39 th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey

integrity | quality | solutions

Copyright © 2006 Atlas World Group, Inc.1212 St. George Road, Evansville, IN 47711-2364800-252-8885 U.S. DOT No. 125550

39th Annual Corporate Relocation

Survey

Management Summary and Results Charts

April, 2006



Table of Contents

Section Slide Number

Foreword…………………………………………………………………………………….3Situation Analysis 3

Methodology 3

Management Summary…………………………………………………………………… 4-23

Corporate Profile 4

Factors Impacting Transfers 8

Policy Administration 10

Relocation Costs 13

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues 15

Transportation 18

International 19

Respondent Profile 23

Survey Graphs……………………………………………………………………………… 24-132

Corporate Profile 24

Factors Impacting Transfers 44

Policy Administration 48

Relocation Costs 62

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues 75

Transportation 91

International 105

Respondent Profile 121

2



Foreword

Situational Analysis

Atlas World Group conducts corporate relocation issues research on an annual basis. This is the fourth 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. In order to qualify for the survey, a respondent must: 1) have relocation responsibility and 2) work for a company that has either relocated employees within the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year.

For the 39th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey, Atlas World Group utilized OpinionWare, a software tool developed by SilkRoad Technology for building and conducting survey research on the Internet.

Methodology

For the year 2006, 421 surveys were completed by qualifying participants online from January 25 through February 28. Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/- 1%) due to rounding. Other questions totaling above 100% are due to multiple responses.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) Total % of

Sample

Less than 500 employees – Small 210 50%

500-4999 employees – Mid-size 122 29

5000 or more employees - Large 89 21

Total 421 100

3



Management Summary

Corporate Profile

Fifty percent of the companies involved in this study employ less than 500 salaried workers, and the other half employ 500-4,999 salaried employees or 5,000 or more salaried employees (29% and 21% of respondents, respectively).

Service and Manufacturing/Processing companies were the most highly represented business classifications in this study (43% and 41%, respectively).

Roughly half of participating companies are international (49%). Large companies (5,000+ salaried workers) surveyed are more likely to be international: nearly twice as many large companies (73%) are international than small companies (35%). The percentage of mid-size firms indicating they are international increased slightly from last year, moving up from 48% to 55%.

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 Service 43% Manufacturing/Processing 41 Financial 8 Government/Military 2 Other 6

4



Management SummaryCorporate Profile (cont.)

Over one-fourth (28%) of firms responding anticipate an increase in the number of relocations in 2006, which, though down slightly, is similar to the 33% who expected increases in 2004 & 2005. Also, 31% of respondents expect relocation budgets to increase in 2006, which is similar to the percentages (32% & 29%, respectively) who thought so in 2004 & 2005. Company size continues to be playing a role in projections for 2006 as in prior years, with 38% of large firms indicating they expect relocation volume to increase in 2006, while just roughly a fourth of mid-size and small firms indicate they expect increases.

Similar to findings in 2004 and 2005, around half of firms, regardless of size, expect relocation volumes and budgets to stay the same in 2006. Only 20% expect a decrease in relocation volume, similar to last year (16%). Correspondingly, only 17% expect relocation budgets to be lower this year than last, similar to the 14% of firms who last year expected decreases.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2006 Expectations: Number of Relocations Compared to 2005

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 28% 25% 26% 38%

Stay About the Same 52 51 52 54

Decrease 20 24 22 8

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2006 Expectations: Relocation Budgets

Compared to 2005 Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 31% 27% 30% 44%


Decrease 17 21 17 7

5




Forty-three percent of the companies surveyed indicated approximately the same number of employee relocations in 2005 as they did in the previous year. Forty-four percent indicated they saw increases over 2004 volume, while 13% indicated relocations decreased from 2004 levels. Like last year, company size appears to have been a factor in 2005 relocation volume. Roughly forty percent of mid-size and small firms reported increases in relocation volumes, and another half indicated volumes held steady. The majority (53%) of large firms indicated 2005 volume increased over 2004, while only a third stated volumes remained the same.

Companies surveyed reported a median range of 10-19 employee relocations in 2005 (small companies reported a median range of 1-9, mid-sized companies 20-49, and large companies 200-399).

Around fifty percent of the mid-size and large companies surveyed had more money for relocations in 2005 as they did in the previous year. For small companies, over a third (37%) indicated that budgets had increased, with just 9% of all companies responding indicated their budgets decreased.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees)

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more Number of Employees Relocated in 2005 Median Range 10-19 1-9 20-49 200-399


2005 Number of Relocations Compared to 2004

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 44% 42% 41% 53%


Decrease 13 12 12 15

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

2005 Relocation Budgets Compared to 2004

Increase 44% 37% 46% 58%


Decrease 9 11 6 8

6




Roughly three-fourths of the companies surveyed indicated that their overall financial performance in 2005 was better than 2004. The majority of firms stated this was the case, regardless of companies size, although large firms were more likely than small or mid-size firms to express this sentiment (70% of small and 72% of mid-size companies vs. 85% of large firms). Responding firms also anticipate positive financial performances in 2006 as the majority of all size firms indicate they expect 2006 to be better than 2005 (76% of small, 69% of mid-size, and 84% of large firms).

About half of all firms, regardless of size, indicated they thought the U.S. economy in 2005 was better than the previous year and anticipate the U.S. economy in 2006 will be better than in 2005.

Seventy-five percent of the companies surveyed have a formal relocation policy. Companies with 500 or more employees are more likely to have a formal relocation policy than are smaller companies (98% of large and 88% mid-size companies vs. 58% small companies).

7

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2006 Expectations: Company’s Overall

Financial Performance Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Better than 2005 76% 76% 69% 84%

Same as in 2005 20 19 27 15

Worse than 2005 4 6 4 1


2006 Expectations: U.S. Economy Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Better than 2005 53% 55% 49% 53%

Same as in 2005 36 34 38 39

Worse than in 2005 11 11 13 8



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 24% 26% 26% 18%

Lack of Qualified People Locally 58 59 61 51

Economic Conditions 28 19 33 42

Growth of Competition (Domestic or International) 23 16 26 35

Natural Disasters – Domestic 8 3 8 21

8

Factors Impacting Transfers

Over three-fourths of respondents indicated at least one external factor had a significant impact on the number of employee transfers in 2005. Overall, the “lack of qualified people locally” (58%) was the top reason indicated, followed by “economic conditions” (28%).

The impact of “lack of qualified people locally” continued to rise in importance from 48% in 2004 and 37% in 2003. Additionally, for the first time in the past four years, “lack of qualified people locally” was the top issue for large firms (51%), surpassing “economic conditions” (42%).

In 2005, over a third (35%) of large firms indicate one form of competition (domestic or international) had a significant impact on relocation volume, similar to 2004 (36%), which is significantly above the twenty percent who indicated as such for 2003.

For large companies, domestic natural disasters also appeared to play a greater role in 2005 relocation, with 21% of these companies indicating these events had a significant impact.



Management Summary

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

Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 6% 9% 5% 2%

Growth of Company 57 48 64 69

Promotions/Resignations 43 32 51 57

Knowledge/Skills Transfers 29 19 36 44

Corporate Reorganization 28 18 30 49

Expansion into New Territories 24 16 28 38

Expansion of Facility 19 12 22 33

Increased Production 18 19 14 21

Acquisitions/Mergers 17 6 25 31

International Expansion 14 6 18 28

Closing of Facility 14 5 20 27

Budget Constraints 10 8 6 18

9

Factors Impacting Transfers (cont.)

Similar to last year, roughly half or more of firms, regardless of company size, indicated “growth of the company” as the top internal factor relocation in 2005. Additionally, the percentage of large firms indicating this factor was significantly above 2004 (69% vs. 52%). While “promotions/resignations,” “knowledge/skills transfers” and “ corporate reorganization” are the second-, third-, and fourth-place internal factors, the percentage of firms indicating “budget constraints” dropped regardless of company size for the second straight year.

For mid-size and large companies, there was an increase over 2004 in the percentage citing “promotions/ resignations” as a factor in relocation volume in 2005 (51% vs. 42% and 57% vs. 45%, respectively). There was also an increase in the percentage of large companies citing “expansion into new territories” and “expansion of facility” as impacting 2005 relocation volume compared to 2004 (38% vs. 27% and 33% vs. 26%, respectively).



Management Summary

Policy Administration

Seventy-four percent of the firms surveyed indicate the company is actively involved in selecting the household goods carrier for an employee’s relocation, whether as the sole selector or in conjunction with the employee. This percentage is similar across company size, although mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms to be the sole selector (52% and 61% vs. 28%, respectively).

Mid-size and large firms are more likely to than small firms to delegate carrier selection to a relocation firm (20% and 25% vs. 4%, respectively).

Of the companies involved in carrier selection, the department responsible for selection varies by companies size.

Human Resources at small or mid-size firms is more likely to be responsible for carrier selection than at large firms (89% and 73% vs. 36%). The majority of large firms (67%) indicate that the Relocation department has this responsibility. Mid-size & large companies are also more likely than small firms to have more than one department involved in selecting the carrier (20% and 23% vs. 8%, respectively).

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

Who Selects Carrier for Employee Moves The Company 42% 28% 52% 61%

The Company & Employee Together 32 45 23 11 The Employee 12 21 3 1 A Relocation Firm 13 4 20 25 Other 2 1 2 2

10



Management Summary

Policy Administration (cont.)

Over 5 out of 6 (85%) of the large companies surveyed have a centralized department that handles relocation, similar to 89% of mid-sized companies and 84% of the small companies. Most of the companies’ centralized relocation departments are responsible for developing relocation policy, controlling household goods carrier selection, managing domestic relocation programs, and controlling additional relocation services provider(s) selection.

Companies vary on the amount of time they allow employees to decide on whether to accept a relocation offer. One-fifth (20%) of the companies surveyed allow one week or less to accept or decline an offer, 42% of the companies surveyed allow up to two weeks, and 20% allow up to one month to decide.

The majority (79%) of companies surveyed allow the hiring of spouses of current employees. Small and mid-size companies, however, are somewhat less likely to hire spouses than large companies (74% and 79% vs. 91%, respectively).


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Centralized Relocation Department’s Duties

Develop Relocation Policy 87% 83% 87% 96%

Control Household Goods Carrier Selection 67 63 67 79

Manage Domestic Relocation Programs 60 45 67 84

Control Additional Relocation Services

Provider(s) Selection 58 48 61 75

11



Management Summary

Policy Administration (cont.)

Fifty-five percent of all companies outsourced relocation services in 2005, down from 63% in 2004 and 66% in 2003. Only thirty percent of small companies outsourced, while 74% of mid-size companies and 88% of large companies outsourced relocation services.

The services that are outsourced by close to a third or more of companies responding are:- Real estate sales/marketing (36%)- Real estate purchase (33%)

- Contract of household goods moving company (30%)

Seventy-seven percent of decision makers say that the Internet was used for relocation-related matters in 2005. The top use was to communicate via e-mail with relocating employees (67%) followed by researching relocation-related matters (46%). Sixty percent or more of large companies also indicated they used the Internet to access their relocation company website for reporting/other services and for completing online forms for transferees (63% and 60%, respectively).

Employees are allowed on average 4.5 expense-paid house-hunting days. Spouses of relocating employees are allowed an average of 1.5 expense-paid house-hunting trips.

12



Management SummaryRelocation Costs

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

The percentage of firms offering full reimbursement of relocation expenses to transferees and new hires decreased significantly from last year (58% vs. 69% and 43% vs. 56%, respectively). Corresponding to these changes, increases are also seen in the percentage of firms offering lump sum payments or partial reimbursement for relocation costs. The majority of firms responding still offer full reimbursement as an option for transferees, however, this is no longer true for new hires.

Most firms report that carrier transportation expenses are “paid directly by the company” regardless of company size. However, the percentage of small firms paying these expenses directly decreased significantly from last year (59% vs. 71%).

Total Total Methods of Reimbursement TRANSFEREES NEW HIRES

2006 2005 2006 2005

Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 58% 69% 43% 56%

Lump sum payment 32 25 32 28

Partial reimbursement based on salary, position, tenure, etc. 33 22 47 35

No reimbursement of relocation expenses 6 7 9 9

Total Total Method of Expense Payment TRANSFEREES NEW HIRES

Paid directly by the company 75% 73%

Paid by the employee and then reimbursed 19 20

Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 6 7

13



Management SummaryRelocation Costs (cont.)

The majority of all companies have different tiers, or levels, in their relocation policies, although mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms to have these in place (85% and 93% vs. 67%, respectively). Most tier/level policies appear to be based on position/job title or general job level (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) and on two or more factors overall. Mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms to use new hire/current employee or homeowner/renter status as qualifiers for their policies.

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

- 71% to pack all items- 68% to move an automobile- 49% to more exercise equipment

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

- 57% reimburse/pay for lease cancellation- 55% offer home finding trips- 47% offer to move one or more automobiles

14


Basis for Different Tiers (or Levels) in Relocation Policy

Position/Job Title 66% 76% 63% 51%

Job Level (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) 61 59 60 67

New Hire/Current Employee Status 39 29 46 46

Homeowner/Renter Status 35 20 37 59




Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance Provide Networking Assistance 60% 75% 39% 53%

Provide Resume Preparation Assistance 52 47 41 68

Pay for Outplacement/Career Services from a Third Party 29 10 37 53

Provide Interviewing Skills Training 28 21 20 47

Find Employment Outside Company 25 33 20 17

Find Employment Within Company 20 23 15 21

Pay Job-Finder’s Fee 10 7 10 15

Pay Spouse’s Full or Partial Salary Until Hired 4 3 5 6

Other 7 7 7 6

Management SummaryEmployee, Spousal & Assistance Issues

The following is the makeup of those employees transferred in 2005.

-Thirty-four percent of companies surveyed indicated that the age range of their most frequently transferred employee was 36 to 40 years of age, and over seventy percent (71%) of the companies surveyed indicated some percentage of the employees they relocated were women.

- Nearly 9 out of 10 (85%) of companies indicated some percentage of their relocations involved a trailing spouse who was a wife or female partner, almost two-thirds (65%) of the companies indicated that some percentage of relocations had accompanying husbands/male partners.

Thirty-eight percent of companies surveyed assist an employee’s spouse/partner in finding employment in the new location. Large companies have historically been somewhat more likely to offer spousal assistance, and this year the gap remained close last year’s results: 53% of large companies indicate they provide this assistance versus 35% of small companies.

Overall, the top method of spousal/partner assistance was to “provide networking assistance” (60%), followed by “provide resume preparation assistance.” However, large firms are more likely to “pay for outplacement/career services from a third party” than small or mid-size firms.

15



Management SummaryEmployee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Eighteen percent of companies surveyed provide some type of elder care assistance to the transferee. However, 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. Responses indicate:

- 8% Provide a list of nursing homes and/or day-care centers- 6% Allow the transferee to use pre-tax dollars for outside care - 5% Relocate the elderly relative who will live with the transferee in the new location- 3% Relocate the elderly relative who does not live with the transferee

Only 13% of respondents believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is never affected by his/her spouse’s employment status, while 44% indicate this is seldom the case. However, 43% believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is "almost always” or "frequently" affected by the employment status of an employee’s spouse, still significantly above over 2001 & 2000 and similar to the last three years (44% in 2004, 42% in 2003 vs. 42% in 2002 vs. 17% in 2001 and 25% in 2000).

Almost always

8%

Frequently34%Seldom

44%

Never13%

Q.36 – Frequency of Employee’s Relocation Being Affected by the Employee Status of His/Her Spouse

16



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Most (65%) respondents said that declining the opportunity to relocate does not hinder an employee’s career. Over half (52%) indicated they had employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2005; however, only 33% of respondents from small companies indicated this was the case, while 62% of mid-size and 92% of large companies said they had employees decline relocation.

Eighty-four percent of respondents said that the number of employees who declined relocation offers did not change between 2004 and 2005. Eight percent said that the number of employees declining relocation offers in 2005 decreased and the same percentage said it increased.

Reasons employees gave for declining relocation in 2005 were:

- Family issues/ties (81%) - Cost of living in the new location (54%)- Spouse’s employment (53%)- No desire to relocate (48%)- Personal (non-disclosed) (35%)- Housing/mortgage concerns (32%)- Could hurt career (2%)- Other (1%)

17



Management SummaryTransportation

Overall, 59% of companies have contracts with household goods carriers: 39% of small companies, 74% of mid-size companies, and 88% of large companies.

Of those companies surveyed who indicated they had standing contracts with household goods carriers, the average was 1.9 standing contracts with household goods carriers (similar to last year’s 2.1).

Over two-thirds (69%) of companies surveyed with carriers under contract specify which carriers are preferred. In 2005, the percentages of companies indicating preferred carriers differed slightly by company size (74% of small and 71% of mid-size companies vs. 62% of large companies).

The most important attributes when selecting a carrier indicated by companies surveyed were*:- Service (85%)

- Reputation (60%)- Price (57%) - Claims Processing (47%)- Local Agent(s) (46%)- Technology (28%)

The most important attributes when evaluating a carrier indicated by companies surveyed were*:- Service (88%)- On-time delivery (78%)

- Employee feedback (71%) - Price (60%)- Claims processing (49%)- Extra services (30%)- Online customer tools (22%)

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

18



Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2006 Expectations: Number of Temp

Intl Relocations Compared to 2005 Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 22% 16% 14% 34%


Decrease 11 11 10 11

Management SummaryInternational

Forty-three percent of companies surveyed relocate employees internationally: 27% of small companies, 48% of mid-size companies, and 73% of large companies.

Thirty-nine percent of these companies indicated their international relocation volume increased in 2005, and just under a third (30%) indicate they expect increases in international relocation volume in 2006. Large firms are more likely to expect increases in international relocations in 2006 than small and mid-size firms (43% vs. 19% and 26%, respectively). However, over half of companies, regardless of size, indicate they expect 2005 relocation volume to remain unchanged from 2005.

Responding firms indicate that only 17% of 2005 international relocations were temporary (less than 12 months). Over half of firms, regardless of size, indicate the most typical assignment length is greater than 12 months, but less than three years. However, 22% expect the number of temporary assignments to increase, driven mostly by large and mid-size companies’ expectations. The majority of all firms, regardless of company size, expect unchanged volume in temporary international assignments in 2006.

19

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2006 Expectations: Number of Intl

Relocations Compared to 2005 Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 30% 19% 26% 43%


Decrease 13 21 14 5



Management Summary

International (cont.)

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

- Additional tax considerations (73%)- Additional leave time (includes at least one visit to US or CAN) (61%) - Allowances for children to attend certain schools (55%)- Intercultural and language training (49%)- Additional leave time (49%)- Increased allowances for permanent storage (43%) - Higher relocation allowances (38%) - Higher rental housing allowance (32%) - Extended per diem charges for hotel (19%)- More leniency on insurance coverage (10%)- More communication equipment (phones/laptops) (9%)- Other (4%).

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

- Service (89%) - Scheduling (67%) - Price (65%) - Reputation (62%) - Third Party (39%) - Technology (36%)

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

20



Management SummaryInternational (cont.)

Sixty-two percent of companies who relocate employees internationally indicate they outsourced an international relocation service in 2005 (up slightly from 58% in 2004, still down from 70% in 2003). Of those companies who outsource relocation services domestically, 79% indicate they do so internationally (up from 70% in 2004, close to the 82% in 2003).

Differences in outsourcing domestically carried over to the international side by company size, as small companies (23%) are much less likely to outsource international relocation services than medium (75%) and large (83%) firms, with medium and large companies report outsourcing a greater variety of their international relocation services than small companies.


International Services Outsourced in 2005 Did not use a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm for international relocation services in 2005

38% 77% 25% 17%

Securing Rental Property at International Location 39 7 47 60

Destination Services/Orientation Tours at New Location 29 5 28 51

Counseling – Planning & Details of Intl Relocation 26 11 31 35

Management of International Relocation Program 24 11 26 35

International Real Estate Sales/Purchase 24 9 29 34

Contract of Household Goods Carrier – Intl Shipping 23 11 29 28

Arrangement of Family’s Intl Trans. & Temp. Accommodations 21 5 26 30

Counseling – Company Policy Concerning Intl Relocation 19 7 22 26

Intercultural and Language Training 18 4 16 34

Monitoring of International Shipment 14 5 17 20

Candidate Assessment 3 - - 8

Other 4 - 7 5

21



Management Summary

International (cont.)

Roughly half (49%) of companies do not use electronic data interchange (EDI) interface capabilities on international shipments.

Two-thirds of companies (67%) offer no assistance to internationally transferred employees’ spouses/partners in finding employment in the new location.

Overall, 37% of companies that move employees internationally reported no international relocations were declined or failed in 2005 (67% of small companies, 41% of mid-size companies, and 8% of large companies). However, 22% of companies responded they did not know why an international relocation was declined or failed in 2005, with mid-size to large companies (24% and 34%, respectively) indicating they were unaware more often than small companies (5%).


Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Int’l Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 37% 67% 41% 8%

Family Issues/Ties 33 18 33 46

Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 18 7 14 31

Lack of Adaptability by Spouse/Partner 14 7 12 23

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 12 5 14 15

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 7 2 5 12

Terrorism 6 5 2 9

Illness 4 2 3 8

Pet Quarantine 2 2 2 3

Don’t Know 22 5 24 34

Other 3 5 - 3

22



Management Summary

Respondent Profile

Most respondents (75%) work in Human Resources/Personnel departments. There were a variety of different positions held among those who completed this survey – from managers (29%), directors (28%), vice-presidents (13%), and relocation administrators (9%), as well as a myriad of other positions, including a few presidents, department heads, supervisors, coordinators, and others.

A overwhelming majority of the respondents regularly read trade publications (95%). The most popular publications were*:

- HR Magazine (67%)- Human Resource Executive (57%)- Workforce (26%)- Employee Benefits News (25%)- Mobility (22%).

Fifty-four 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 54%

Large companies 83

Mid-size companies 58

Small companies 40

23



Corporate Profile

Mftg / Processing

41%

Service43%

Other6%

Govt / Military

2%

Financial8%

Total

Other8%

Financial9%

Service39%

Mftg/ Proc.40%

Govt/ Military

4%

Financial11%

Other7%

Govt/ Military

1%

Mftg/Proc.40%

Service40%

Less than 500 Salaried Employees

500 – 4999 Salaried Employees

5000+ Salaried Employees

Q.1 – Business Classifications of Companies Participating

Govt/ Military

2%

Mftg/ Proc.42%

Service46%

Financial6%

Other4%

24



Corporate Profile

National31%

Regional 20%

International49%

Total

Regional30%

National35%

Intl35%

Regional15%

Intl55%National

30%Regional3%

National24%

Intl73%




Q.2 – Is your company…

25



Corporate Profile

over $1 billion30%

$500 million - $1 billion

12%

$100-$499 million21%

$26-$99 million20%

Less than $25 million

17%

Total

Less than $25

million6%

$26-$99 million

9%

over $1 billion43%


21%

$100-$499 million

21%

over $1 billion83%

$500 million - $1

billion11%

$100-$499 million

1%Less than

$25 million3%

$26-$99 million

1%




Q.3 – Participating Companies Annual Sales for 2005


7%Less

than $25 million30%

$100-$499

million30%

$26-$99 million34%

26



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

Employed by Company

50%

29%21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Less than 500Salaried Employees

500 - 4999 SalariedEmployees

5000+ SalariedEmployees

27



Corporate Profile

Better than 200474%

Same as in 200413%

Worse than 200413%

Total

Same as in 2004

16%

Worse than 2004

14%

Better than 2004

70%

Same as in 2004

14%

Worse than 200414%

Better than 200472%




Q.5 – In 2005, was your company’s overall financial performance…

28

Same as in 2004

7%

Worse than 20048%

Better than 200485%



Corporate Profile

Better than 200576%

Same as in 200520%

Worse than 20054%

Total

Same as in 2005

19%

Worse than 2005

6%

Better than 2005

76%

Better than 200569%

Worse than 20054%

Same as in 2005

27%

Better than 2005

84%

Same as in 2005

15%

Worse than 2005

1%




Q.6 – Compared to 2005, do you anticipate your company’s overall financial performance in 2006 will be…

29



Corporate Profile

Better than 200449%

Same as in 200434%

Worse than 200417%

Total

Same as in 2004

35%

Worse than 2004

18% Better than 2004

47%

Better than 2004

49%

Worse than 2004

17%

Same as in 2004

34%

Better than 2004

53%

Same as in 2004

33%

Worse than 2004

15%




Q.7 – In 2005, from your company’s perspective, was the U.S. economy…

30



Corporate Profile

Better than 200553%

Same as in 200536%

Worse than 200511%

Total

Same as in 2005

34%

Worse than 2005

11%

Better than 2005

55%

Better than 2005

49%

Worse than 2005

13%

Same as in 2005

38%

Better than 2005

53%

Same as in 2005

39%

Worse than 2005

8%




Q.8 – Compared to 2005, do you anticipate the U.S. economy in 2006 will be…

31



Corporate ProfileQ.9 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2005


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Number of Employees Relocated in 2005

None 5% 9% 1% -%

1-9 44 73 25 2

10-19 10 12 12 3

20-49 10 4 23 6

50-99 7 1 15 11

100-199 7 - 15 15

200-399 6 - 2 26

400 or more 10 - 6 36

Don’t know 1 - 2 1

Median 10-19 1-9 20-49 200-399

By Company Size (Salaried Employees)

32



Corporate Profile

1-946%

10-4921%

50 or more29%

Don't know1% None

4%

Total

1-929%

10-4935%

50 or more34%

None3%

50 or more81%

10-4915%

1-91%

Don't know2%

None1%




Q.9a – Number of Employees Relocated in 2005 Within the U.S.

Don't know1%

50 or more2%

None6%

10-4915%

1-977%

33



Corporate Profile

None70%

Don't know4%10-49

4%

1-922%

Total

10-492%

Don't know2%

1-927%

None70%50 or more

1%

10-4915%

1-939%

Don't know13%

None33%




Q.9b – Number of Employees Relocated in 2005 Between the U.S. and Canada

10-491%

Don't know1%

1-911%

None87%

34



Corporate Profile

10-492%

Don't know5%

1-913%

None80%

Total

10-491%

Don't know3%

1-920%

None76%

None51%

1-925%

10-498%

Don't know15%

50 or more1%




Q.9c – Number of Employees Relocated in 2005 Between the U.S. and Mexico

Don't know2%

1-93%

None95%

35



Corporate Profile

50 or more, 5%

Don't know4%

10-499%

1-922% None

60%

Total

10-498%

50 or more2%

Don't know3%

1-932%

None55%

10-4928%

50 or more19%

Don't know8%

None25%

1-919%




Q.9d – Number of Employees Relocated in 2005 Between the U.S. and Another Country

10-491%

Don't know2%

1-918%

None80%

36



Corporate Profile

1-910%

10-492%

50 or more2%

Don't know8%

None77%

Total

50 or more1%

Don't know7%

1-914%

None78%

50 or more9%

10-498%

Don't know25%

1-910%

None48%




Q.9e – Number of Employees Relocated in 2005 Within a Single Foreign Country

10-491%

1-97%

Don't know2%

None91%

37



Corporate Profile

None76%

1-911%

Don't know

7%

50 or more3%

10-494%

Total

None74%

1-917%

Don't know5%

50 or more1%10-49

3%

Don't know23%

50 or more10% 10-49

14%1-9

14%

None40%




Q.9f – Number of Employees Relocated in 2005 Between Two Foreign Countries

1-95%

Don't know2%

None93%

38



Corporate Profile

Increase44%

Stay About the Same

43%

Decrease13%

Total

Stay About the

Same46%

Decrease12%

Increase42%

Increase41%

Decrease12%

Stay About the

Same47%

Increase53%

Stay About the

Same33%

Decrease15%




Q.10 – Compared to 2004, did the number of employees you relocated in 2005…

39



Corporate Profile

Increase44%

Stay About the Same

47%

Decrease9%

Total

Stay About the

Same52%

Decrease11%

Increase37%

Increase46%

Decrease6%

Stay About the

Same48%Decrease

8%

Stay About the

Same34%

Increase58%




Q.11 – Compared to 2004, did your 2005 relocation budget…

40



Corporate Profile

Increase28%

Stay About the Same

52%

Decrease20%

Total

Stay About the

Same51%

Decrease24%

Increase25%

Increase26%

Decrease22%

Stay About the

Same52%

Increase38%

Stay About the

Same54%

Decrease8%




Q.12 – Compared to 2005, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2006 will…

41



Corporate Profile

Increase31%

Stay About the Same

52%

Decrease17%

Total

Stay About the

Same52%

Decrease21%

Increase27%

Increase30%

Decrease17%

Stay About the

Same52%

Increase44%

Stay About the

Same49%

Decrease7%




Q.13 – Compared to 2005, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2006 will…

42



Corporate Profile

75%

58%

88%98%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Less than500 SalariedEmployees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.14 – Companies with a Formal Relocation Policy*

* % of companies answering “Yes”

43




3%

1%

1%

2%

2%

8%

14%

14%

28%58%

24%

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

Other

Terrorism

Natural Disasters - International

Destination Country Regulations

War in Iraq/Afghanistan

Natural Disasters - Domestic

Growth of International Competition

Growth of Domestic Competition

Economic Conditions

Lack of Qualified People Locally

External Conditions Had No Impact

Factors Impacting TransfersQ.15 – External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number

of Employee Relocations in 2005

Total

44





Total

Less than 500

500-4999 5000 or more

External Conditions Having Significant Impact

External Conditions Had No Impact 24% 26% 26% 18%

Lack of Qualified People Locally 58 59 61 51

Economic Conditions 28 19 33 42

Growth of Domestic Competition 14 10 13 22

Growth of International Competition 14 9 17 22

Natural Disasters – Domestic (i.e. hurricanes [Katrina, Rita, etc.],

wildfires, floods, etc.) 8 3 8 21

War in Iraq/Afghanistan 2 3 1 2

Destination Country Regulations 2 1 2 3

Natural Disasters – International (i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) 1 1 2 1

Terrorism 1 1 1 -

Other 3 2 3 3


Q.15 – External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2005

45



4%

1%

5%

10%

14%

14%

17%

18%

19%

24%

28%

29%

43%

57%6%

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

Other

Security Issues

Decreased Production

Budget Constraints

Closing of Facility

International Expansion

Acquisitions/Mergers

Increased Production

Expansion of Facility

Expansion into New Territories

Corporate Reorganization

Knowledge/Skills Transfers

Promotions/Resignations

Growth of Company

Internal Conditions Had No Impact

Factors Impacting TransfersQ.16 – Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of

Employee Relocations in 2005

Total

46




Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 6% 9% 5% 2%

Growth of Company 57 48 64 69

Promotions/Resignations 43 32 51 57

Knowledge/Skills Transfers 29 19 36 44

Corporate Reorganization 28 18 30 49

Expansion into New Territories 24 16 28 38

Expansion of Facility 19 12 22 33

Increased Production 18 19 14 21

Acquisitions/Mergers 17 6 25 31

International Expansion 14 6 18 28

Closing of Facility 14 5 20 27

Budget Constraints 10 8 6 18

Decreased Production 5 2 5 9

Security Issues 1 1 1 1

Other 4 4 2 4


Q.16 – Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2005

47





Other2%

Relocation Firm13%

Employee12%

Company & Employee

32%

Company42%

Total

Other2%

Relocation Firm20%

Company &

Employee23%

Employee3%

Company52%

Other2%

Relocation Firm25%

Employee1%

Company & Employee

11%

Company61%




Q.17 – Who Selects The Household Goods Carrier for Y our Employee’s Relocation?

Company28%

Other1%

Relocation Firm4%

Employee21%

Company &

Employee45%

.

48



7%

5%

8%

23%

73%

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

Other

Transportation

Procurement

Relocation

HumanResources


Total

Q.17a – Which Department(s) at Your Company Select the Household Goods Carrier?*

* those where company is involved in selection (Q17)

49





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Department Selecting HHG Carrier

Human Resources 73% 89% 73% 36%

Relocation 23 1 28 67

Procurement 8 6 10 13

Transportation 5 3 7 6

Other 7 10 2 5


50

* those where company is involved in selection (Q17)

Q.17a – Which Department(s) at Your Company Select the Household Goods Carrier?*




86% 84%89%

85%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

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


51




17%

21%

24%

24%

30%

32%

58%

60%

67%

87%

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

Recommend Site and SpaceSelection for Office Relocations

Handle Air Travel ViaCommercial Airlines

Handle Office Relocations

Control Air Carrier Selection

Manage International RelocationPrograms

Control Freight Carrier Selection

Control Additional RelocationServices Provider(s) Selection

Manage Domestic RelocationPrograms

Control Household GoodsCarrier Selection

Develop Relocation Policy


Total

Q.18a - Does your company’s centralized relocation department… *

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

52





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Centralized Relocation Department’s Duties

Develop Relocation Policy 87% 83% 87% 96%

Control Household Goods Carrier Selection 67 63 67 79

Manage Domestic Relocation Programs 60 45 67 84

Control Additional Relocation Services

Provider(s) Selection 58 48 61 75

Control Freight Carrier Selection 32 30 31 36

Manage International Relocation Programs 30 15 35 59

Control Air Carrier Selection 24 22 25 26

Handle Office Relocations 24 35 12 14

Handle Air Travel Via Commercial Airlines 21 28 18 8

Recommend Site and Space Selection for Office Relocations

17 25 11 5

Q.18a – Centralized Relocation Department Duties by Company Size*

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


53




1 week or less20%

Up to 2 months or

longer10%

Up to 1 month

20%

Up to 3 weeks

8%

Up to 2 weeks

42%

Total

Up to 2 weeks40%

1 week or less23%

Up to 1 month23%

Up to 3 weeks

5%

Up to 2 months

or longer8%

Up to 2 months or

longer3%

Up to 1 month16%Up to 3

weeks10% Up to 2

weeks44%

1 week or less27%




Q.19 – Length of Time Employees Have to Accept a Transfer Offer*

* excludes those who “don’t know”

54

Up to 2 months

or longer13%

Up to 3 weeks

9%

Up to 1 month20%

1 week or less15%

Up to 2 weeks42%




79%74%

79%91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q. 20 – Companies that Allow the Hiring of Spouses of Employees*

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

55





Not Outsourced

45%

Outsourced55%

36%33%

30%

24% 22% 22%17% 17% 15%

8%4% 4% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Real Esta

te S

ales/M

arke

ting

Real Esta

te P

urch

ase

Contra

ct of

Hou

seho

ld G

oods C

arrie

r

Counse

ling

About t

he P

lanning

& Det

ails o

f Relo

catio

n

Orienta

tion T

ours a

t New

Loc

ation

Arrang

emen

t of F

amily's

Trans

porta

tion

& Acc

omm

odat

ions

Mon

itorin

g of S

hipm

ent

Counse

ling

About C

ompa

ny Polic

y

Expens

e Tra

cking

Reimbu

rsem

ent S

ervice

s

Audit a

nd/o

r Pay

men

t of I

nvoic

e

Assist

ance

w/ E

mplo

yee

Claim

s Pre

parat

ion &

Sub

miss

ion

Supple

mentar

y Ser

vices (

appli

ance

s, cle

aning

, etc.

)

Other

Q. 21 – Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services in 2005 – the answers received indicate that…

TotalPercent Outsourced

TotalServices Outsourced

56





Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Services Outsourced

Did not use a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm in 2005 45% 70% 26% 12%

Real Estate Sales/Marketing 36 14 48 72

Real Estate Purchase 33 13 42 69

Contract of Household Goods Carrier 30 16 43 44

Counseling About the Planning & Details of Relocation 24 10 34 42

Orientation Tours at New Location 22 9 33 40

Arrangement of Family’s Transportation & Accommodations 22 8 34 39

Monitoring of Shipment 17 6 29 25

Counseling About Company Policy 17 4 22 38

Expense Tracking/Reimbursement Services 15 5 18 34

Audit and/or Payment of Invoice 8 3 11 17

Assistance with Employee Claims Preparation & Submission 4 2 6 7

Supplementary Services (appliances, cleaning, etc.) 4 - 8 6

Other 3 1 5 4


Q. 21 – Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm in 2005

57




Used Internet

77%

Did not use23%

2%

30%

31%

46%

67%

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

Other

To access relocation company website forreporting or other services

To complete online forms for transfereerelocation

To research relocation-related matters

To communicate via e-mail with relocatingemployees

Q.22 – Respondents were given a list of possible relocation-related uses for the Internet in 2005 – the answers received indicate that…

TotalPercent Used

TotalInternet Uses

58






Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

How the Internet was Used

Did not use the Internet for relocation-related matters in 2005 23% 33% 16% 8%

To communicate via e-mail with relocating employees 67 58 71 82

To research relocation-related matters 46 40 43 63

To complete online forms for transferee relocation 31 15 36 60

To access relocation company website for reporting/other svcs 30 13 35 63

Other 2 - 3 2

Q.22 – How the Internet was Used for Relocation-Related Matters in 2005

59



Q.23 – Average number of expense paid TRIPS for SPOUSE to find housing in new location*

1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



60




4.53.7

4.95.6


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.24 – Average number of expense paid DAYS EMPLOYEES are allowed for house-hunting trips*



61




Relocation CostsQ.25a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of

TRANSFEREES

Total

6%

33%

32%

58%

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

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement

62



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Extent TRANSFEREES are Reimbursed

Full Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 58% 49% 63% 71%

Lump Sum Payment 32 24 37 45

Partial Reimbursement Based on Salary, Position, Tenure, etc. 33 36 38 17

No Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 6 10 4 2

Q.25a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of TRANSFEREES

63



Relocation Costs

Paid directly by company

75%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

19%

Paid by employee

6%

Total

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

31%

Paid by employee

10%


59%

Paid by employee

1%Paid by employee

then reimbursed

2%


97%




Q.25b – How Carrier Transportation Expenses for TRANSFEREES are Paid

64

Paid by employee

then

reimbursed

11%

Paid by

employee

2%

Paid directly by

company

88%



Relocation CostsQ.26a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of

NEW HIRES

Total

9%

47%

32%

43%

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

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement

65



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Extent NEW HIRES are Reimbursed

Full Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 43% 37% 43% 58%

Lump Sum Payment 32 22 42 40

Partial Reimbursement Based on Salary, Position, Tenure, etc. 47 52 49 31

No Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 9 10 7 8

Q.26a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of NEW HIRES

66



Relocation Costs


73%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

20%

Paid by employee

7%

Total

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

32%

Paid by employee

9%


59%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

13%

Paid by employee

5%


82%


96%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

1%

Paid by employee

3%




Q.26b – How Carrier Transportation Expenses for NEW HIRES are Paid

67



Relocation Costs

78%

67%

85%93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q. 27a – Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Relocation Policy?*


68




Relocation CostsQ.27b – What Are Your Different Tiers (or Levels) Based On?*

Total

6%

7%

17%

35%

39%

61%

66%

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

Other

Tenure

Salary

Homeowner/Renter Status

New Hire/Current Employee Status

Job Level (i.e. staff, management,professional, etc.)

Position/Job Title

69

* those who answered “Yes” to Q27a



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Basis for Different Tiers (or Levels) in Relocation Policy

Position/Job Title 66% 76% 63% 51%

Job Level (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) 61 59 60 67

New Hire/Current Employee Status 39 29 46 46

Homeowner/Renter Status 35 20 37 59

Salary 17 22 16 11

Tenure 7 12 5 2

Other 6 4 7 8

Q.27b – What Are Your Different Tiers (or Levels) Based On?*

70




Relocation Costs

Total

4%15%15%

15%27%

27%

32%

35%36%36%38%

49%68%

71%

13%

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

Hire Temporary Maid Service

Move Satellite TV Dishes

Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence

Move a Boat

Move Pets

Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects

Have Permanent/Extended Storage

Move Unlimited Weight

Move Recreation and Lawn Equipment

Carry Items Down from Attic

Move a Second Automobile

Move Exercise Equipment

Move an Automobile

Pack All Items

Company does not pay for any of these items

Q.28 – For a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE, does your company reimburse/pay (to)…

71



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Covered Moving Expenses

Company does not pay for any of these items 13% 20% 7% 2% To Pack All Items 71 59 78 92 To Move an Automobile 68 54 75 90 To Move Exercise Equipment 49 41 54 61 To Move a Second Automobile 38 26 42 61 To Carry Items Down from the Attic 36 27 39 53 To Move Recreation and Lawn Equipment 36 34 35 40 To Move Unlimited Weight 35 23 43 52 To Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some

Possessions

32 30 30 39 To Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects 27 18 31 43 To Move Pets 27 22 30 31 To Move a Boat 15 13 15 22 To Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary

Residence

15 14 17 17 To Move Satellite TV Dishes 15 14 12 21 To Hire Temporary Maid Service 4 4 3 4

Q.28 – For a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE, does your company reimburse/pay…

72



Relocation Costs

24%

30%

32%

34%

41%

47%

55%

57%

17%

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

Reimburse/Pay SecurityDeposits

Reimburse/Pay for Hook-UpFees

Reimburse/Pay ApartmentSearch or Finder's Fees

Apply Temporary LivingAllowance Toward Rent

Offer Storage

Offer to Move One or MoreAutomobiles

Offer Homefinding Trips

Reimburse/Pay for LeaseCancellation

Company does not offer anyof these benefits

Q.29 – When a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE will be renting (not buying), does your company…

Total

73



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 17% 25% 10% 7% Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 57 40 66 85 Offer Homefinding Trips 55 43 60 76 Offer to Move One or More Automobiles 47 30 59 72 Offer Storage 41 35 42 55 Apply Temporary Living Allowance Toward Rent 34 37 34 27 Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder’s Fees 32 17 40 58 Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees 30 28 30 35 Reimburse/Pay Security Deposits 24 24 23 27

Q.29 – When a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE will be renting (not buying), does your company…

74



Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues

7%

21%

34%

29%

7%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Less than 25 years

25-29 years

30-35 years

36-40 years

41-45 years

More than 45 years

Q.30 – Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred Salaried Employee*

Total


75





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred Employee

Less than 25 years 2% 2% -% 2%

25 – 29 years 7 11 1 5

30 – 35 years 29 28 27 36

36 – 40 years 34 26 47 41

41 – 45 years 21 22 22 17

More than 45 years 7 11 3 -

Employee, Spousal & Assistance IssuesQ.30 – Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred

Salaried Employee*


76



Q.31 – In 2005, What Approximate Percentage of Your Company’s Transferred Employees Were Women?*

* excludes those who don’t know


18% 15%19% 21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

77



Q.32 – In 2005, What Approximate Percentage of Relocations Involved a Trailing Spouse that was a Wife or Female Partner?*


49% 45%

54% 54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent


78



Q.33 – In 2005, What Approximate Percentage of Relocations Involved a Trailing Spouse was a Husband or Male Partner?*



12% 10%14% 13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

79



Q.34 – Companies that Assist an Employee’s Spouse or Partner in Finding Employment in the New Location*

38% 35% 34%

53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



80




Q.34a – Methods of Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance*


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance

Provide Networking Assistance 60% 75% 39% 53%







Pay Spouse’s Full or Partial Salary Until Hired 4 3 5 6

Other 7 7 7 6



* those who answered “Yes” to Q34

81



22%29%

15% 17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.34b – Percentage of Relocated Employees with a Spouse/Partner who Used this Employment Assistance*

* those who answered “Yes” to Q34 / excludes those who don’t know



Average Percent

82



Q.35 – Companies that Offer Elder Care Assistance

18%10%

22%30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



83



Q.35 – Elder Care Assistance Offered


Total

Less than 500

500-4999

5000 or more

Elder Care Assistance

No Elder Care Assistance 82% 90% 78% 70%

Provide List of Nursing Homes and/or Day-care Centers 8 3 9 16

Allow Transferee to Use Pre-tax Dollars for Outside Care 6 3 5 13

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

5 3 3 13

Relocate an Elderly Relative that Does Not Live with a Transferee 3 1 2 6

Reimburse for Outside Care 1 1 2 -

Other 3 2 6 2



84



Never13%

Seldom44%

Frequently34%

Almost always

8%

Total Never18%

Frequently32%

Seldom39%

Almost always11%

Never10%

Frequently36%Seldom

47%

Almost always

7%

Never7%

Almost always

2%

Seldom53%

Frequently38%




Q.36 – Frequency of Employee’s Relocation Being Affected by the Employment Status of His/Her Spouse


85



Q.37 – Companies Indicating Declining Relocation Usually Hinders an Employee’s Career*

35% 35%29%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




86



Q.38a – Companies that had Employees Decline the Opportunity to Relocate in 2005*

52%

33%

62%

92%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


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


87



Decrease from 2004

8%

Remain about the same as

200484%

Increase from 2004

8%

Total Increase

from 20049%

Decrease from 2004

8%


200483%

Decrease from 2004

10%

Increase from 2004

7%


200483%

Increase from 2004

8%

Decrease from 2004

3%


200489%




Q.38b – Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2005…


88



1%

2%

32%

35%

48%

53%

54%

81%

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

Other

Could Hurt Career

Housing/Mortgage Concerns

Personal Reasons (non-disclosed)

No Desire to Relocate

Spouse's Employment

Cost of Living in New Location

Family Issues/Ties

Q.38c – Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation*

Total



89



Q.38c– Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation*




Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Reasons for Declining Relocation

Family Issues/Ties 81% 71% 87% 87%

Cost of Living in New Location 54 38 53 72

Spouse’s Employment 53 42 58 61

No Desire to Relocate 48 51 55 40

Personal Reasons (non-disclosed) 35 28 28 48

Housing/Mortgage Concerns 32 23 36 38

Could Hurt Career 2 3 - 2

Other 1 - - 2


90



59%

39%

74%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.39 – Companies with Contractual Agreements with Carriers for the Transportation of Household Goods*

Transportation

* % of companies indicating contracts with one or more carriers

91




Transportation

1.9 1.61.9

2.2


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.39 – Of Companies with Contracts: Average Number of Household Goods Transportation Carriers on Contract*

* of those companies indicating contracts with one or more carriers

92




Q.40 – Companies that Specify Preferred Carriers of Those Under Contract*

Transportation

69%74% 71%

62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

* % of companies answering “Yes” / of those indicating contracts with one or more carriers

93




Transportation

28%

46%

47%

57%

60%

85%

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

Technology

Local Agent(s)

Claims Processing

Price

Reputation

Service

Total(Those who rated the attribute a “9" or "10" (critically important) on the 10-point scale.)

Q.41 – 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”

94




Company Size (Salaried Employees) Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more Critically Important Attributes when Selecting a Carrier (Top 3-Box)

Service 85% 82% 86% 90%

Reputation 60 61 57 60

Price 57 66 53 41

Claims Processing 47 44 48 54

Local Agent(s) 46 44 45 51

Technology 28 25 27 33


TransportationQ.41 – 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" (critically important) on the 10-point scale.)

95



Transportation

22%

30%

49%

60%

71%

78%

88%

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

Online Customer Tools

Extra Services

Claims Processing

Price

Employee Feedback

On-time Delivery

Service

Total

Q.42 – Importance of Attributes when EVALUATING a Carrier*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“



96




Company Size (Salaried Employees) Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more Critically Important Attributes when Evaluating a Carrier (Top 3-Box)

Service 88% 86% 88% 90%

On-time Delivery 78 81 79 71

Employee Feedback 71 69 69 76

Price 60 67 57 47

Claims Processing 49 45 54 52

Extra Services 30 33 23 34

Online Customer Tools 22 21 17 28


TransportationQ.42 – Importance of Attributes when EVALUATING 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“ (critically important) on the 10-point scale.)

97



Q.43 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Salesperson/Origin Agent*


Transportation


Salesperson/Origin Agent

0% 56% 61% 58% 42%

10% 24 16 28 38

20% 5 6 5 5

30% 5 5 2 11

40% 2 3 - 1

50% or more 7 9 7 3


98



Q.43 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Packing/Broken Items*


Transportation


Packing/Broken Items

0% 21% 32% 17% 5%

10% 36 30 40 43

20% 15 11 19 18

30% 7 5 9 10

40% 5 4 6 6

50% or more 16 19 9 19


99



Q.43 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Driver/Timeliness*


Transportation


Driver/Timeliness

0% 32% 40% 32% 13%

10% 29 22 33 38

20% 14 13 14 17

30% 10 5 11 19

40% 4 4 4 3

50% or more 12 16 7 10


100



Q.43 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Destination Agent/Unpacking*


Transportation


Destination Agent/Unpacking

0% 44% 53% 46% 22%

10% 27 19 27 44

20% 9 10 8 10

30% 7 4 9 10

40% 2 1 5 1

50% or more 11 14 4 13


101



Q.43 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Claims Processing*


Transportation


Claims Processing

0% 38% 48% 34% 23%

10% 30 25 32 36

20% 10 6 15 14

30% 6 2 9 12

40% 3 3 2 3

50% or more 13 16 8 12


102



Transportation

72%

11%

12%

17%

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

Electronic Transfer of Funds to Your Carrier forRelocation Costs

On-Line Registration Access with Your Carrier

On-Line Access with Your Carrier for ShipmentRecords/History

None of the Above

Q.44 – Which of the following does your company use?

Total

103



Q.44 – Which of the following does your company use?


Used By Company

Electronic Transfer of Funds to Your Carrier for Relocation Costs

17% 10% 20% 27%

On-line Registration Access with Your Carrier 12 8 14 19

On-line Access with Your Carrier for Shipment Records/History

11 6 17 15

None of the Above 72 82 67 57

Transportation


104



Q.45 – Companies that Transfer Employees Between Countries*

International

43%

27%

48%

73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



105



Decrease12%

Stay About the Same

49%

Increase39%

Total

Increase26%

Decrease16%

Stay About the Same

58%Decrease

9%

Increase41%

Stay About the Same

50%

Increase49%

Decrease11%

Stay About the Same

40%




Q.45a – Compared to 2004, did the number of employees your company relocated internationally during 2005…*

International


106



Decrease13%

Stay About the Same

57%

Increase30%

Total

Increase19%

Decrease21%

Stay About the Same

60%

Decrease14% Increase

26%

Stay About the Same

60%

Increase43%

Decrease5%

Stay About the Same

52%




Q.45b – Compared to 2005, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during

2006 will…*

International


107



3 Years or More32%

Greater than 12 Months, but Less

than 3 Years60%

4 to 12 Months

7%

3 Months or Less2%

Total

3 Years or More30%

3 Months or Less

5%

Greater than 12

Months, but Less than 3

Years56%

4 to 12 Months

9%

3 Years or More31%

4 to 12 Months

7%

Greater than 12


Years62%

4 to 12 Months

5%

3 Years or More34%

Greater than 12


Years62%




Q.45c – What is the typical international relocation assignment duration for employees at your company?*

International


108



International

4%

9%10%

19%

32%38%

43%49%

49%55%

61%

73%

15%

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

Other

More Communication Equipment (Phones/Laptops)

More Leniency on Whom Insurance Covers

Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel

Higher Rental Housing Allowance

Higher Relocation Allowances

Increased Allowance for Permanent Storage

Additional Leave Time

Intercultural and Language Training

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.45d – Comparing your international relocation policy with your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…*

Total


109



International



International Relocation Policy Offers Different from Domestic

No difference between international and domestic relocation policies

15% 32% 7% 8%

Additional Tax Considerations 73 58 78 82 Additional Leave Time (Includes At Least 1 Visit Back to U.S./Canada)

61 42 68 72

Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools 55 40 58 65 Intercultural and Language Training 49 26 52 68 Additional Leave Time 49 33 52 60 Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage 43 40 38 51 Higher Relocation Allowances 38 35 31 48 Higher Rental Housing Allowance 32 25 26 43 Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel 19 14 22 22 More Leniency on Whom Insurance Covers (i.e. Unmarried Partners, Parents, Day-Care Providers)

10 7 9 14

More Communication Equipment (Phones/Laptops) 9 14 5 9 Other 4 4 3 5

Q.45d – Comparing your international relocation policy with your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…*


110



InternationalQ.45e – Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced international

relocation services in 2005 – the answers received indicate that…*

39%

29%26% 24% 24% 23% 21% 19% 18%

14%

3% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

TotalPercent Outsourced

TotalServices Outsourced

Outsourced62%

Not Outsourced

38%


111



International


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Services Outsourced

Did not use a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm for international relocation services in 2005

38% 77% 25% 17%

Securing Rental Property at Intl Location 39 7 47 60

Destination Services/Orientation Tours at New Location 29 5 28 51

Counseling - Planning & Details of International Relocation 26 11 31 35

Management of International Relocation Program 24 11 26 35 International Real Estate Sales/Purchase 24 9 29 34

Contract of Household Goods Carrier for Intl Shipping 23 11 29 28

Arrangement of Family’s International Transportation & Temporary Accommodations

21 5 26 30

Counseling - Company Policy Concerning Intl Relocation 19 7 22 26

Intercultural and Language Training 18 4 16 34

Monitoring of International Shipment 14 5 17 20

Candidate Assessment 3 - - 8

Other 4 - 7 5


Q. 45e – International Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm in 2005*


112



Q.45f – In 2005, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were temporary assignments (less than

12 months)?*

International

17% 17% 15% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

* those who answered “Yes” to Q45 / excludes those who “don’t know”

113



Decrease11%

Stay About the Same

68%

Increase22%

Total

Stay About the Same

74%

Decrease11%

Increase16%

Increase34%Decrease

11%

Stay About the Same

55%




Q.45g – Compared to 2005, do you expect the number of international temporary assignments (less than 12 months) to…*

114

International

Increase14%

Decrease10%

Stay About the Same

76%




International

36%

39%

62%

65%

67%

89%

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

Technology

Third Party

Reputation

Price

Scheduling

Service

Total

Q.45h – 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“



115





Important Attributes when Selecting an Intl Carrier

Service 89% 89% 89% 90%

Scheduling 67 67 65 69

Price 65 75 67 56

Reputation 62 70 57 61

Third Party 39 43 40 35

Technology 36 45 27 36

InternationalQ.45h – 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“


116




Seldom12%

Frequently22%

Always17%

Never49%

InternationalQ.45i – Does your company use EDI on international

shipments?*

(EDI = Electronic Data Interchange)

* those who answered “Yes” to Q45 / excludes those who “don’t know”NOTE: Due to low base sizes, company breakdown by size not included.

117




Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Spousal Employment Assistance – International

No Assistance 67% 75% 71% 55%

Provide Networking Assistance 18 19 10 23







Pay Spouse’s Full/Partial Salary Until Hired 3 2 2 5

Other 4 4 2 8

InternationalQ.45j – Method of Employment Assistance for Internationally Relocated

Employee’s Spouse or Partner*



118



3%

22%

2%

4%

6%

7%

12%

14%

18%

33%

37%

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

Other

Don't Know

Pet Quarantine

Illness

Terrorism

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance

Lack of Adaptability by Employee

Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner

Personal Reason (non-disclosed)

Family Issues/Ties

No international relocations declined or failed

Q.45k – In 2005, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail*

Total

International


119




Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Intl Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 37% 67% 41% 8%

Family Issues/Ties 33 18 33 46

Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 18 7 14 31

Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner 14 7 12 23

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 12 5 14 15

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 7 2 5 12

Terrorism 6 5 2 9

Illness 4 2 3 8

Pet Quarantine 2 2 2 3

Don’t Know 22 5 24 34

Other 3 5 - 3

InternationalQ.45k – In 2005, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International

Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail*



120



Respondent Profile

Male42%

Female58%

Total

Female51%

Male49%

Male35%

Female65%

Male36%

Female64%




Q.46 – Respondent Gender

121



Respondent Profile

HR/Personnel75%

Relocation Services

11%

Admin.7%

Comp. & Benefits

4%

Other3%

Total

Other1%

Comp. & Benefits

10%

Admin.1%

Relocation Services

40%

HR/Personnel

47%




Q.47 – Departmental Function

122

Other4%Comp. &

Benefits2%

Admin.10%

HR/Personnel

84%

HR/Personnel

79%

Relocation Services

7%

Admin.6%

Comp. & Benefits

4%

Traffic/Trans.

1% Other3%



6%

1%

1%

5%

9%

1%

29%

28%

2%

2%

13%

3%

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

Other

HR Assistant

Recruiter

Coordinator

Relocation Administrator

Supervisor

Manager

Director

Department Head

Assistant Vice President

Vice President

President

Total

Respondent ProfileQ.48 – Respondent’s Position

123




Respondent’s Position

President 3% 5% -% -%

Vice President 13 19 11 2

Assistant Vice President 2 1 2 2

Department Head 2 3 - 1

Director 28 31 24 24

Manager 29 23 27 45

Supervisor 1 1 2 1 Relocation Administrator 9 1 17 16

Coordinator 5 6 6 2

Recruiter 1 2 2 -

HR Assistant 1 - 2 3 Other 6 7 7 3


Respondent ProfileQ.48 – Respondent’s Position

124



5%5%

3%4%

6%

8%12%

12%13%14%

16%

20%

22%25%26%

57%67%

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

NoneOther

HR WireHR Innovator

National Relocation & Real EstateHuman Resource Outsourcing

Runzheimer Reports on RelocationHR & Corporate Relocation

Human CapitalHR Focus

HR SolutionsHR News

MobilityEmployee Benefits News

WorkforceHuman Resource Executive

HR Magazine

Total

Respondent ProfileQ.49 – Which Trade Publications Respondent’s Regularly Read

125




Trade Publications Respondent’s Read

HR Magazine 67% 78% 63% 45%

Human Resource Executive 57 78 43 26

Workforce 26 29 22 25

Employee Benefits News 25 33 20 13

Mobility 22 1 28 65

HR News 20 23 20 11

HR Solutions 16 18 15 15

HR Focus 14 17 12 11

Human Capital 13 17 10 7

HR & Corporate Relocation 12 8 15 18

Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 12 3 13 31

Human Resource Outsourcing (HRO) Today 8 8 7 8

National Relocation & Real Estate 6 - 9 17

HR Innovator 4 4 5 3

HR Wire 3 3 5 2

Other 5 6 7 2

None 5 6 5 3


Respondent ProfileQ.49 – Which Trade Publications Respondent’s Regularly Read

126



Total

Respondent ProfileQ.50 – Which Online/E-mail Trade Publications Regularly Read

2%

0%

2%

13%

21%

27%

34%

59%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

shrm.org

workforce.com

HR.com

erc.org

hrhero.com

bound4.com

HR Radio.com

Other

127





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Online/E-mail Trade Publications Regularly Read

None 16% 16% 20% 10%

shrm.org 59 70 50 43

workforce.com 34 41 30 21

HR.com 27 33 20 22

erc.org 21 .04

4 23 58

hrhero.com 13 17 11 4

bound4.com 2 1 1 7

HRRadio.com - - 1 -

Other 2 2 2 2

Respondent ProfileQ.50 – Which Online/E-mail Trade Publications Regularly Read

128



Total

Respondent ProfileQ.51 – Respondent Membership in Relocation-Related Associations

3%

1%

2%

11%

23%

36%

46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

SHRM

ERC - US

Regional or Local Relocation Council

CERC (Canada)

Industrial Traffic League

Other

129





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Relocation-Related Associations – Respondent Membership

None 46% 60% 42% 17%

SHRM 36 35 37 35

ERC – US 23 1 25 70

Regional or Local Relocation Council 11 3 11 33

CERC (Canada) 2 1 1 6

Industrial Traffic League 1 1 1 -

Other 3 2 3 2

Respondent ProfileQ.51 – Respondent Membership in Relocation-Related Associations

130



Total

Respondent ProfileQ.52 –What Relocation-Related Association Conferences Typically Attended

4%

1%

3%

8%

12%

13%

15%

17%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

SHRM Conference & Exposition

ERC National Relocation Conference

Local ERC Conference

Regional SHRM Conference

ERC Global Workforce Symposium

Employee Mgmt Assoc. Annual Conference & Expo

HRO World

Other

131





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Relocation-Related Associations – Conferences Attended

None 56% 71% 55% 22%

SHRM Conference & Exposition 17 20 13 17

ERC National Relocation Conference 15 1 12 52

Local ERC Conference 13 2 11 39

Regional SHRM Conference 12 14 7 12

ERC Global Workforce Symposium 8 - 6 29

Employee Management Association’s

Annual Conference & Exposition 3 2 5 2

HRO World 1 - 2 -

Other 4 2 5 7

Respondent ProfileQ.52 –What Relocation-Related Association Conferences Typically Attended

132



Contact Information

For further details and survey results from prior years…

Please visit our Web site: www.atlasworldgroup.com/survey

Or contact:

Katrina Starnes

Manager, Market Research toll-free: 800-638-9797Atlas World Group, Inc. e-mail: [email protected] St. George Rd.Evansville, IN 47711

39 th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey

Documents

Transcript of 39 th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey