptability by the spouse/partner 21% 26% 23% 20% Financial issues/concerns 13% 21% 23% 19% Lack of adaptability by employee 21% 16% 19% 13% Safety concerns (i.e. war/terrorism/ 6% 18% 14% political unrest/etc.) 12% Host country infrastructure inadequacies 8% 18% 10%

(question 43l results continued on next page)44



45

12% Don’t know 6% 13% 14% 10% Job performance issues 4% 15% 10% 10% Illness 8% 15% 7% 1% Other 0% 1% 2%

H. CORPORATE/RESPONDENT PROFILE44. Which one of the following most accurately describes your company’s

business classification? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% Service (Profit) (includes educational services, 32% 40% 34%

healthcare, high-tech, etc.) 25% Manufacturing/Processing 31% 18% 25% 13% Financial/Insurance/Real Estate 10% 15% 15% 10% Wholesale/Retail 10% 10% 10% 9% Service (Non-profit) (includes religious 13% 6% 7% institutions, charities, etc.) 3% Government/Military/Public Administration 2% 3% 5% 5% Other 3% 7% 4%

45. What were your company’s annual sales for 2015?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 8% Less than $25 million 19% 3% 1% 8% $26 - $50 million 20% 4% 1% 10% $51 - $99 million 19% 7% 2% 13% $100 - $249 million 21% 15% 2% 11% $250 - $499 million 13% 14% 6% 6% $500 - $749 million 3% 10% 4% 6% $750 million - $1 billion 1% 13% 5% 38% Over $1 billion 5% 34% 80%

*excludes blank responses

46. What is your department’s function? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 47% Human Resources/Personnel - 62% 48% 27%

General/Administration 16% Human Resources/Personnel - Compensation 16% 12% 19%

and Benefits 14% Human Resources/Personnel - 7% 18% 17% Talent Management 13% Relocation/Mobility Services 7% 12% 22% 5% Finance/Accounting 5% 5% 4% 2% Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing 1% 3% 3% 4% Other 3% 3% 7%

47. What is your position within the company? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5% President 5% 6% 3% 12% Vice President 12% 14% 12% 25% Director 33% 26% 14% 33% Manager 31% 28% 42% 7% Relocation Administrator 3% 6% 14% 5% Supervisor 5% 5% 3% 4% Coordinator 4% 3% 4% 2% Recruiter 1% 5% 1% 2% HR Assistant 2% 3% 2% 4% Other 4% 5% 4%

48. Which of the following trade publication(s) do you regularly read? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 16% None 11% 18% 21% 46% HR Magazine 58% 45% 34% 31% Human Resource Executive 34% 34% 26% 30% HR News 34% 32% 23% 25% Employee Benefits News 33% 25% 16% 24% Workforce 26% 29% 18% 22% Mobility 8% 15% 44% 18% Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) Today 19% 14% 21% 10% Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 10% 9% 12% 9% The Relocation Report 8% 10% 10% 9% National Relocation and Real Estate 10% 8% 8% 3% Other 3% 4% 2%

49. To what relocation-related association(s) do you currently belong? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 28% None 30% 31% 23% 36% Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) 43% 35% 30% 28% Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee Relocation 10% 21% 56% Council - ERC) 19% Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) 20% 21% 15% 16% Regional or local relocation council 10% 14% 27% 5% Canadian Employee Relocation Council 3% 6% 7%

(CERC – Canada) 5% Forum for Expatriate Management (FEM) 0% 5% 13% 4% National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) 1% 6% 6% 3% Other 3% 1% 5%

(question 43l results continued)

46



47

You’re invited to take part in next year’s survey.

Your perspective can help the world better see how our industry works. To be included in the 50th Annual Atlas Survey, sign up at:

AtlasVanLines.com/TakeSurvey

THE 49TH ANNUAL ATLAS CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY

The Industry’s Longest Running SurveyEvery year since 1966, Atlas has collected input from

corporate decision makers, analyzed it, and reported our findings. We illuminate the finer points of relocation to bring the

bigger picture into focus.

Visit us at atlasvanlines.com

Contact us at 800-852-6683

48


TM & © 2016 AWGI LLC Atlas Van Lines, Inc. 1212 St. George Rd., Evansville, IN 47711 Form No. CC012078

For further details and survey results from prior years – including charts and graphs for every question – please visit atlasvanlines.com/survey, or contact: Lauren Falls • 800-638-9797 e-mail: [email protected]

50

49th Annual CO RPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Results · Atlas has collected insights from corporate...

Documents

Transcript of 49th Annual CO RPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY Results · Atlas has collected insights from corporate...