Integrity | quality | solutions Copyright © 2003 Atlas World Group, Inc. 1212 St. George Road,...

integrity | quality | solutions

Copyright © 2003 Atlas World Group, Inc.1212 St. George Road, Evansville, IN 47711-2364800-252-8885 MC79658

36th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey

April, 2003



ForewordSituational Analysis

Atlas World Group conducts corporate relocation issues research on an annual basis. This is the first year the study has been conducted via the Internet. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to mailing lists of selected relocation-related publications and associations.

For the 36th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey, Atlas World Group utilized OpinionWare, a software tool created by divine, Inc. for building and conducting survey research on the Internet. divine was enlisted to provide research design assistance, conduct the survey, and provide guidance in data analysis.

Methodology

For the year 2003, 316 surveys were completed online from January 22 through February 28.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) Total % of

Sample

Less than 500 employees – Small 146 46%

500-4999 employees – Mid-size 86 27%

5000 or more employees - Large 84 27%

Total 316 100%



Management Summary

Corporate Profile

Forty-six percent of the companies involved in this study employ less than 500 salaried workers, more than one quarter (27%) employ 500-4,999 salaried employees, and more than one quarter (27%) have 5,000 or more salaried employees.

Service and Manufacturing/Processing companies were the most highly represented business classifications in this study (41% and 40%, respectively).

Over half of these companies are international (56%). Large companies are more likely to be international; over 4 out of 5 (82%) companies with more than 5000 employees are international while just forty-three percent of companies with fewer than 500 employees are international.

The median annual sales range for all companies involved in this study is $100-$499 million. The median annual sales range for companies with less then 500 employees is $26-$99 million, while for companies with 500-4,999 employees it is $500-$1 billion, and for companies with more than 5,000 employees it is over $1 billion.

Total Business Classification Manufacturing/Processing 40% Service 41 Financial 7 Government/Military 3 Other 9



Management SummaryCorporate Profile (cont.)

Over forty percent of the small and mid-size companies surveyed had approximately the same number of employee relocations in 2002 as they did in the previous year. For large companies, only 29% percent indicated that this number stayed the same, with 41% of large companies indicating there was a decrease in the number of employees relocating. Companies surveyed reported a median range of 10-19 employee relocations in 2002 (small companies reported a median range of 1-9, mid-sized companies 20-49, and large companies 200-399).

Over half of respondents (58%) feel that the number of employees relocating will stay the same in 2003; 13% anticipate an increase and 29% feel that there will be a decrease.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees)

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more Number of Employees Relocated in 2002 Median Range 10-19 1-9 20-49 200-399

Company Size (By Salaried Employees)

2002 Number of Relocations Compared to 2001

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 30% 30% 29% 31%

Stay About the Same 40

45 43 29

Decrease 30

26 28 41



Management Summary

Corporate Profile (cont.)

Over fifty percent of the small companies surveyed had approximately the same amount of money for relocations in 2002 as they did in the previous year. For mid-sized and large companies, just over forty percent indicated that budgets stayed the same, with 36% of large companies indicating their budgets decreased.

Over half of respondents (57%) feel that their relocation budgets will stay the same in 2003; 15% anticipate an increase and 28% feel that there will be a decrease.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

2002 Relocation Budgets Compared to 2001

Increase 26% 25% 31% 24%

Stay About the Same 48

54 43 41

Decrease 26

21 26 36



Management Summary

Corporate Profile (cont.)

Eighty percent of the companies surveyed have a formal relocation policy. Companies with 5,000 or more employees are more likely to have a formal relocation policy than are smaller companies (99% of large companies vs. 63% small companies).

Over 9 in 10 (94%) of the large companies surveyed have a centralized relocation department, similar to 90% of mid-sized companies and 84% of the small companies. Most of the companies’ centralized relocation departments are responsible for controlling household goods carrier selection (86%)

At forty-six percent of the companies surveyed, the company is the sole selector of the household goods carrier for the employee’s move.

Thirty-seven percent of the companies surveyed allow the employee some say in the household goods carrier selection, but employees of small companies are more likely have this option than those of mid- to large companies (56% of small companies vs. 22% of mid-sized and 20% of large companies).

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Who Selects Carrier for Employee Moves The Company 46% 40% 52% 51% The Company & Employee Together 26 39 14 16 The Employee 11 17 8 4 A Relocation Firm 15 4 22 27 Other 2 0 4 2



Management Summary

Company Size (Salaried Employees)

Total

Less than 500

500-4999 5000 or more

External Conditions Having Significant Impact

External Conditions Had No Impact 17% 15% 23% 13%

Lack of Qualified People Locally 47 58 45 31

Economic Conditions 46 40 44 60

Factors Impacting Transfers

Over eighty percent of respondents indicated at least one external factor had a significant impact on the number of employee transfers in 2002. Overall, the “lack of qualified people locally” (47%) was the top reason indicated, followed by “economic conditions” (46%). The impact of “economic conditions” fell in importance from 77% last year to 46% this year.

Internal company conditions affecting relocation varied broadly in 2002; the top two cited being the “growth of the company” (40%) and “promotions/resignations” (40%). “Corporate reorganization” and “budget constraints,” the third and fourth most important internal factors overall, appear to increase in importance with the size of the firm.

Company Size (Salaried Employees) Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact*

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 7% 10% 5% 2%

Growth of Company 40 38 42 43

Promotions/Resignations 40 36 47 39

Corporate Reorganization 31 21 34 45

Budget Constraints 28 18 24 48



Management Summary

Policy Administration

Sixty-one percent of all companies outsourced relocation services in 2002. However, only thirty-nine percent of small companies outsourced, while 72% of mid-size companies and 87% of large companies outsourced relocation services.

The services that are most likely to be outsourced are:- Real estate sales/purchase (51%)

- Contract of household goods moving company (38%)- Arrangement of family’s transportation/accommodations (33%)- Counseling about the planning/details of moving (30%)

Seventy percent of decision makers say that the Internet was used for relocation-related matters in 2002. The top use was to communicate via e-mail with relocating employees (65%), followed by researching relocation-related matters (49%).

Companies vary on the amount of time they allow employees to decide on whether to accept a relocation offer. Sixteen percent (16%) of the companies surveyed allow one week or less to accept or decline an offer, 43% of the companies surveyed allow up to two weeks, and 21% allow up to one month to decide.

The majority (80%) of companies surveyed allow the hiring of spouses of current employees. Smaller companies are somewhat less likely to hire a spouse (69%); while 86% of mid-sized companies and 95% of large companies said they allow hiring of an employee’s spouse.

Employees are allowed on average 4.9 expense-paid house-hunting days. Spouses of relocating employees are allowed an average of 1.6 expense-paid house-hunting trips.



Management Summary

Relocation Costs

The following are companies’ methods of reimbursement of moving expenses of TRANSFEREES and NEW HIRES:

If the TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE decides to buy a home in the new location, over fifty percent of the companies surveyed indicate they will pay for the following moving services:

- 79% to pack all items- 69% to move an automobile- 57% to more exercise equipment

If an employee decides to rent, over fifty percent of companies responding cover the following:

-64% offer home finding trips-62% reimburse for lease cancellation-53% offer to move one or more automobiles

Total Total Methods of Reimbursement TRANSFEREES NEW HIRES

Full reimbursement of moving expenses 70% 56%

Lump sum payment 30 30

Partial reimbursement based on salary, position, tenure, etc. 25 38

No reimbursement of moving expenses 4 7



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues

The following is the makeup of those employees transferred in 2002.

-Thirty percent of companies surveyed indicated that the age range of their most frequently transferred employee was over the age of 40, and almost two-thirds (64%) of the companies surveyed indicated some percentage of the employees they relocated were women.

-Nearly 9 out of 10 (87%) of companies indicated some percentage of their relocations involved a trailing spouse who was a wife or female partner, while just over half (55%) of the companies indicated that some percentage of relocations had accompanying husbands/male partners.

Forty-two percent of companies surveyed assist an employee’s spouse/partner in finding employment in the new location. And while historically large companies were always somewhat more likely to offer spousal assistance, this year the gap widened dramatically: sixty-two percent of large companies indicate they provide this assistance versus 32% of small companies.

Overall, the top method of spousal/partner assistance was finding employment outside the company (44%). However, large companies used a range of tools at roughly equal levels, while small companies are much more likely to help spouses/partners find employment outside the company (62%) than find employment within the company (26%) or pay a job-finder’s fee (9%).


Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance

Find Employment Outside Company 44% 62% 35% 33%

Find Employment Within Company 27 26 18 35

Pay Job-Finder’s Fee 23 9 15 42

Pay Spouse’s Full or Partial Salary Until Hired 2 0 0 4

Other 42 40 47 40



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Only about 2 in 10 (18%) companies provide elder care assistance to the transferee. The assistance that is provided by companies is minimal, with very few employers allowing the use of pre-tax dollars for outside care or providing moving expense coverage for the elderly relative.

- 15% Provide a list of nursing homes and/or day-care centers- 6% Allow the transferee to use pre-tax dollars for outside care - 4% Move the elderly relative who will live with the transferee in the new location- 2% Move the elderly relative who does not live with the transferee

Only 11% of respondents believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is never affected by his/her spouse’s employment status, while 48% indicate this is seldom the case. However, 42% believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is "almost always” or "frequently" affected by the employment status of an employee’s spouse, a significant increase over previous years (42% in 2002 versus 17% in 2001 and 25% in 2000).

Never11%

Seldom48%

Frequently32%

Almost always

10%

Q.40 – Frequency of Employee’s Relocation Being Affected by the Employee Status of His/Her Spouse



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Most (71%) respondents said that declining the opportunity to relocate does not hinder an employee’s career. Just over half (54%) indicated they had employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2002; however, only 34% of respondents from small companies indicated this was the case, while 64% of mid-size and 93% of large companies said they had employees decline relocation.

About 8 in 10 (83%) of respondents said that the number of employees who declined relocation offers did not change between 2001 and 2002. Less than ten percent (8%) said that the number of employees declining relocation offers in 2002 decreased vs. 9% who said it increased.

Reasons employees gave for declining relocation in 2002 were:

- Family issues/ties (79%) - Spouse’s employment (57%)- Cost of living in new location (51%)- No desire to move (45%)- Personal (34%)- Housing/mortgage concerns (26%)- Could hurt career (2%)- Other (2%)



Management Summary

Transportation

Overall, 63% of companies have contracts with household goods carriers: 44% of small companies, 71% of mid-size companies, and 87% of large companies.

Of all companies surveyed, the average number of standing contracts with household goods carriers was 1.4. However, of those companies surveyed who specifically indicated they had carriers under contract, the average was 2.3 standing contracts with household goods carriers.

Sixty-six percent of companies surveyed with carriers under contract specify which carriers are preferred. In 2002, small companies were actually slightly more likely to have preferred carriers than large companies (75% versus 59% of mid-size companies and 64% of large companies).

The most important attributes when selecting a carrier indicated by companies surveyed were*:- Service (81%)

- Reputation (58%) - Price (56%)- Local agent(s) (52%)- Claims processing (47%)

The most important attributes when evaluating a carrier indicated by companies surveyed were*:- Service (84%)- On-time delivery (77%)

- Employee feedback (70%) - Price (57%)- Claims processing (49%)- Extra services (31%)

* Top 2 box rating (% of respondents who indicated the attribute was “critically important” (a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale)).



Management Summary

International

Forty-seven percent of companies surveyed relocate employees internationally: 28% of small companies, 44% of mid-size companies, and 82% of large companies.

Of those companies surveyed who move employees internationally, respondents indicated the following additional considerations are part of their international relocation policies:

- Additional tax considerations (71%)- Additional leave time (includes at least one visit to US or CAN) (56%) - Allowances for children to attend certain schools (53%)- Increased allowances for permanent storage (49%) - Additional leave time (49%)- Higher moving allowances (40%) - Higher rental housing allowance (38%) - Extended per diem charges for hotel (20%)- More communications equipment (phones/laptop) (13%)- More leniency on insurance coverage (4%)- Other (4%).

The most important attributes when selecting a carrier for international shipments indicated by companies were*:

- Service (89%) - Scheduling (63%) - Reputation (61%) - Price (59%) - Third Party (44%)

* Top 2 box rating (% of respondents who indicated the attribute was “critically important” (a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale)).



Management Summary

International (cont.)

Over half (56%) of companies have never used the electronic data interchange (EDI) interface capabilities on international shipments.

Over 7 out of 10 companies (73%) offer no assistance to internationally transferred employees’ spouses/partners in finding employment in the new location.

Overall, 39% of companies that move employees internationally reported no international relocations were declined or failed in 2002 (73% of small companies, 45% of mid-size companies, and 16% of large companies). However, 24% of companies responded they did not know why an international relocation was declined or failed in 2002, with mid-size to large companies (26% and 32%, respectively) reporting not knowing more often than small companies (7%).


Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Int’l Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 39% 73% 45% 16%

Family Issues/Ties 32 17 24 45

Personal Reason 22 7 13 35

Lack of Adaptability by Spouse/Partner 14 7 0 26

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 10 2 0 19

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 9 5 5 13

Terrorism 6 5 5 7

Pet Quarantine 3 0 3 4

Illness 3 0 0 6

Don’t Know 24 7 26 32

Other 2 0 3 3



Management Summary

Respondent Profile

Most respondents (78%) work in Human Resources/Personnel departments. There were a variety of different positions held among those who completed this survey – from managers (26%), directors (30%), vice-presidents (17%), and relocation administrators (10%), as well as a myriad of other positions, including a few presidents, assistant vice-presidents, coordinators, and others.

A majority of the respondents regularly read trade publications (96%). The most popular publications were*:

- HR Magazine (65%)- Human Resource Executive (58%)- Mobility (32%)- HR News (28%).

Sixty percent of the total of employees interviewed belong to a relocation-related association, and over eighty percent of responding employees at large companies belong to one of these associations*.

* Note: the responses to these questions may have been influenced by the respondent lists used to gather data for this survey.

Total

Employees who belong to a relocation related association

Total 60%

Large companies 83

Mid-size companies 65

Small companies 43



Corporate Profile

Other9%

Manufacturing/ Processing

40%

Service41%

Financial7%

Government/ Military

3%

Total

Other10%

Financial7% Mftg/

Proc.40%

Service41%

Govt/Military

2%

Financial11%

Other14%

Govt/ Military

4%

Service38%

Mftg/Proc.33%

Less than 500 Salaried Employees

500 – 4999 Salaried Employees

5000+ Salaried Employees

Q.1 – Business Classifications of Companies Participating

Other4%

Financial5%

Mftg/Proc.45%Service

42%

Govt/ Military

4%



Corporate Profile

Regional17%

National27%

International56%

Total

Regional29%

National29%

Interna-tional43%

National33% Interna-

tional52%

Regional15%

National18% Interna-

tional82%




Q.2 – Is your company…



Corporate Profile

over $1 billion32%

$500 million - $1 billion

14%

$100-$499 million

24%

$26-$99 million

18%

Less than $25 million

13%

Total


4%

$26-$99 million

4%

$100-$499 million26%

$500 million - $1

billion29%

over $1 billion37%

$100-$499 million

6%$500 million -

$1 billion11%

$26-$99 million

2%


2%

over $1 billion79%




Q.3 – Participating Companies Annual Sales for 2002

over $1 billion

2%

$500 million - $1

billion6%


25%$100-$499 million32%

$26-$99 million34%



Corporate ProfileQ.4 – Number of Salaried (Non-Hourly) People

Employed by Company

46%

27% 27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Less than 500Salaried

Employees

500 - 4999 SalariedEmployees

5000+ SalariedEmployees



Corporate ProfileQ.5 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2002


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Number of Employees Relocated in 2002

None 5% 10% 0% 0%

1-9 42 76 22 4

10-19 9 10 16 0

20-49 11 3 31 4

50-99 7 1 12 12

100-199 9 1 12 20

200-399 7 0 5 20

400 or more 10 0

0 0 37

Don’t know 2 0 2 4

By Company Size (Salaried Employees)



Corporate Profile

Increase30%

Stay About the Same

40%

Decrease30%

Total

Stay About the

Same45%

Decrease26%

Increase30%

Increase29%

Decrease28%

Stay About the

Same43%Increase

31%

Stay About the

Same29%

Decrease41%




Q.6 – Compared to 2001, did the number of employees you relocated in 2002…



Corporate Profile

Increase26%

Stay About the Same

48%

Decrease26%

Total

Stay About the

Same54%

Decrease21%

Increase25%

Increase31%

Decrease26%

Stay About the

Same43%

Increase24%

Stay About the

Same41%

Decrease36%




Q.7 – Compared to 2001, did your 2002 relocation budget…



Corporate Profile

Increase13%

Stay About the Same

58%

Decrease29%

Total

Stay About the

Same53%

Decrease37%

Increase10%

Increase13%Decrease

23%

Stay About the

Same64%

Increase19%

Stay About the

Same61%

Decrease20%




Q.8 – Compared to 2002, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will move during 2003 will…



Corporate Profile

Increase15%

Stay About the Same

57%

Decrease28%

Total

Stay About the

Same56%

Decrease32%

Increase12%

Increase15%Decrease

20%

Stay About the

Same65%Increase

20%

Stay About the

Same51%

Decrease29%




Q.9 – Compared to 2002, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2003 will…



Corporate Profile

None1%

Don't know

1%

50 or more29%

10-4922%

1-947%

Total

Don't know1%

50 or more21%

10-4951%

1-926%Don't

know4%

1-94%

10-4910%

50 or more83%




Q.10 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2002 Within the U.S.

50 or more1%

None2%

10-4910%

1-987%



Corporate Profile

None69%

Don't know

2%

50 or more

1%

10-496%

1-922%

Total

10-491%

Don't know2%

1-919%

None77%

None23%

Don't know5%

1-949%

10-4920%

50 or more2%




Q.11 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2002 Between the U.S. and Canada

Don't know1%

1-98%

None92%



Corporate Profile

10-493%

50 or more

1%Don't know

3%

1-912%

None82%

Total

Don't know1%

1-910%

None89%

50 or more2%

Don't know9%

10-499%

1-930%

None51%




Q.12 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2002 Between the U.S. and Mexico

10-491%

1-93%

None96%



Corporate Profile

50 or more6%

Don't know2%

10-499%

1-923% None

59%

Total

10-495%

50 or more1%

Don't know1%

1-930%

None63%

Don't know6%

50 or more20%

10-4928%

1-925%

None21%




Q.13 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2002 Between the U.S. and Another Country

10-491%

Don't know1%

1-918%

None80%



Corporate Profile

1-98%

10-492%

50 or more1%

Don't know10%

None78%

Total

1-910%

Don't know2%

None88%

10-496%

50 or more5%

Don't know32%

1-919%

None38%




Q.14 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2002 Within a Single Foreign Country

10-491%1-9

2%

Don't know1%

None97%



Corporate Profile

10-492%

50 or more4%

Don't know7%

1-911%

None75%

Total

10-491%

Don't know2%

1-913%

None83%

Don't know23%

50 or more16%

10-497%

1-922%

None31%




Q.15 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2002 Between Two Foreign Countries

1-93%

Don't know1%

None96%



Corporate Profile

80%

63%

90%99%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Less than 500Salaried

Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.16 – Companies with a Formal Relocation Policy*

* % of companies answering “Yes”



Corporate Profile

Other2%

Relocation Firm15%

Employee11%

Company & Employee

26%

Company46%

Total

Other4%

Company52%

Employee8%

Company &

Employee14%

Relocation Firm22%

Other2%

Relocation Firm27%

Employee4%

Company &

Employee16%

Company51%




Q.17 – Who Selects The Carrier for Employee Moves

Company40%

Relocation Firm4%

Employee17%

Company &

Employee39%

.



Corporate Profile

88% 84%90% 94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.18 – Companies Who Administer Employee Relocations from a Centralized (Corporate) Department*




Corporate Profile

Total

Q.19 - Does your company’s centralized relocation department… *

*those who answered “Yes” to Q18 / excludes those who “don’t know”

14%

30%

30%

36%

46%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Recommend Site andSpace Selection forOffice Relocations

Handle Air Travel ViaCommercial Airlines

Handle OfficeRelocations

Control Air CarrierSelection

Control Freight CarrierSelection

Control HouseholdGoods Carrier Selection



Corporate Profile


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Centralized Relocation Department’s Duties

Control Household Goods Carrier Selection 86% 80% 90% 92%

Control Freight Carrier Selection 46 51 46 39

Control Air Carrier Selection 36 39 31 35

Handle Office Relocations 30 40 22 22

Handle Air Travel Via Commercial Airlines 30 40 31 15

Recommend Site and Space Selection for Office Relocations

14 26 3 7

Q.19 – Centralized Relocation Department Duties by Company Size*

*those who answered “Yes” to Q18 / excludes those who “don’t know”




6%

7%

9%

12%

46%

47%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Events of September 11th

Growth of InternationalCompetition

Growth of DomesticCompetition

Economic Conditions

Lack of Qualified PeopleLocally

External Conditions HadNo Impact

Factors Impacting TransfersQ.20 – External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number

of Employee Relocations in 2002

Total





Total

Less than 500

500-4999 5000 or more

External Conditions Having Significant Impact

External Conditions Had No Impact 17% 15% 23% 13%

Lack of Qualified People Locally 47 58 45 31

Economic Conditions 46 40 44 60

Growth of Domestic Competition 12 8 10 19

Growth of International Competition 9 6 5 17

Events of September 11th 7 3 5 15

Other 6 5 2 11


Q.20 – External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2002



5%9%

11%11%

15%21%21%21%

28%31%

40%

40%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Increased Production

International Expansion

Decreased Production

Expansion of Facility

Closing of Facility

Acquisitions/Mergers

Expansion Into New Territories

Budget Constraints

Corporate Reorganization

Promotions/Resignations

Growth of Company

Internal Conditions Had No Impact

Factors Impacting TransfersQ.21 – Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of

Employee Relocations in 2002

Total





Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact*

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 7% 10% 5% 2%

Growth of Company 40 38 42 43

Promotions/Resignations 40 36 47 39

Corporate Reorganization 31 21 34 45

Budget Constraints 28 18 24 48

Expansion into New Territories 21 18 20 26

Acquisitions/Mergers 21 10 24 37 Closing of Facility 21 12 24 32

Expansion of Facility 15 11 22 15

Decreased Production 11 10 9 14

International Expansion 11 8 10 19

Increased Production 9 9 10 8 Other 3 3 6 7


Q.21 – Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2002



Corporate Profile

1 week or less16%

Up to 2 months or

longer9%

Up to 1 month21%

Up to 3 weeks

10%

Up to 2 weeks

43%

Total

Up to 2 months or

longer11%

Up to 3 weeks

9%

Up to 1 month18%

1 week or less13%

Up to 2 weeks48%

Up to 2 months or

longer6%

Up to 1 month24%

Up to 3 weeks

5%

Up to 2 weeks34%

1 week or less32%




Q.22 – Length of Time Employees Have to Accept a Transfer Offer

Up to 2 months

or longer10%

1 week or less10%

Up to 1 month22%

Up to 3 weeks13%

Up to 2 weeks45%



Corporate Profile

80%69%

86%95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.23 – Companies that Allow the Hiring of Spouses of Employees*





Outsourced61%Not

Outsourced39%

51%

38%33%

30%28% 25% 24% 24% 23%

19%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Q. 24 – Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service or Brokerage Firm in 2002

TotalPercent Outsourced

TotalServices Outsourced





Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Services Outsourced

Did not use a relocation service or a brokerage firm in 2002 39% 61% 28% 13%

Real Estate Sales/Purchase 51 27 65 76

Contract of Household Goods Transportation 38 24 47 52

Arrange Family Transportation/Accommodations 33 18 43 49

Counseling – Planning & Details of Moving 30 9 44 51

Orientation Tours 28 14 37 44

Monitoring Shipment 25 8 35 44

Audit/Payment of Invoice 24 10 28 45

Employee Claims Assistance 24 8 33 44

Counseling – Company Policy 23 8 27 48

Supplementary Services 19 8 27 32

Other 3 0 3 6


Q. 24 – Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service or Brokerage Firm in 2002




Used Internet

70%

Did not use30%

5%

12%

49%

65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

For matters unrelatedto relocation

To researchrelocation-related

matters

To communicate viae-mail with relocating

employees

Q.25 – How the Internet was Used for Relocation-Related Matters in 2002

TotalPercent Used

TotalInternet Uses






Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

How the Internet is Used

Did not use the Internet for relocation-related matters in 2002 30% 45% 26% 10%

To communicate via e-mail with relocating employees 65 49 70 87

To research relocation-related matters 49 36 52 68

For matters unrelated to relocation 12 10 14 14

Other 5 1 5 12

Q.25 – How the Internet was Used for Relocation-Related Matters in 2002



Q.26 – Average number of expense paid TRIPS for SPOUSE to find housing in new location

1.6 1.6 1.71.4

Total Less than500 SalariedEmployees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




Q.27 – Average number of expense paid DAYS EMPLOYEES allowed for house-hunting trips

4.94.2

5.4 5.7


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




Relocation CostsQ.28a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of

TRANSFEREES?

Total

4%

25%

30%

70%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Extent TRANSFEREES are Reimbursed

Full reimbursement of moving expenses 70% 59% 73% 86%

Lump sum payment 30 26 30 35

Partial reimbursement based on salary, position, tenure, etc. 25 28 23 23

No reimbursement of moving expenses 4 6 2 4

Q.28a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of TRANSFEREES?



Relocation Costs

Paid directly by company

81%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

16%

Paid by employee

4%

Total

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

25%

Paid by employee

6%


69%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

8%

Paid by employee

2%


90%


93%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

7%




Q.28b – How Carrier Transportation Expenses for TRANSFEREES are Paid



Relocation CostsQ.29a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of

NEW HIRES

Total

7%

38%

30%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Extent NEW HIRES are Reimbursed

Full reimbursement of moving expenses 56% 45% 59% 71%

Lump sum payment 30 25 33 35

Partial reimbursement based on salary, position, tenure, etc. 38 41 35 35

No reimbursement of moving expenses 7 9 5 6

Q.29a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of NEW HIRES



Relocation Costs


77%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

18%

Paid by employee

5%

Total

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

30%

Paid by employee

6%


64%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

9%

Paid by employee

6%


85%


91%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

6%

Paid by employee

4%




Q.28b – How Carrier Transportation Expenses for NEW HIRES are Paid



Relocation Costs

Total

2%

15%15%

18%26%

28%

30%

42%

42%43%

44%

57%

69%

79%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Hire Temporary Maid Service

Have Belongings Picked Up from a Second Residence

Move a Boat

Move Satellite TV Dishes

Permanent/Extended Storage

Move Pets

Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects

Move Recreation/Lawn Equipment

Move 2nd Automobile

Move Unlimited Weight

Carry Items Down from Attic

Move Exercise Equipment

Move an Automobile

Pack All Items

Company does not pay for any of these items

Q.30 – For a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE, does your company reimburse/pay (to)…



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Covered Moving Expenses Company does not pay for any of these items 12% 20% 6% 4%

To Pack All Items 79 69 84 92 To Move an Automobile 69 55 76 87 To Move Exercise Equipment 57 46 57 77 To Carry Items Down from the Attic 44 34 50 57 To Move Unlimited Weight 43 31 38 67 To Move a Second Automobile 42 27 41 70 To Move Recreation and Lawn Equipment 42 35 54 43 To Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects 30 12 30 61 To Move Pets 28 19 31 38 To Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some Possessions 26 23 26 33 To Move Satellite TV Dishes 18 10 22 27 To Move a Boat 15 13 13 20 To Have Belongings Picked Up from a Second Residence 15 11 14 23 To Hire Temporary Maid Service 2 3 1 2

Q.30 – For a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE, does your company reimburse/pay…



Relocation Costs

27%

31%

32%

33%

41%

53%

62%

64%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reimburse/Pay Security Deposits

Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees

Apply Temporary Living Allowanceto Rent

Reimburse/Pay Apartment SearchFees

Offer Storage

Offer to Move One or MoreAutomobiles

Reimburse/Pay for LeaseCancellation

Offer Homefinding Trips

Company does not offer any ofthese benefits

Q.31 – When a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE will be renting (not buying), does your company…

Total



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Covered Moving Expenses when Employee will be Renting

Company does not offer any of these benefits 16% 26% 9% 5% Offer Home-Finding Trips 64 49 71 81 Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 62 42 68 91 Offer to Move One or More Automobiles 53 33 62 79 Offer Storage 41 22 51 63 Reimburse Apartment Search Fees 33 16 37 57 Apply Temporary Living Allowance Toward Rent 32 40 29 20 Reimburse/Pay for Hook Up Fees 31 31 26 35 Reimburse/Pay for Security Deposits 27 28 24 27

Q.31 – When a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE will be renting (not buying), does your company…




8%

22%

37%

24%

6%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Less than 25 years

25-30 years

31-35 years

36-40 years

41-45 years

More than 45 years

Q.32 – Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred Salaried Employee

Total





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred Employee

Less than 25 years 3% 1% 5% 3%

25 – 30 years 6 8 7 2

31 – 35 years 24 16 34 32

36 – 40 years 38 38 32 39

41 – 45 years 25 25 19 19

More than 45 years 12 12 3 5

Employee, Spousal & Assistance IssuesQ.32 – Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred

Salaried Employee



51% or more

5%

31%-50%13%

11%-30%18%

1%-10%29%

None36%

Total 51% or more4%

31%-50%9%

1%-10%20%

11%-30%10% None

57%

51% or more3%

31%-50%19%

1%-10%39%

11%-30%19%

None19%

51% or more8%

31%-50%17%

11%-30%37%

1%-10%38%




Q.33 – In 2002, Percentage of Transferred Employees that were Women*

* excludes those who don’t know




51% or more48%

31%-50%17%

11%-30%9%

1%-10%13%

None13%

Total

51% or more43%

31%-50%14%

1%-10%16%

11%-30%6%

None21%

51% or more54%

31%-50%14%

1%-10%9%

11%-30%16%

None7%

51% or more52%

31%-50%30%

11%-30%9%1%-10%

9%




Q.34 – In 2002, Percentage of Relocations that Involved a Trailing Spouse that was a Wife or Female Partner*





51% or more

2%31%-50%

6%

11%-30%12%

1%-10%34%

None45%

Total 51% or more2%

31%-50%5%

1%-10%20%

11%-30%5%

None67% 51% or

more2%

31%-50%7%

1%-10%44%

11%-30%18%

None30%

51% or more2%

31%-50%9%

11%-30%27%

1%-10%62%




Q.35 – In 2002, Percentage of Relocations that Involved a Trailing Spouse that was a Husband or Male Partner*





Q.36 – Companies that Assist an Employee’s Spouse or Partner in Finding Employment in the New Location*

42%32%

40%

62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees





Q.37 – Methods of Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance

Find Employment Outside Company 44% 62% 35% 33%



Pay Spouse’s Full or Partial Salary Until Hired 2 0 0 4

Other 42 40 47 40





51% or more

5%

31%-50%14%

11%-30%18%

1%-10%44%

None19%

Total

51% or more7%

31%-50%17%

1%-10%27%

11%-30%12%

None37%

51% or more4%

31%-50%8%

1%-10%58%

11%-30%12%

None19%

51% or more2%

None2%

31%-50%14%

11%-30%29%

1%-10%52%




Q.38 – In 2002, Percentage of Relocated Employees with a Spouse/Partner who Used this Employment Assistance*





Q.38 – Companies that Offer Elder Care Assistance

18%

8%

19%

34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




Q.38 – Elder Care Assistance Offered


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Elder Care Assistance

No Elder Care Assistance 82% 92% 81% 66%

Provide List of Nursing Homes and/or Day-Care Centers 15 6 17 28

Reimburse for Outside Care 0 1 0 0

Allow Transferee to Use Pre-Tax Dollars for Outside Care 6 1 5 15

Move an Elderly Relative That Does Not Live with a Transferee 2 1 0 5

Move an Elderly Relative That Does Not Live with a Transferee Presently, But Will Live with the Transferee in the New Location

4 2 1 8





Never11%

Seldom48%

Frequently32%

Almost always

10%

Total Never14%

Frequently33%Seldom

42%

Almost always12%

Never9%

Frequently28%Seldom

52%

Almost always11%

Almost always

6%Never7%

Seldom52%

Frequently35%




Q.40 – Frequency of Employee’s Relocation Being Affected by the Employee Status of His/Her Spouse




Q.41 – Companies Indicating Declining Relocation Usually Hinders an Employee’s Career*

29%33%

28%23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees





Q.42– Companies that had Employees Decline the Opportunity to Relocate in 2002*

54%

34%

64%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


* % of companies answering “Yes” / excludes those who don’t know



Decrease from 2001

8%

Remain about the same as

200183%

Increase from 2001

9%

Total Increase from 2001

7%

Decrease from 2001

10%


200183%

Decrease from 2001

5%

Increase from 2001

12%


200183%

Increase from 2001

11%Decrease from 2001

6%


200183%




Q.43 – Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2002…




2%

2%

26%

34%

45%

51%

57%

79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Could Hurt Career

Housing/Mortgage Concerns

Personal

No Desire to Move

Cost of Living in New Location

Spouse's Employment

Family Issues/Ties

Q.44 – Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation*

Total


* Those who answered “Yes” to Q42 / excludes those who don’t know



Q.44 – Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation*


* Those who answered “Yes” to Q42 / excludes those who don’t know


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Reasons for Declining Relocation

Family Issues/Ties 79% 80% 80% 77%

Spouse’s Employment 57 59 54 58

Cost of Living in New Location 51 44 41 65

No Desire to Move 45 52 49 35

Personal 34 30 23 44

Housing/Mortgage Concerns 26 20 18 37

Could Hurt Career 2 0 0 6

Other 2 0 3 4




Q.45– Companies with Contractual Agreements with Carriers for the Transportation of Household Goods

63%

44%

71%

87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Transportation



Q.45– Overall Average Number of Household Goods Transportation Carriers on Contract

Transportation

1.4

0.7

1.4

2.7


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



Transportation

2.31.7

2.0

3.1


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.45– Of Companies with Contracts: Average Number of Household Goods Transportation Carriers on Contract



Q.46 – Companies that Specify Preferred Carriers of Those Under Contract

Transportation

66%75%

59% 64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




Transportation

47%

52%

56%

58%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Claims Processing

Local Agent(s)

Price

Reputation

Service

Total(Those who rated the attribute a “9" or "10," or "critically important")

Q.47 – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“

*excludes those who “don’t know”





Critically Important Attributes when Selecting a Carrier (Top 3-Box)

Service 81% 70% 88% 94%

Reputation 58 56 57 62

Price 56 62 56 44

Local Agent(s) 52 54 49 51

Claims Processing 47 43 49 53


TransportationQ.47 – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier*

1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“

(Those who rated the attribute a “9" or "10," or "critically important")



Transportation

31%

49%

57%

70%

77%

84%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Extra Services

Claims Processing

Price

Employee Feedback

On-time Delivery

Service

Total

Q.48 – Importance of Attributes when EVALUATING a Carrier*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“







Critically Important Attributes when Evaluating a Carrier (Top 3-Box)

Service 84% 76% 89% 93%

On-time Delivery 77 74 79 79

Employee Feedback 70 67 71 74

Price 57 65 61 41

Claims Processing 49 44 43 63

Extra Services 31 27 30 38


TransportationQ.48 – Importance of Attributes when EVALUATING a Carrier*

1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“




50% or more

4%30%-40%

8%

20%9%

0%-10%79%

Total

50% or more4%

20%7%

30%-40%9%

0%-10%79%

0%-10%72%

30%-40%10%

20%12%

50% or more6%

20%8%

30%-40%4%

50% or more3%

0%-10%85%




Q.49 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Salesperson/Origin Agent*


Transportation



50% or more15%

30%-40%13%

20%20%

0%-10%52%

Total 50% or more17%

30%-40%12%

20%19%

0%-10%52%

0%-10%57%

30%-40%8%

20%26%

50% or more9%

20%15%

30%-40%21%

50% or more18%

0%-10%47%




Q.49 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Packing/Broken Items*


Transportation



50% or more12%30%-40%

9%

20%15%

0%-10%64%


30%-40%9%

20%15%

0%-10%63%

0%-10%66%

30%-40%8%

20%14%

50% or more11%

20%18%

30%-40%10%

50% or more10%

0%-10%63%




Q.49 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Driver/Timeliness*


Transportation



50% or more10%30%-40%

10%

20%16%

0%-10%64%


30%-40%6%

20%17% 0%-10%

66%

0%-10%69%

30%-40%10%

20%10%

50% or more11%

0%-10%56%

50% or more8%

30%-40%15%

20%21%




Q.49 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Destination Agent/Unpacking*


Transportation



50% or more13%30%-40%

9%

20%16%

0%-10%62%


30%-40%5%

20%19% 0%-10%

65%

0%-10%67%

30%-40%10%

20%13%

50% or more11%

20%17%

30%-40%14%

50% or more17%

0%-10%53%




Q.49 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Claims Processing*


Transportation



Transportation

11% 9% 11%

78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Electronic Transfer ofFunds to Your Carrier

On-Line RegistrationAccess with Your

Carrier

On-Line Access withYour Carrier for

ShipmentRecords/History

None of the Above

Q.50 – Which of the following does your company use?

Total



Q.50 – Which of the following does your company use?


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Elder Care Assistance

No Electronic Transfer of Funds to Your Carrier for Relocation Costs

11% 5% 12% 20%

On-line Registration Access with Your Carrier 9 8 1 19

On-line Access with Your Carrier for Shipment Records/History 11 9 8 18

None of the Above 78 88 79 58

Transportation




Q.51 – Companies that Transfer Employees Between Countries

International

47%

28%

44%

82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




International

4%

4%

13%

20%

38%

40%

49%

49%

53%

56%

71%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

More Leniency on Whom Insurance Covers

More Communications Equipment (Phones/Laptop)

Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel

Higher Rental Housing Allowance

Higher Moving Allowances

Additional Leave Time

Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage

Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools

Additional Leave Time (Includes at Least 1 Visit Back to U.S./Canada)

Additional Tax Considerations

No Difference Between Int'l/Domestic Policies

Q.52 – Comparing your international relocation policy with your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…

Total



International



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

International Relocation Policy Offers Different from Domestic

No difference between international and domestic relocation policies

19% 38% 27% 4%

Additional Tax Considerations 71 53 65 84 Additional Leave Time (Includes At Least 1 Visit Back to U.S./Canada)

56 45 41 71

Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools 53 28 51 68 Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage 49 25 46 65 Additional Leave Time 49 33 35 65 Higher Moving Allowances 40 28 24 55 Higher Rental Housing Allowance 38 20 27 54 Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel 20 15 16 25 More Communications Equipment (Phones/Laptops) 13 8 8 19

More Leniency on Whom Insurance Covers (i.e. Unmarried Partners, Parents, Day-Care Providers)

4 3 3 6

Other 4 3 5 4

Q.52 – Comparing your international relocation policy with your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…



International

44%

59%

61%

63%

89%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Third Party

Price

Reputation

Scheduling

Service

Total

Q.53 – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier for International Relocations*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“







Important Attributes when Selecting an Int’l Carrier (Top 3-Box)

Service 89% 76% 91% 95%

Scheduling 63 46 69 70

Reputation 61 49 63 68

Price 59 59 60 58

Third Party 44 37 48 46


InternationalQ.53 – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier for International

Relocations*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“




Frequently26%

Always8%

Never56%

Seldom11%

InternationalQ.54 – Does company use EDI on international shipments?*

(EDI = Electronic Data Interchange)




Q.55 – Method of Employment Assistance for Internationally Relocated Employee’s Spouse or Partner

International

0%

10%

16%

16%

73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pay Spouse's PartialSalary Till Hired

Find Employment WithinCompany

Find Employment OutsideCompany

Pay Job-Finder's Fee

No Assistance

Total





Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Spousal Employment Assistance – International

No Assistance 73% 81% 76% 66%


Find Employment Outside Company 16 17 13 17


Pay Spouse’s Partial Salary Until Hired 0 0 0 0

InternationalQ.55 – Method of Employment Assistance for Internationally Relocated

Employee’s Spouse or Partner





2%

24%

3%

3%

6%

9%

10%

14%

22%

32%

39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Don't Know

Illness

Pet Quarantine

Terrorism

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance

Lack of Adaptability by Employee

Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner

Personal Reason

Family Issues/Ties

No International Relocations Declined or Failed

Q.56 – In 2002, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International Relocation or for a Relocation to Fail

Total

International




Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Int’l Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 39% 73% 45% 16%

Family Issues/Ties 32 17 24 45

Personal Reason 22 7 13 35

Lack of Adaptability by Spouse/Partner 14 7 0 26

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 10 2 0 19

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 9 5 5 13

Terrorism 6 5 5 7

Pet Quarantine 3 0 3 4

Illness 3 0 0 6

Don’t Know 24 7 26 32

Other 2 0 3 3

InternationalQ.56 – In 2002, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International

Relocation or for a Relocation to Fail




Respondent Profile

Male43%

Female57%

Total

Female44%

Male56%

Male38%

Female62%

Male26%

Female74%




Q.57 – Respondent Gender



Respondent Profile

Traffic/Transportation

1%

Compensation & Benefits

4%

Administration3%

Relocation Services

10%

Other4%

Human Resources/Personnel

78%

Total

Other4%Admin.

2%

Comp. & Benefits

7%

HR/ Personnel

80%

Relo-cation

Services7%

Other5%

Traffic/Trans4%Comp. &

Benefits8%

Admin. 2%

Relocation Services

29%

HR/Personnel

52%




Q.58 – Departmental Function

Other5%

HR/ Personnel

90%

Comp. & Benefits

1%Admin.4%



4%

1%

0%

0%

2%

10%

2%

3%

26%

30%

2%

17%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

HR Assistant

Assistant

Recruiter

Coordinator

Relocation Administrator

Supervisor

Department Head

Manager

Director

Assistant Vice President

Vice President

President

Total

Respondent ProfileQ.59 – Respondent’s Position




Respondent’s Position

President 2% 5% 0% 0%

Vice President 17 24 15 8

Assistant Vice President 2 1 2 1

Director 30 40 26 17

Manager 26 20 19 45

Department Head 3 4 2 1

Supervisor 2 0 2 5 Relocation Administrator 10 1 21 14

Coordinator 2 1 5 2

Recruiter 0 1 0 0

Assistant 0 0 0 0

HR Assistant 1 1 2 0 Other 4 3 6 6


Respondent ProfileQ.59 – Respondent’s Position



4%5%

0%4%

6%14%14%

17%20%

23%28%

32%

58%65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

None

Others

Human Resource Professional (Canadian)

HR Wire

National Relocation & Real Estate

Runzheimer Reports On Relocation

Corporate Relocation News

Workforce

HR Focus

Benefits & Compensation Solutions

HR News

Mobility

Human Resource Executive

HR Magazine

Total

Respondent ProfileQ.60 – Which Trade Publications Respondent’s Regularly Read




Trade Publications Respondent’s Read

HR Magazine 65% 75% 67% 43%

Human Resource Executive 58 79 54 27

Mobility 32 2 38 76

HR News 28 37 27 14

Benefits & Compensation Solutions 23 32 19 11

HR Focus 20 27 21 6

Workforce 17 24 16 7 Corporate Relocation News 14 3 16 31

Runzheimer Reports On Relocation 14 6 13 30

National Relocation & Real Estate 6 0 7 17

HR Wire 4 7 1 1

Human Resource Professional (Canadian) 0 1 0 0 Others 5 6 6 4 None 4 2 6 4


Respondent ProfileQ.60 – Which Trade Publications Respondent’s Regularly Read



Total

Respondent ProfileQ.61 – Respondent Membership in Relocation-Related Associations

3%

0%

1%

17%

31%

36%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

SHRM

ERC (U.S.)

Regional or Local RelocationCouncil

CERC (Canada)

Industrial Traffic League

Other(s)





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Relocation-Related Associations – Respondent Membership

None 40% 57% 35% 17%

SHRM 36 39 41 25

ERC (U.S.) 31 1 37 75

Regional or Local Relocation Council 17 4 14 41

CERC (Canada) 1 0 0 4

Industrial Traffic League 0 0 0 0

Other(s) 3 3 4 4

Respondent ProfileQ.61 – Respondent Membership in Relocation-Related Associations

Integrity | quality | solutions Copyright © 2003 Atlas World Group, Inc. 1212 St. George Road,...

Documents

Transcript of Integrity | quality | solutions Copyright © 2003 Atlas World Group, Inc. 1212 St. George Road,...