Atlas RESULTS Corporate - WordPress.com · More Relocations Last Year, More Expected in 2015,...

HIGHLIGHTS

1

Atlas Corporate Relocation Survey Results

48TH

ANNUAL

2015 RESULTS• Includes U.S.

& Canada Data• The Industry's

Longest Running Survey• Reflecting the

Course of Relocation


48TH

ANNUAL

2 1

Who Responded?Atlas sent invitations by email, and 494 decision-makers completed online questionnaires between January 20 and February 26. Each respondent has responsibility for relocation and is employed by a company that has either relocated employees during the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year.

• Nearly all (91%) work in human resources/personnel or relocation/mobility services departments for firms in:-Service (40%)-Manufacturing/processing (31%)-Financial (13%)-Wholesale/retail (9%)-Government/military (5%)-Other (3%)

• For analysis, firms are categorized by size:- Small: Fewer than 500 salaried employees (33%)

- Mid-size: 500-4,999 salaried employees (36%)

- Large: 5,000+ salaried employees (31%)

• Half (50%) are international firms.

PAGE 2 HIGHLIGHTSPAGE 20 CANADA SNAPSHOT PAGE 22 QUESTION RESPONSES

The Industry’s Longest Running SurveyFor almost 50 years, Atlas has collected insights from corporate decision-makers and analyzed changes in the industry. In the ever-shifting world of policy and practice, we remain committed to providing you with an in-depth look at how professionals answer the challenges of relocation.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

OtherGovernment/military

Wholesale/Retail

FinancialManufacturing/processing

Service

40%31%

13% 9% 5%3%

SmallFewer than 500

salaried employees

Mid-size500-4.999 salaried

employees

Large5,000+ salaried

employees


48TH

ANNUAL

For complete results, interactive graphs and historical insights, see www.atlasvanlines.com/relocation-surveys/corporate-relocation.


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

2 3

HIGHLIGHTS

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

Question 43b: International Relocation Volume

Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that your relocation budget for [this year] will…

Question 7: Relocation Budget Expectation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003

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

28%

57%

15%

18%

53%

29%

14%

55%

32%

17%

52%

31%

11%

57%

32%

14%

51%

35%

48%

38%

13%

23%

53%

24%

13%

60%

27%

14%

60%

26%

14%

66%

20%

12%

65%

22%

6%

49%

45%

Question 6: Overall Relocation Volume

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003


29%

58%

13%

16%

51%

33%

16%

51%

33%

20%

52%

28%

14%

56%

29%

18%

56%

25%

52%

38%

10%

26%

53%

22%

13%

58%

30%

12%

61%

26%

14%

59%

27%

15%

59%

25%

8%

47%

45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20152014201320122011201020092008200720062005


16%

57%

27%

13%

57%

30%

13%

57%

29%

15%

57%

28%

39%

46%

15%

17%

65%

18%

16%

56%

28%

16%

55%

29%

14%

57%

29%

16%

54%

30%

7%

43%

50%

Relocation Volumes & Budgets — Overall & InternationalMore Relocations Last Year, More Expected in 2015, Budgets Finally Rebounding Last year brought gains in relocation volumes: nearly half of all companies saw increases. More than half of mid-size and large firms reported increases, as did over a third of small firms. Over half of firms across company size saw international volumes increase indicating international relocation activity levels universally increased, although overall relocation volumes trended lower for small firms in comparison to larger ones. Few saw volume decreases, either overall or internationally. Expectations for 2015 are positive: nearly half anticipate further increases overall and internationally. Mid-size and large firms are more optimistic; small firms relocating internationally are more positive compared to small firms overall (42% vs. 31% expect increases).

While volumes increased following the Great Recession, budgets did not keep pace. However, nearly half of companies last year reported budget increases, a significant jump from the roughly one-third or fewer firms with post-recession increases. Mid-size firms were most likely to see budgets swell, and mid-size and small firms saw larger increases

than did large firms compared to the previous year’s percentages. Almost half of all firms believe their budgets will increase again in 2015, with mid-size and large firms showing the most optimism. Few firms expect budget decreases.

• The median numbers of relocations remained at historical, non-recessionary norms for large firms (200-399). However, the medians ticked upward for small firms (10-19 vs. 1-9) and mid-size firms (50-99 vs. 20-49).

• The greatest growth in relocation occurred among international firms; more than half reported increases in both overall volumes and budgets. More than half expect both volume and budget increases in 2015, while just over a third of regional and national firms are as optimistic.

• Across industries, more manufacturing/processing firms (59%) and financial firms (55%) reported increases in overall relocation volumes. Manufacturing/processing firms were the most likely to see corresponding increases to budgets (58%) and to expect budget increases (57%) for 2015. Nearly two-thirds of manufacturing/processing firms last year saw international relocations increase as well.

Factors Affecting Relocation — External & InternalNeed for Talent, Company Growth and Expansion Key Drivers, Real Estate Market Pressure LessensOverall, firms reported company growth and the lack of local talent as nearly equal drivers of relocation last year. Company growth remains similar to previous recessionary levels, despite maintaining a substantial increase over 2009 (43% vs. 24%). However, when all types of expansion are considered (facility, new territories, or international), nearly half of firms (45%) indicate some form of expansion impacted their relocation volumes, making it the top factor overall. This is significantly higher than reported in each of the previous twelve years, with two exceptions.

Lack of local talent is the top external factor noted, but it is similar in weight to economic conditions (43% vs. 38%). However, with a majority

of firms reporting improved financial performances over the past five years, perhaps the weight assigned to economic conditions reflects a mix of positive factors and challenges. Over the past two years, around a third of firms have simply expected stability rather than improvement in the U.S. economy. Since company growth is less cited as a factor in relocation volumes compared to previous non-recessionary periods, this percentage may indicate some residual economic weakness.

Other external factors appear to be playing much larger roles in relocation compared to previous years. Significantly more firms cite the growth of competition (domestic or international), the political/


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

4 5

Question 14: Select Internal Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: 1988-2014

What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year]?

Budget ConstraintsCompany Growth

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200219981997199619951994199319921991199019891988

Note: 1999-2001 results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable.

64%

10%13%

25%28% 28% 28%

31%

22% 22%

15%13% 12% 13%

18%

10% 9%13%

22%

29%

21%

14% 15%12%

19%

53%

47%

38% 39%

47% 47%

63%

55%

64%

58%

46% 46%

55%57%

59%

40%

33%

24%

37%39%

46% 46%43%

Question 11a: Select Reasons Relocations Declined: 2002-2014

What reasons did employees give for declining relocation?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002

79%83%

57%52%

Family Issues/TiesHousing/Mortgage Concerns Spouse’s/Partner’s Employment

49%

76%70%

60%

45%

69%

55%

41%

71%

64%

65%

45%

64%

52%

42%

67%

58%

37%39%

77%

51%43%

81% 84%

49%

50%

30%

53%

32%

62%

48%

61%

25%23%26%

regulatory environment (overall & specific health care legislation), and natural disasters. The percentages of firms affected by the following internal factors are near or at the highest levels reported in thirteen years: increased production, facility expansion, expansion into new territories, international expansion, use of short-term assignments, and use of extended business travel/telecommuting. It appears as external pressures mounted, firms flexed the creativity born out of the Great Recession to position themselves for growth through expansion, using creative assignment arrangements to accomplish goals within budgets.• The impact of factors continues to vary by company

size. At small firms, the need for talent was clearly the top issue (41%), followed closely by combined expansion efforts (35%). Both mid-size and large firms were similarly affected by the need for talent (44%), by economic conditions (46% and 40%), and by combined expansion efforts (47% and 53%). However, large firms were more acutely affected by corporate structure changes (46% - acquisitions/mergers or corporate reorganization/restructuring), and growth of competition (49% - domestic or international) weighed most heavily on mid-size firms.

• The impact of available talent remains markedly above the level recorded in 2009 (31%) and far above much lower levels recorded before 1996. Regardless of company size, talent shortfalls remain one of the key drivers of relocation volumes overall.

• For both small and large firms, the impact of real estate is at or near its lowest point since measurement began in 2007, dropping even more significantly from last year among large firms (21% vs. 31%). Only mid-size firms continue to report a slightly higher impact over the 2007 value (25% vs. 18%).

• Company growth and combined expansion efforts are the top internal factors impacting relocation, regardless of company size (small: 38% and 35%; mid-size: 46% and 47%; large: 45% and 53%). Among large firms, these are nearly equal in weight to corporate structure changes overall (46%). The use of short-term assignments/EBT/telecommuting played a bigger role in relocations at mid-size and large firms compared to small firms (21% and 27% vs. 15%).

• Over half of manufacturing/processing firms and financial firms indicated some method of expansion impacted their relocations last year. Roughly half of these firms and wholesale/retail organizations indicated company growth or the growth of competition (domestic or international) played a role also. Almost half of for-profit service, manufacturing/processing, and wholesale/retail firms say talent shortfalls significantly impacted relocations in 2014.

• Firms operating internationally were the most likely to report competition (domestic or international) impacted relocations last year (48%) compared to national (34%) and regional (27%) firms. Company growth was most strongly felt among national (50%) and international firms (44%) compared to regional (27%).

What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year]?

Question 13: Select External Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: 1988-2014

36%25%

24%

38%

40%

37%

0%

12%

24%

36%

48%

60%

201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200219981997199619951994199319921991199019891988

22%

17% 16%14%

18%

37%

46%

47%

21% 20%17%

32%34%

38%

48%

58%

52% 52%

31%

51%49%

44%

35%

48% 49%

38% 38%

29%

34%

24% 25%

51%

24%

40%

28%25%

22%

28%

23%

44%

40% 39%

46%

53%

34%

30%

43%

21%

38%

Lack of qualified people locally Economic conditions Real estate market Note: 1999-2001 results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable.

Employees Declining RelocationImpact of Housing/Mortgage Concerns Continues to Decrease, Spouse/Partner Employment IncreasesAlthough the landscape of relocation remains disturbed by the Great Recession and housing crisis, housing/mortgage concerns continues to diminish as a reason for declining relocation. For the second straight year, family issues/ties remains at the top spot among firms of all sizes. However, spouse/partner employment has progressively increased over the past three years and is now at its highest level since the turn of the century.

During the latest recession, many families experienced a shift in breadwinning responsibilities. The stay-at-home parent returned to work while the previously working spouse/partner faced unemployment, perhaps for an extended period. It makes sense that couples are now less willing to gamble their family’s security on one income. Since 2011, spouse/partner employment as the reason for declining relocation has increased by nearly twenty percent.

More than half of firms saw employees decline relocation last year, which is historically normative. However, employee reluctance spiked to near 2008 (28%) and 2009 (29%) recessionary levels (28% vs. 11%-18% post-recession). This suggests spouse/partner employment may be putting more pressure on firms trying to motivate employees to relocate.• Far more small firms (47% compared to a third on average,

historically) saw employees decline relocation last year. These firms reported the highest levels of employee reluctance historically (27%), surpassing even recessionary levels (19%). Reluctance among large firms remained far lower than recessionary levels (40%+), but surpassed recent recovery years (28% vs. 7%-21%).

• Nearly two-thirds of mid-size and large firms cite spouse/partner employment as a reason employees declined relocation last year, the highest levels seen since 2002.

Factors Affecting Relocation – External & Internal Continued…


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

6 7

Percentages of firms offering this assistance:

Questions 39a & 43k: Spouse/Partner Employment Assistance

Overall Internationally

42%

27%

42% 42% 42% 42% 44%44%45%46%39% 39%

22%

41% 41% 41% 40%38% 38%33% 33%

24%

44%50%

65%

77%

10%

35%

60%

85%

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003

Compared to [last year], please indicate what you anticipate for [this year]:

Question 16: Anticipated Performance—

Yo

ur Co

mp

any

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006

4%

20%

76%

5%

32%

63%

5%

23%

72%

3%

28%

70%

4%

29%

67%

4%

29%

67%

5%

23%

72%

2%

23%

74%

9%

32%

59%

40%

34%

27%

U.S

. Real E

state M

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20152014201320122011201020092008

BetterSameWorse

78%

59%

8% 12%

52%57%

32%

10% 5% 6%

55%

36%

35%

60%

3%

37%

60%52%

42%

40%29%

12%15%

7%

Economic Outlook Continued Optimism for Improvement, StabilityExpectations for 2015 remain positive. Expectations for U.S. economic improvement/stability remain at pre-recession/recovery levels. While expectations

for improvement in the U.S. real estate market dip, the overwhelming majority expects either improvement or stability in the coming year. The

majority of firms expect improvement in their overall company financial performance, similar to post-recession levels, with nearly all expecting either improvement or stability.• Across company size, roughly two-thirds of firms

anticipate better performances in 2015. About half expect improvements in emerging economies, in developed

economies, in the U.S. economy, and in the real estate market.

• Optimism is likely fueled by the experiences of 2014: two-thirds of companies performed better last year, and more than half sensed improvement in global and domestic economies and in the U.S. real estate market.

U.S

. Eco

nom

y

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

201520142013201220112010200920082007200610%

42%

11% 9%

13%

53%

36%

45%

46%45%

25%

65%

45%

50%

5%

54%

40%

6%

44%

48%

7% 9%

54%

38%

54%

41%

5%

51%

44%

5%

Question 10b: Additional Incentives Offered (Top 3) 2013-2014

Which of the following additional incentives or exceptions did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

20132014

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Extended temporary housing bene�ts

COLAs in salary at new location

Relocation bonuses59%

54%

58%

45%

58%

72%

Spousal AssistanceFar more firms cited spouse/partner employment as affecting employee relocations “almost always” or “frequently” than at any time over the past twelve years (62% vs. roughly half or less). Historically, small firms see this as a regular occurrence roughly half the time, and this year’s level is similar (58%). The effect is more acute for other firms: an increase of more than 20 percentage points since 2013 for mid-size firms (65% vs. 43%) after an increase to 54% last year, and nearly double for large firms since last year (62% vs. 32%).

With these dramatic shifts it is not surprising that far more firms than ever now offer spouse/partner employment assistance. Firms of all sizes are driving the increase; however, it continues to be offered more often by mid-size (69%) and large (72%) firms than by small firms (54%). • Mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms

to offer resume preparation assistance (43% and 41% vs. 26%) or outplacement/career services from an outside firm (44% and 38% vs. 26%). Mid-size firms are more likely than small or large firms are to help a spouse or partner find employment outside the company (41% vs. 25% and 23%). Nearly half of all firms, regardless of size, offer networking assistance for accompanying spouses/partners, and a third or more offer interviewing skills training or help in finding employment within the company.

• Mid-size and small firms offering such assistance report that roughly one fourth of relocated employees with a spouse/partner used it; large firms indicate it was used by roughly a third.

InternationalAround three-fourths of companies offer to help find jobs for spouses or partners relocating internationally, far more than ever measured previously. Over the past seven years, levels of spousal assistance for international and domestic moves were nearly identical; this year, assistance to spouses/partners of internationally relocating employees is even more likely. In the past, mid-size and large firms were far more likely to offer spousal assistance internationally. Now assistance levels are nearly identical for companies of all sizes that relocate employees abroad. Small firms remain less likely to offer assistance domestically, even as mid-size and large firms offer international and domestic assistance at high levels.

Family AssistanceAs family issues/ties and spouse/partner employment exert pressure on relocations, even as the housing crisis diminishes, and employee reluctance is returning to recessionary levels, it is clear greater support is needed for relocating employees. Research shows that growing percentages of adults are finding themselves caring for both older family members and children. These individuals often head more affluent/high earning households and are part of the highly educated pool employers tap for relocation. The survey this year reflects far greater accommodations being made overall for childcare (64% vs. 31%-43% historically) and elder care (53% vs. 16%-26% historically), even if the provision is merely a list of possible centers or service providers for support during relocation. Mid-size and large firms are far more likely to offer family assistance than small firms are, although the percentages offering assistance have increased substantially across company size.


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

8 9

Did your company offer additional incentives or exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

Question 10a: Additional Incentives Offered: 2008-2014

By C

om

pany

Size

Overall

0

20

40

60

80

100

2014201320122011201020092008

64% 63% 64%73%80% 80%

61%54%

67% 74%61%

86%93%78%

69%57% 63%78%

69%80%76%

5,000+500-4,999Less than 500

0

20

40

60

80

100

2014201320122011201020092008

60% 66% 65%86%

67% 73%76%

flexible use of the full relocation benefit or a portion of it have roughly doubled.

IncentivesWhile use of incentives dropped in 2013, the vast majority of firms again used these last year. Since employee reluctance jumped substantially in 2014, a corresponding increase in incentives is not surprising. As housing/mortgage pressures lessened, far fewer firms offered extended, temporary housing benefits than did in 2013 (58% vs. 72%), although it remains one of the top three incentives offered. Relocation bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in salary rounded out the top three across company size. • Just under half of large firms using incentives offered a

buyer value option (42%) or guaranteed buyout option (41%) for origin homes; they were far more likely to offer these than were smaller firms.

• Mid-size firms were the most likely to offer a guarantee-of-employment contract for a specific length of time if relocation was accepted (46%).

Incentives continue to be highly successful in convincing employees to relocate: nine out of ten firms say they worked almost always or frequently, similar to historical levels.

Cost ContainmentAfter an uptick in budget constraints last year as volumes leapt, it is not surprising that the percentage of firms using cost containment also jumped. Methods generated for survival during the recession are stretching resources as the demand for relocation faces budgets that have not kept pace with volumes over the past few years.

While the percentage of large firms using cost-containment methods is similar to percentages in recent years, markedly more small and mid-size firms used such tools last year than did previously. Overall, a greater variety of methods were used. While relocation required greater flexibility (i.e. core/flex, incentives), a variety of cost-containment methods also proved appropriate. Generally, capping relocation benefit amounts remained the most popular. At the same time, percentages reporting these methods roughly doubled: restructuring policy tiers/eligibility for benefits; offering pre-decision counseling; and utilizing short-term/extended business travel/commuter arrangements.

Question 19b: Use of Core/Flex Policy in Relocation

Which of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy does your relocation policy incorporate?

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

Other

Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category)

Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (all employees)

Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category)

Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (all employees)

Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) dependent on employee levels/categories

Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) across all employee levels/categories

45%54%

48%

16%35%

12%

10%23%

20%12%

2%1%

32%

51%

20132014

Relocation Policy & PracticePolicy Types Expand, Creativity Tapped During Recession Flexed for Maximum Impact Corporate professionals find themselves responsible for far more policy types than in the past. While the vast majority maintain formal policies for domestic (81%) and international relocations (83%), many also have policies covering short-term/temporary assignments (65%) and permanent international transfers (70%). Over half have extended business travel (52%) and international-localization (59%) policies as well, and 41% state a policy exists for long-distance commuter arrangements.• Mid-size and large firms are more likely to have policies in

place for specialized arrangements outside general policies and they are more likely to maintain a formal domestic policy. Large firms are the most likely to follow a formal international policy.

• Besides an increasing variety of policies, most firms continue to define levels or tiers within policies. The larger the firm, the more likely it is to follow a tiered or multi-level policy. Firms using levels manage two or more such policies on average across company size, based on a variety of factors

Candidate AssessmentsIncreasingly, firms are vetting candidates to determine assistance for successful relocation. Over the past three years, around half of firms reported they perform assessments on candidates prior to

relocation; this year, nearly three-fourths state this is policy. The most popular method is to conduct assessments for all relocations (48%), roughly double previous levels (21%, 2012-2014). But markedly more firms are using assessments domestically, internationally, by policy tier/reimbursement level, or for transferees as well. These trends hold across company size. The expanded use of this tool following the Great Recession likely helps relocation professionals stretch budgets to meet business objectives.

Core/Flex PolicyAs relocation volumes increased last year amid pressures from many different sources, professionals drew on solutions created during the recession. One popular technique is to incorporate core/flex elements into policy. Over the past two years, nearly three-fourths of firms took this approach; in 2015 nearly 9 out of 10 (86%) did so. Favored by mid-size and large firms in the past, core/flex usage is now similar across company size. Coverage for core components continues to be the most popular aspect across company size (either across all employee levels/categories or depending on employee level/category). But the percentages of firms offering

Question 19a: Core/Flex PolicyDoes your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy?

0%

50%

100%

201520142013

77% 71% 86%


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

10 1 1

Relocation Policy & Practice Continued…

Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year?

By Company Size Overall

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

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

Question 27a: Alternative Assignment Use In Employee Mobility Policy

Question 21: Cost Containment Methods Used 2009-2014

Question 21: Cost Containment Measures (Top 7) 2013-2014

Question 27b: Alternative Assignment Use Determining Factors

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

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

54%

53%

53%

51%

43%

39%

5%

2%

57%

66%

31%

30%

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

Other

Career development

Employee requests

Cost

Assignment purpose

Job function 20142015

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

Other

Used in addition to traditional short-term assignments

Used to maximize budget/corporate resources

Used to develop internal talent

Used to accommodate employee needs

Used in place of traditional short-term assignments

Used in addition to long-term assignments

Used in place of long-term assignments

Used to meet strategic business goals 57%41%

22%41%

34%

16%35%

36%33%

37%32%

34%30%

23%26%

1%5%

39%

20142015

50%

100%

2015201420132012

46% 41% 37%65%

Less than 500 500-4,999 5,000+

201420132012201120102009

64% 61%70% 77%

60% 54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

201420132012201120102009

73%65%

81% 80%63%60%64% 69%

50%58%

42%

84%71%76%

62%78%

44%54%

0% 20% 40%

O�er pre-decision counseling

No additional cost containment measures

O�er short-term/EBT/commuter arrangements

Review/renegotiate supplier contracts

Limit miscellaneous allowance bene�ts

Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for bene�ts

Cap relocation bene�t amounts30% 2013

201435%

16%30%

21%27%

18%25%

11%24%

23%

12%22%

46%

Question 27: Alternative Assignments Use: 2012-2015

Alternative AssignmentsIn addition to changing the allocation of budgets, the Great Recession seems to have made a lasting mark on how relocations are performed. Roughly two-thirds of firms now use alternative assignments of some type, far more than in the previous three years. While the percentage of large firms using such arrangements progressively increased over the past four years (73% vs. 60%, 62% and 66%), the percentages of mid-size and small firms using them has more than doubled compared to 2014 (75% vs. 37% and 48% vs. 19%, respectively). Additionally, while alternative arrangements were key to business strategy in prior years, they are

now just as important as replacements for long-term assignments. However, there is no overarching method for their use inside mobility policy; nearly every potential use is indicated by roughly a third or more of firms, regardless of company size.

When determining whether to use an alternative assignment, the three “key factors” are job function, assignment purpose, and cost, similar to previous years. However, the percentages citing assignment purpose (53% vs. 66%+) and cost (51% vs. 64% in 2013) have fallen dramatically, while job function remains similar to historical levels. The percentage of firms using alternative assignments in response to employee requests jumped markedly from last year (43% vs. 31%).


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

12 13

Question 40: Outsourcing

Question 43j: International Outsourcing

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

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

OutsourcingNearly three-fourths of companies outsourced relocation services in 2014, surpassing the peak of 2011 and marking the highest percentage in more than a decade. Compared historically, outsourcing falls below highs for large firms, comes close to highs for mid-size firms, and exceeds highs for small firms (54%). However, the vast majorities of large and mid-size firms practice outsourcing to a much greater extent and typically require a greater variety of services than do small firms.

Outsourcing for different service categories remained at levels similar to 2013 with five exceptions. Far fewer firms outsourced real estate sales/marketing (31%), real estate purchase (28%), household good carrier contracts (27%), expense tracking/reimbursement (23%), and tax gross-up assistance (19%). Levels for these exceptions all fell at or near historical lows. Most other service category outsourcing levels appeared within their historical mid-ranges. With the housing crisis abating and the restructuring of assistance by employee type, some services may have simply been less necessary in 2014.

• Dramatic decreases in outsourcing real estate sales/marketing, real estate purchase, household good carrier contracts, expense tracking/reimbursement and tax gross-up assistance were driven primarily by mid-size and large firms. Outsourcing for most other categories remained similar to 2013 for these firms with two exceptions: far fewer large firms outsourced counseling about company policy (36% vs. 51%), and far fewer mid-size firms outsourced shipment monitoring (26% vs. 40%). Overall, outsourcing across categories typically fell in historical low to mid-ranges, well below historical highs.

• Among small firms, most outsourcing categories fell last year in low to middle historical ranges on average, similar to their numbers in 2013.

InternationalSimilar to the previous year, far more firms last year outsourced internationally than did overall (85% vs. 73%). International outsourcing is at historical highs. It is used heavily across firms of all sizes; mid-size and large firms continue to outsource a greater variety of services than small firms.

• International outsourcing declined for most service categories, with levels falling in either the mid or lower ranges historically. The exceptions are: counseling about the planning & details of relocating internationally (40%), management of the international relocation program (35%), and international real estate services (26%) which are all near or at historical highs.

• The biggest change across company size is that far fewer mid-size firms outsourced more than half of the international categories. Shifts at large and small firms were far less pronounced.

Among companies that outsourced relocation services domestically, the percentage that also outsourced internationally surpassed last year’s historical high (98% vs. 89%). Firms that outsource domestic services now almost universally outsource international services if they relocate employees abroad. Large firms were the most active international outsourcers: 45% or more of them outsourced nearly half of all listed categories.

Did Not Outsource

Outsourced

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002

39% 39%34% 34%37% 37%45% 45% 45%42%

28%41%

27%

61% 61%66% 66%63% 63%55% 55% 55%58%

72%59%

73%

Did Not Outsource

Outsourced

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003

30% 38%42% 38%28%34% 26% 28%

37%23%

70% 62%58% 62%72%66% 74% 72%63%

77%

15%

85%

33%

67%

Relocation Reimbursement/PaymentMultiple Methods Still Favored; Less Full Coverage for New HiresDespite the occurrence of budget increases, the Great Recession appears to have fundamentally changed the way relocation dollars are allocated. Even as volumes increased and reimbursement methods for current employees remained similar to recent years, full reimbursement for new hires (38%) is now at historical lows, falling out of favor in comparison to lump sum payments (51%) and partial reimbursement (41%). Full reimbursement for transferees actually moved up (66% vs. 59%). It is significantly above levels seen in 2006-2007

and 2011 (55%+) and more on par with historical levels of nearly two-thirds of firms that have offered this benefit over the past decade. Use of other reimbursement methods are at similar levels, regardless of relocating employee type: around half use lump sum payments and roughly four out of ten use partial reimbursement. One-sixth occasionally do not reimburse transferees and one-fifth sometimes do not reimburse new hires. • Small firms are less likely than mid-size and large firms

to offer transferees full reimbursement (55% vs. 67% and

To what extent does your company reimburse: Transferees? New Hires?

Question 31: Transferee/New Hire Reimbursement 2003-2015

TransfereeN

ew H

ire15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003

70% 74% 69% 65% 63%63% 63%58% 59% 59%

66%57%55%

30%22%25% 24% 22%

33% 30%25%

32% 32%44%

37%45% 40% 40% 36% 34%

40%44% 41%49% 48% 49% 48%47% 47%

Partial ReimbursementLump SumFull Reimbursement

Full Reimbursement Lump Sum Partial Reimbursement

51%

15%

30%

45%

60%

2015201420132012201120102009200820072006200520042003

56%

38%

30%

59%

36%

24%

56%

35%

28%

47%

43% 42%

43%

54%51%

32% 31%

49%

45%

49%

41%

55%

50% 51% 50%

38%

41%

51%

57%53%

51%

40%37%

34%

47%

48%46%49%


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

14 15

75%) or partial reimbursement (31% vs. 45% and 44%). But both small and mid-size firms are more likely than large firms to use lump sum payments with transferees (53% vs. 39%).

• Over the last seven years, the percentage of large firms using lump sums for transferees has fallen from around half to 39%. Meanwhile, full reimbursement has jumped back to 75%, near the highest levels seen over the past decade.

• While near the lowest levels historically, nearly half of large firms still use full reimbursement for new hires, far more than the roughly one-third of small or mid-size firms. However, around half of firms, regardless of size, use lump sums for new hires. More mid-size firms than those of other sizes use partial reimbursement (48% vs. 36%+).

Companies estimate that roughly half of their relocations were either partially reimbursed by the company or were paid by lump sum only. Prior to the new millennium, full reimbursement was by far the most frequent method for covering relocation costs for both transferees and new hires. Firms appear to now be differentiating between employee types for full reimbursement: 38% use this option for new hires and 66% use it for transferees. This is a major shift as the frequency of using other reimbursement methods have grown more similar.

Lump Sum ApplicationThe consistent use of lump sums by roughly half or more of firms continues to prompt deeper investigation. The survey again asked which costs are covered and to whom lump sums are applied. We noted some big shifts. Roughly twice as many firms use lump sums to cover real estate assistance/transactions (28% vs. 11%+) or rental assistance/transactions (32% vs. 16%+) than did in the previous four years on average. At the same time, the percentage of firms using lump sums to cover miscellaneous allowances has dropped markedly (40% vs. 53%+). The percentage of firms using lump sums to cover household goods shipping/storage appears to be trending upwards as well (37% vs. 28%+). These changes appear to be driven primarily by the ways in which mid-size and large firms are using lump sums. Overall, the use of lump sums for other expenses has remained fairly consistent since we started measuring them.• Overall, large firms are more likely than small or mid-size

firms to use lump sums for miscellaneous allowances (55% vs. 37% and 31%) and temporary housing (53% vs. 32% and 35%); these are the top two ways large firms apply lump sums.

• Mid-size firms show a greater likelihood than small firms to use lump sums for real estate assistance/transactions (36% vs. 19%) and rental assistance/transactions (40% vs. 25%).

Mid-size firms are also more likely than large firms to apply lump sums for household goods shipping/storage (43% vs. 30%).

• Regardless of size, roughly two-fifths or more of firms use lump sums to reimburse the entire relocation cost or travel expenses.

The use of lump sums across employee types continues to evolve. When first measured in 2011, around half or more of firms said most employee types, except for homeowners, commonly received lump sum payments. Gaps began widening in 2012, and in 2013-2014 new hires were more likely to receive lump sums than transferees, and employee level was less a factor than new hire status. This year reveals marked changes in the use of lump sums compared to the previous four years on average: far more firms now use them for executives (54% vs. 32%+), and far fewer use them for entry level employees (37% vs. 49% on average), for new hires (43% vs. 59%+), for renters (28% vs. 39%+), and for homeowners (19% vs. 28% on average). Many of the declines are driven by mid-size and large firms reducing the usage of lump sums for different employee types over the past four years, while the increased use for executives is driven largely by mid-size firms. Only two applications were similar to the past four years on average: for experienced professionals (52%) and for transferees (43%). • Regardless of company size, around half of firms say

executives or experienced professionals typically receive lump sums.

• Among large firms, roughly half use lump sums across employee levels and relocating employee types; far fewer base lump sum offerings on renter (35%) or homeowner (27%) status.

• Transferees are more likely to receive lump sums from mid-size or large firms versus small firms (49% and 46% vs. 35%). New hires are more likely to receive lump sums from small or large firms than from mid-size firms (50% and 44% vs. 35%).

• Large firms are more likely than small or mid-size firms to provide lump sums for entry level employees (51% vs. 28% and 35%).

As lump sum usage has grown, the survey has incorporated additional questions about the ranges offered for various categories of reimbursement. Compared to the past two years, amounts are more generous and used more frequently for a variety of reimbursement types. However, overall median ranges for temporary housing and miscellaneous allowances, albeit higher than in 2013, were the same as 2014, although these did see changes by company size.

What types of relocating employees most commonly receive lump sum payments?

Question 32b: Types of Employees Receiving Lump Sum Payments

41%

43%

43%

43%37%

39%28%

28%19%

42%

50%52%

59%

54%20142015

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

Homeowners

Renters

Entry Level Employees

Transferees

New Hires

Experienced Professionals

Executives

For the applicable cost types below, what are the typical ranges of lump sums offered? Median amounts shown:

Question 32c: Lump Sum Ranges

Median Amounts Less than 500 500-4,999 5,000 or more Grand Total

Real Estate Assistance/ Transactions $5,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999

Household Goods Shipping/Storage $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999

Entire Relocation Cost $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$19,999 $10,000-$14,999 $10,000-$14,999

Rental Assistance/ Transactions $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999

Travel Expenses $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999

Temporary Housing $2,500-$4,999 $5,000-$7,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999

Misc. Allowances $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999

• Median amounts offered by mid-size and large firms were the same for the following categories (small firms were slightly less generous): household goods shipping/storage ($5,000-$9,999), travel expenses ($2,500-$4,999), and miscellaneous allowances ($2,500-$4,999).

• Median amounts offered by large and small firms were the same for the following categories (mid-size firms were slightly more generous): entire relocation cost ($10,000-$14,999), real estate assistance/transactions ($5,000-$9,999), temporary housing ($2,500-$4,999), and rental assistance/transactions ($1,000-$2,499).

Relocation Reimbursement/Payment Continued…


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

16 17

For relocating employees (transferees OR new hires), does your company reimburse/pay to…

Question 28: Cost Coverage (Top 5)

TotalLess than 500500-4,9995,000+

Unpack all items

Move a second automobile

Move exercise equipment

Pack all items

Move an automobile 53% 39% 53% 66%

50% 40% 49% 63%

32% 24% 33% 40%

32% 21% 28% 47%

30% 21% 29% 41%

Cost CoverageSimilar to the past two years, around eight out of ten firms reimburse or pay a portion of relocation costs for transferees or new hires. Over the previous ten years, nine out of ten firms typically covered some costs. This change reflects a continuing preference among small firms to either not cover costs or to offer lump sums instead.

Although large and mid-size firms appear far less affected, the shift away from covering costs for specific items is stronger this year than in the past two. Items once covered as “standard,” regardless of employee status, may no longer be guaranteed as firms flex to stay within budgets.

Questions 29 & 30: Homeowner/Renter Assistance (Top 5)

Renting Not Buying

Buying Not Renting

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

Reimburse/pay home purchase costs Reimburse/pay apartment search/finder’s fees

Offer storage

Reimburse/pay home sale costsReimburse/pay for lease cancellation

Offer homefinding trips

Offer temporary housing allowance42%

44%

33%

36%

38%

50%

34%

37%

36%

30%

Specialized Assistance for Homeowners/RentersMost firms continue to offer specialized relocation assistance for homeowners; however, small firms remain less likely than mid-size or large firms to do so. The percentage of firms that offer this assistance remains similar to the past two years and slightly lower overall compared to 2007-2012. Although the percentage of small firms offering assistance has increased slightly, those which do not offer it or offer lump sums instead are primarily responsible for the downward shift. The percentages of large and mid-size firms offering this assistance also trend lower than historical highs.

• The percentages of firms offering individual homeowner-assistance items fall to further historical lows for most items and significantly below past highs for nearly all. Much of these drops are fueled by fewer mid-size and large firms offering specific coverages to the homeowner, regardless of employee type. In the past, roughly half or more of large firms offered each type of assistance, with few exceptions, to homeowners; now, only four of these items are offered with such frequency. With the shift in reimbursement policies for new hires this year and an easing of the crisis in real estate, it is perhaps unsurprising to see homeowner-assistance levels dropping further.

Most firms continue to offer specialized assistance for renters; small firms remain least likely. Similar to the past two years, the percentage of firms

doing so is lower than during the previous decade. This shift is largely driven by small firms offering assistance or, alternatively, lump sums, although the percentages of large and mid-size firms offering assistance trend lower than historical highs as well.

• Overall, many percentages of firms offering each type of renter-specific assistance remain similar or dip compared to last year. But more firms are offering to pay for hook-up fees (26% vs. 14%), security deposits (26% vs. 14%), furniture rental (14% vs. 6%) and rental subsidies (12% vs. 8%), nearing historical norms. However, far fewer firms pay for home finding trips (36% vs. 46%) or temporary housing allowances (44% vs. 57%), falling to historical lows. These shifts are evident across firms of all sizes. Again, with greater discrepancies in methods of reimbursement by employee type, a drop in blanket assistance for renters while lower-cost items edge up is understandable.

Overall, while homeowner-assistance levels have fallen substantially, especially for the top five items, renter assistance has been slightly less affected. While it has fallen markedly from last year for temporary housing allowances (44% vs. 57%) and home finding trips (36% vs. 46%), it remains far more stable for lease cancellation reimbursement (50% vs. 54%), storage (37% vs. 38%), and apartment search/finder’s fees (30% vs. 27%).

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

Question 32a: Lump Sum Payment Application to Relocation Costs

2012201320142015

63%55%

53%40%

41%47%47%

51%42%42%

43%38%

43%41%

39%30%

33%32%

37%

11%

4%

4%

6%5%

14%15%

28%

32%16%

16%21%

43%

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

Other

Real Estate Assistance/Transactions

Rental Assistance/Transactions

Household Goods Shipping/Storage

Temporary Housing

Entire Relocation Cost

Travel Expenses

Misc. Allowances

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

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


48TH

ANNUAL

HIGHLIGHTS

18 19

Respondents were given a list of international relocation types; the answers received indicate that…

Question 43d: Average Percentage of International Relocations

Question 12b: Most Frequent DestinationsWhat were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer?

0%

20%

40%

60%

Between Two Foreign Countries/RegionsWithin Single Foreign Country/RegionBetween the U.S. and Another Country/Region

34% 37%30% 31% 31%

37%27%

34%26%

19%24%

39%32% 29%

20%31% 35%

United StatesCanadaUnited KingdomEurope (Western) Europe (Eastern)Asia

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

5,000+500-4,999Less than 500Total

42% 41%

24%20% 20%

25%

41%

21%

43%

29%

19%

9% 9%10%

22%

8% 8% 8%7% 7%

OtherLump sum only

Permanent transfersShort-term temporary assignmentsTraditional long-term assignments

International AssignmentsDurationShort-term assignments are taking hold internationally. Over a third of companies say the typical duration is now less than 12 months, similar to the percentage that report a standard length of 1-3 years (38% vs. 44%). Around a fifth of firms report a typical duration of three years or more.• Standard relocation lengths of less than a year are more

likely for small and mid-size firms (48% and 40% vs. 30%), while large firms are the most likely to indicate relocations usually last a year or more (70% vs. 60% of mid-size and 52% of small firms).

• Firms indicated around four out of ten relocations were traditional long-term assignments, a fifth were short-term or temporary, and roughly a fourth were permanent transfers. Almost one out of ten belonged to another assignment type (commuter, etc.). Almost half of mid-size and large firms expect the use of short-term/temporary assignments to increase; around a third of small firms do as well.

DestinationThe volume of relocations into the United States made it one of last year’s top international destinations. Relocations originating in the U.S. went to many regions, with Western Europe (37%), Asia (34%), Canada (31%), Eastern Europe (31%) and the United Kingdom (30%) rounding out the top six, including the U.S. The United States was the top region for intraregional transfers of expatriates, indicating both immigration to the U.S. and movement by foreign nationals within the U.S. was markedly higher. Western Europe saw similar levels of intraregional relocations by expats (34% vs. 39% U.S.). Western Europe was the top destination for interregional transfers (39%), followed by the United States (35%), Asia (32%), Eastern Europe (31%) and the United Kingdom (29%).

PolicyThe vast majority of firms, the highest percentage historically, report differences between domestic and international policies. This is driven largely by a dramatic increase in small firms allowing for policy differences. However, even as more firms differentiate their policies, the percentages of firms offering certain benefits dropped from last year, i.e., additional tax considerations (44% vs. 61%) and allowances for children to attend certain schools (42% vs. 54%). Other policy considerations showed stark increases compared to last year: additional leave time (28% vs. 18%), security support program (31% vs. 21%), and extended per diems (28% vs. 11%). • Mid-size and small firms are driving increases in additional

leave time and security support. However, large and mid-size firms are driving increases in extended per diem and decreased allowances for specific schools. The drop in additional tax considerations overall was driven largely by mid-size firms.

Firms maintained increases in financial services assistance compared to previous levels (39% vs. 18% in 2012) while many other considerations in policy remained below historical highs. Exceptions were higher levels of firms offering financial services assistance (39% vs. 32%), security support programs (31% vs. 21%), and extended per diems (28% vs. 11%) compared to last year. The percentages of firms offering higher relocation allowances (41%) or higher rent allowances (37%) internationally remained near historically normative levels as well (38% and 37% on average for 2003-2014 respectively).


48TH

ANNUAL HIGHLIGHTS

20 21

CANADA SNAPSHOT

For nearly 50 years, the Atlas Corporate Relocation Survey has gathered feedback primarily from U.S.-based companies and a handful of firms in other countries. As our service has become increasingly global, the scope of our research is expanding. This year, our first survey of Canadian firms yielded 15 responses. Findings show Canada mirrors many of the major trends seen elsewhere: increased relocation volumes and budgets; declined relocations due to spouse/partner employment and family issues/ties; more diversity in assignment types; and more assistance with child care and elder care.

Major TrendsMore Relocations Last Year, Further Increases or Stability Expected in 2015Forty percent of firms overall and half of firms that relocate internationally saw volumes increase. Few saw any volume decreases overall or internationally. Expectations for 2015 are positive, with a third expecting more volume overall and 42% expecting increases internationally.

Budgets Finally ReboundingNearly half of firms reported an increase in relocation budgets and a third believe budgets will increase again in 2015.

Factors Affecting Relocation VolumesThe primary factors affecting relocation volumes were company growth (67%), knowledge/skills transfers (67%), and lack of local talent (60%).

Declined Relocations Similar to trends outside Canada, a majority (75%) of firms saw employees decline relocation. The top two reasons: spouse/partner employment (89%) and family issues/ties (78%). Eighty percent of firms offer spouse/partner employment assistance, 67% offer assistance with child care, and 40% offer elder care assistance.

Employee Status Affects ReimbursementAs in other countries, full reimbursement of moving expenses is more likely for transferees (93%) than for new hires (57%). New hires are almost as likely to receive partial reimbursement (50%) and less likely to receive lump sums (36%). Full reimbursement is the most likely offering for transferees, followed by lump sums (50%) and partial reimbursement (29%).

More Assignment DiversitySixty-percent of firms say they use alternative assignments. Additionally, 60% have a formal short-term/temporary assignment policy, 40% maintain an extended business travel policy, and 20% follow a policy for long-distance commuters. Long-term or “permanent” relocations are in the mix as well: over a third of international relocations were permanent transfers. Many firms (83%) have instituted a formal policy on permanent international transfers, and 50% have a localization policy.

DecreaseStay About the SameIncrease

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

InternationalVolume

Projection2015

InternationalVolume

2014

RelocationBudget

Projection2015

RelocationVolume

Projection2015

RelocationBudget2014

RelocationVolume

2014

53%

7% 7% 7% 8% 8%

60% 60%42% 50%

33% 33%50% 42%

53%

40%47%

Canadian Volume/Budget 2014 Comparisons vs. 2015 Expectations

Questions 17 & 43f: Formal Relocation Policies-Canada

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Long-Distance Commuter

Extended Business

Travel

Localization (Intl)*

Short-Term/Temporary

Assignments

Permanent Transfers

(Intl)*

International*Domestic

83%60%

50%40%

20%

87% 83%

* Percentage of those who indicated they relocate employees internationally (Q2)

Respondent ProfileFifteen professionals responded. All work in human resources/personnel or relocation/mobility services departments. Eighty percent work in international firms.

Firms Size by Salaried Employees (Percent of Total)

• Small: Fewer than 500 (27%)

• Mid-size: 500-4,999 (13%)

• Large: 5,000+ (60%)


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

QUESTION RESPONSES

22 23

6. Compared to 2014, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2015 will…

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 45% Increase 31% 54% 48% 47% Stay About the Same 60% 39% 44% 8% Decrease 9% 7% 8%

7. Compared to 2014, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2015 will… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 45% Increase 36% 52% 45% 49% Stay About the Same 57% 42% 49% 6% Decrease 7% 6% 6%

8. Did any employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2014?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 59% % of companies answering “Yes” 47% 63% 67%

*excludes those who don’t know

9. Does declining the opportunity to relocate usually hinder an employee’s career? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 33% % of companies answering “Yes” 36% 40% 23%

10a. Did your company offer additional incentives or exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 86% % of companies indicating “Yes” 78% 93% 86%

10b. Which of the following additional incentives or exceptions did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 10a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 59% Relocation bonuses 52% 66% 56% 58% Cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) 48% 63% 61% in salary at new location 58% Extended temporary housing benefits 52% 54% 68% 34% Guarantee of employment contract (for 22% 46% 30% specified length of time) if relocation accepted 32% Telecommuting option (one or two days 35% 33% 29% each week) to curtail commuting costs 30% Buyer value option for origin home 17% 30% 42% 30% Guaranteed buyout option for origin home 21% 27% 41% 29% Extended duplicate housing benefits 23% 30% 35% 26% Loss-on-sale protection 17% 25% 37% 21% Mortgage payoffs/loans (if property sale 19% 26% 18% won’t cover employee mortgage debt) 2% Other 2% 1% 3%

10c. How often did offering the above incentives or exceptions prove successful in convincing an employee to relocate?*

Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 10a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 34% Almost always 25% 38% 38% 60% Frequently 64% 57% 59% 6% Seldom 10% 5% 2% 0% Never 1% 0% 0%

*excludes not applicable/don’t know responses

QUESTION RESPONSESThe following information is based upon the findings of Atlas World Group’s 48th Annual Survey of Corporate Relocation Policies conducted from January 20 through February 26, 2015 via the Internet. This year, 494 online questionnaires were completed. Unless otherwise noted, all data refers

to domestic relocations occurring in 2014. Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/– 1%) due to rounding, unless otherwise noted. Other questions totaling above 100% are due to multiple responses. Complete findings are as follows:

(For further details and graphical representations of all the data contained in this report, please go to http://www.atlasvanlines.com/survey)

A. RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS1. How many employees did your company relocate in 2014? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 2% None 3% 1% 1% 19% 1 - 9 37% 13% 6% 10% 10 - 19 14% 11% 6% 13% 20 - 49 16% 17% 7% 15% 50 - 99 12% 17% 15% 12% 100 - 199 8% 15% 14% 12% 200 - 399 7% 17% 11% 17% 400 or more 3% 10% 41%

50 - 99 Median 10 - 19 50 - 99 200 - 399

2. Do you ever relocate employees between countries? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% % of companies answering “Yes” 40% 58% 73%

3. Is your company. . . Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 19% Regional 30% 15% 13% 31% National 35% 36% 21% 50% International 35% 49% 66%

4. Compared to 2013, did the number of employees you relocated in 2014… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 49% Increase 38% 57% 52% 44% Stay About the Same 54% 36% 42% 7% Decrease 9% 7% 6%

5. Compared to 2013, did your 2014 relocation budget… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 47% Increase 39% 56% 45% 48% Stay About the Same 56% 39% 49% 5% Decrease 6% 5% 6%


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

24 25

Between Two Foreign Countries Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% None 72% 59% 38% 10% 1-9 14% 10% 7% 7% 10-19 4% 7% 11% 8% 20-49 3% 9% 11% 4% 50-99 4% 5% 5% 11% 100 or more 2% 8% 23% 3% Don’t know 2% 3% 5%

12b. What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer…

Within the U.S.* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Northeast 34% 42% 52% 34% West 27% 41% 34% 33% Midwest 34% 30% 35% 31% South 27% 35% 31% 25% Southwest 22% 31% 19% 16% Central 10% 17% 21%

*excludes N/A responses

Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 37% United States 39% 38% 35% 37% Europe (Western) 28% 34% 46% 34% Asia 23% 34% 42% 31% Europe (Eastern) 27% 34% 32% 31% Canada 30% 34% 29% 30% United Kingdom 16% 24% 45% 16% South America 20% 17% 14% 15% Central America/Caribbean 11% 18% 15% 10% Australia/Pacific Rim 11% 9% 12% 10% Middle East 11% 9% 11% 5% Africa (North) 6% 5% 5% 4% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 6% 3% 3% 3% Russia 5% 2% 3% 2% Other 2% 2% 2%


Within a Single Foreign Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 39% United States 39% 35% 43% 34% Europe (Western) 21% 32% 43% 27% Asia 16% 33% 27% 26% United Kingdom 18% 23% 32% 24% Europe (Eastern) 13% 27% 26% 19% Canada 18% 19% 19% 15% South America 8% 12% 21% 11% Central America/Caribbean 11% 11% 10% 8% Middle East 13% 7% 8% 8% Australia/Pacific Rim 3% 11% 9% 6% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 11% 4% 5% 5% Africa (North) 5% 5% 5% 4% Russia 5% 4% 4% 2% Other 5% 0% 1%

* excludes N/A responses(question 12 results continued on next page)

11. Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2014...* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 28% Increase from the 2013 level 27% 30% 28% 55% Remain about the same as the 2013 level 57% 51% 57% 17% Decrease from the 2013 level 17% 19% 15%


11a. What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? Of those who answered “Yes” to Question 8: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% Family issues/ties 52% 72% 74% 58% Spouse’s/partner’s employment 42% 66% 62% 45% Personal reasons (non-disclosed) 37% 48% 48% 39% No desire to relocate 39% 43% 34% 37% Housing/mortgage concerns 27% 39% 44% 37% Cost of living in new location 30% 36% 44% 20% Job security concerns 18% 25% 15% 3% Other 6% 1% 5%

12a. How many employees did your company relocate in 2014 in each of the following:

Within the U.S. Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 1% None 3% 1% 1% 23% 1-9 42% 18% 9% 14% 10-19 21% 17% 4% 17% 20-49 16% 21% 14% 16% 50-99 10% 22% 15% 28% 100 or more 8% 21% 57% 1% Don’t know 1% 0% 1%

Between the U.S. and Canada Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% None 64% 51% 36% 19% 1-9 17% 15% 26% 6% 10-19 6% 7% 6% 7% 20-49 5% 10% 6% 6% 50-99 4% 5% 7% 9% 100 or more 3% 10% 16% 1% Don’t know 1% 1% 3%

Between the U.S. and Another Country Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 45% None 62% 41% 30% 18% 1-9 17% 20% 16% 9% 10-19 7% 13% 7% 9% 20-49 6% 10% 11% 3% 50-99 3% 3% 3% 15% 100 or more 4% 13% 31% 1% Don’t know 1% 1% 1%

Within a Single Foreign Country Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% None 74% 55% 41% 10% 1-9 8% 12% 9% 8% 10-19 6% 10% 8% 5% 20-49 2% 7% 5% 6% 50-99 6% 5% 5% 10% 100 or more 1% 9% 20% 5% Don’t know 3% 3% 11%


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

26 27

15. Compared to 2013, from your company’s perspective, please rate the following in 2014:

Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% Better than 2013 62% 69% 72% 26% Same as in 2013 29% 26% 22% 7% Worse than 2013 9% 6% 6%

Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% Better than 2013 49% 55% 55% 41% Same as in 2013 44% 39% 40% 6% Worse than 2013 7% 6% 5%

Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Better than 2013 52% 51% 51% 40% Same as in 2013 36% 41% 40% 9% Worse than 2013 12% 8% 8%

The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% Better than 2013 55% 57% 59% 34% Same as in 2013 36% 33% 34% 8% Worse than 2013 8% 10% 7%

The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Better than 2013 48% 52% 64% 37% Same as in 2013 43% 40% 27% 9% Worse than 2013 9% 8% 8%

16. Compared to 2014, please indicate what you anticipate for 2015:

Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% Better than 2014 66% 68% 69% 29% Same as in 2014 29% 29% 28% 4% Worse than 2014 5% 4% 3%

Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 54% Better than 2014 51% 54% 55% 38% Same as in 2014 36% 38% 41% 8% Worse than 2014 13% 8% 4%

Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Better than 2014 46% 53% 51% 41% Same as in 2014 42% 41% 41% 8% Worse than 2014 12% 6% 8%

The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Better than 2014 52% 51% 48% 44% Same as in 2014 42% 44% 47% 5% Worse than 2014 6% 4% 5%

(question 16 results continued on next page)

Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried

(see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 39% Europe (Western) 26% 31% 51% 35% United States 33% 34% 36% 32% Asia 23% 31% 36% 31% Europe (Eastern) 38% 27% 32% 29% United Kingdom 18% 25% 38% 20% Canada 15% 28% 15% 17% South America 21% 15% 18% 16% Central America/Caribbean 21% 15% 14% 10% Middle East 15% 4% 13% 10% Australia/Pacific Rim 5% 6% 15% 4% Russia 8% 4% 2% 4% Africa (North) 8% 4% 1% 3% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 5% 0% 5% 2% Other 5% 0% 1%


B. FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONS13. What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your

employee relocations in 2014? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% External conditions had no impact 20% 6% 12% 43% Lack of qualified people locally 41% 44% 44% 38% Economic conditions 28% 46% 40% 27% Growth of domestic competition 23% 34% 21% 26% Growth of international competition 18% 30% 31% 21% Real estate market 17% 25% 21% 15% Affordable Care Act/U.S. health care 12% 22% 10%

legislation requirements/implementation 15% Political/regulatory environment – 10% 21% 13%

domestic or international (i.e. employment legislation/policies)

11% Natural/man-made disasters – domestic 9% 13% 12% or international (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, system failures (oil/nuclear/other), etc.)

2% Other 4% 1% 3%

14. What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2014?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5% Internal conditions had no impact 9% 3% 3% 43% Growth of company 38% 46% 45% 33% Knowledge/skills transfers 26% 33% 40% 28% Promotions/resignations 29% 29% 27% 25% Corporate reorganization/restructuring 19% 26% 28% 24% Expansion of facility 19% 30% 23% 24% Expansion into new territories 16% 25% 29% 23% Increased production 15% 32% 20% 19% Budget constraints 15% 22% 18% 18% International expansion 9% 19% 27% 17% Technology deployment/integration 12% 21% 16% 17% Acquisitions/mergers 11% 14% 27% 14% Use of short-term assignments 7% 19% 16% 14% Closing of facility 8% 13% 20% 11% Use of frequent business travel/ 9% 13% 9%

telecommuting 1% Other 1% 0% 3%

(question 12 results continued)


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

28 29

23% Flexible use of a portion of relocation 12% 33% 23% benefit coverage (all employees) 20% Flexible use of a portion of relocation 16% 25% 17% benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category) 1% Other 2% 1% 1%

20a. Does your company have a centralized relocation department? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 87% % of companies indicating “Yes” 72% 92% 97%

20b. Does your company’s centralized relocation department...?* Of those with a centralized relocation Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried department: (see Question 20a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 59% Manage domestic relocation programs 45% 54% 76% 55% Develop relocation policy 42% 48% 72% 43% Control additional relocation services 38% 40% 50%

provider(s) selection 40% Manage international relocation programs 32% 32% 57% 40% Control household goods carrier selection 35% 36% 48% 34% Handle office relocations 36% 36% 28% 32% Handle air travel via commercial airlines 31% 36% 29% 32% Impact talent management/recruitment 22% 36% 35%

decisions/processes 29% Control freight carrier selection (air, land, 28% 28% 31%

sea or rail)


21. Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 23% No cost containment measures beyond 29% 16% 27% typical relocation policy or program utilized 35% Cap relocation benefit amounts 36% 38% 32% 30% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for certain 20% 35% 36%

benefits (i.e. add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement core/flex, etc.)

27% Limit miscellaneous allowance benefits 27% 30% 25% (coverage items, amounts)

25% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 15% 29% 29% 24% Offer short-term/extended travel/commuter 20% 30% 23%

arrangements rather than relocate employees 22% Offer pre-decision counseling 15% 25% 25% 17% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 10% 22% 19% 17% Incentivize renting rather than home purchase 12% 24% 14%

at destination 14% Modify COLA offering policy 6% 13% 23% 1% Other 2% 1% 1%

22. How many salaried (non-hourly) people are employed by your company? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 100% 33% 36% 31%

23. In 2014, what approximate percentage of your company’s relocating employees were (at origin):*

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Transferees 39% 56% 59% 49% New Hires 61% 44% 41% 51% Homeowners 50% 51% 50% 40% Renters 37% 41% 41% 10% N/A (Neither Homeowners/Renters) 13% 7% 9%


The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 52% Better than 2014 49% 51% 55% 42% Same as in 2014 46% 43% 37% 6% Worse than 2014 5% 6% 8%

C. POLICY ADMINISTRATION17. Does your company have a formal policy for the following?

General/Domestic Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 81% Domestic Relocations 69% 83% 91% 65% Short-Term/Temporary Assignments 49% 69% 77% 52% Extended Business Travel 46% 53% 58% 41% Long-Distance Commuter 33% 48% 43%

% of companies answering “Yes”

18a. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its domestic relocation policy?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 30% No tiers or levels/single policy 42% 29% 19% 26% Two tiers 27% 28% 24% 25% Three tiers 22% 27% 26% 13% Four tiers 7% 16% 17% 5% Five tiers or more 1% 1% 14%

2.4 Average Number of Tiers 2.0 2.3 2.8 (of companies with tiers/levels)

18b. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with domestic tiers/levels: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 18a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 64% Job or Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, 55% 65% 71%

professional, etc.) 57% Position/Job Title 63% 61% 49% 42% New Hire/Current Employee Status 33% 51% 39% 39% Homeowner/Renter Status 36% 37% 42% 36% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 35% 40% 34% 2% Other 0% 2% 3%

19a. Does your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 86% % of companies indicating “Yes” 83% 88% 86%

19b. Which of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy does your relocation policy incorporate?

Of those using core coverage/flex policy Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried elements: (see Question 19a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees

54% Relocation benefit coverage of specific 56% 50% 57% items (i.e. core components) across all employee levels/categories 51% Relocation benefit coverage of specific 42% 57% 54% items (i.e. core components) dependent on employee levels/categories 35% Flexible use of full relocation benefit 35% 38% 32% coverage amount (all employees) 32% Flexible use of full relocation benefit 25% 36% 32% coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category)



48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

30 31

28% Yes, domestically (limited basis) 22% 31% 30% 18% Yes, internationally (frequently) 10% 22% 23% 13% Yes, domestically (frequently) 7% 15% 16% 11% No, but we plan to do so in the coming year 9% 14% 8% 1% Other 1% 0% 2%

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

Of those utilizing “alternative assignments”: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 27) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% Used to meet strategic business goals 31% 44% 45% 41% Used in place of long-term assignments 35% 44% 42% 39% Used in addition to long-term assignments 39% 41% 35% 35% Used in place of traditional short-term 34% 33% 38%

assignment arrangements 33% Used to accommodate employee needs 27% 34% 36% 32% Used to develop internal talent 31% 34% 30% 30% Used to maximize budget/corporate resources 23% 31% 35% 26% Used in addition to traditional short-term 29% 26% 25%

assignment arrangements 1% Other 1% 2% 0%

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

Of those utilizing “alternative assignments”: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 27) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 57% Job function 57% 60% 52% 53% Assignment purpose 49% 55% 52% 51% Cost 56% 44% 56% 43% Employee requests 40% 47% 42% 39% Career development 29% 43% 41% 2% Other 4% 2% 3%

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

reimburse/pay to... Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 19% Company does not pay for any of these items or 32% 16% 10%

only offers lump sum 53% Move an automobile 39% 53% 66% 50% Pack all items 40% 49% 63% 32% Move exercise equipment 24% 33% 40% 32% Move a second automobile 21% 28% 47% 30% Unpack all items 21% 29% 41% 29% Move via containerized shipment 22% 26% 40% 28% Move unlimited weight 23% 24% 38% 27% Move collections of highly valuable objects like 19% 33% 29%

statuary, paintings, antiques 26% Move pets 20% 31% 28% 26% Move recreation and lawn equipment 20% 30% 27% 26% Have permanent/extended storage of 25% 26% 26%

some possessions 24% Carry items down from the attic 21% 26% 27% 21% Partial/custom unpacking of items 14% 19% 31% 17% Have belongings picked up from a secondary 12% 21% 18%

residence (summer home, relative’s home, etc.) 14% Move a boat 12% 15% 15%

24. How long does an employee have to…

a) Accept a relocation offer* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 10% 1 week or less 14% 5% 11% 26% Up to 2 weeks 29% 18% 32% 13% Up to 3 weeks 11% 14% 13% 30% Up to 1 month 32% 35% 22% 9% Up to 2 months 5% 11% 12% 8% Up to 3 months 5% 12% 7% 4% More than 3 months 4% 4% 4%


b) Report to work at the new location* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 3% 1 week or less 3% 2% 5% 15% Up to 2 weeks 15% 17% 12% 13% Up to 3 weeks 12% 16% 12% 32% Up to 1 month 35% 28% 36% 15% Up to 2 months 18% 16% 11% 14% Up to 3 months 12% 14% 16% 6% More than 3 months 5% 7% 7%


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

Expense-Paid House-Hunting Trips with Spouse/Partner to the New Location Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Shown) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.5

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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Shown) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5.6 4.4 6.6 5.9


26. How was the Internet used for relocation-related matters in 2014? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 12% Did not use the Internet for relocation-related 20% 7% 8%

matters in 2014 59% Communicate via e-mail with relocating employees 53% 57% 68% 45% Research relocation-related matters (policy, 35% 47% 55%

benchmarking, etc.) 44% Complete online forms for employee relocation 30% 47% 56% 40% Initiate/execute employee relocation services 23% 42% 55% 38% Access relocation company website for reporting 23% 36% 55%

or other services 37% Research relocation service providers 33% 42% 36% 28% Audit/verify prices quoted for relocation services 21% 34% 28% 24% Utilize social media/networking tools 15% 28% 30% 19% Utilize mobile applications from relocation providers 14% 18% 25% 1% Other 1% 1% 1%

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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% No, and we do not plan to do so 52% 25% 27% 30% Yes, internationally (limited basis) 19% 34% 38%


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

32 33

21% Partially reimbursed by company 19% 25% 18% 8% Not reimbursed (employee paid) 9% 7% 6%


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

Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Entire relocation cost 44% 46% 40% 43% Travel expenses (i.e. housing hunting trips, 38% 48% 43%

final move, etc.) 40% Miscellaneous allowances 37% 31% 55% 39% Temporary housing 32% 35% 53% 37% Household goods shipping/storage 34% 43% 30% 32% Rental assistance/transactions 25% 40% 29% 28% Real estate assistance/transactions 19% 36% 25% 4% Other 6% 2% 5%

32b. What types of relocating employees most commonly receive lump sum payments? Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 54% Executives 57% 54% 48% 52% Experienced professionals 53% 55% 46% 43% Transferees 35% 49% 46% 43% New hires 50% 35% 44% 37% Entry level employees 28% 35% 51% 28% Renters 22% 28% 35% 19% Homeowners 14% 18% 27% 3% Other 1% 1% 8%

32c. For the applicable costs types below, what are the typical ranges of the lump sums offered?Real estate assistance/transactions

Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 19% No lump sum offered for this benefit 29% 10% 21% 19% Less than $5,000 20% 18% 19% 14% $5,000 – $9,999 17% 13% 13% 41% $10,000 or more 28% 54% 39% 6% Don’t know 6% 5% 9%

Household goods shipping/storage Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 16% No lump sum offered for this benefit 23% 7% 20% 27% Less than $5,000 28% 28% 24% 20% $5,000-$9,999 16% 23% 20% 33% $10,000 or more 27% 39% 30% 5% Don’t know 6% 3% 6%

Entire relocation cost Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 4% No lump sum offered for this benefit 4% 4% 6% 17% Less than $5,000 21% 14% 16% 18% $5,000-$9,999 21% 14% 18% 58% $10,000 or more 50% 65% 56% 4% Don’t know 5% 2% 4%

Rental assistance/transaction Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 18% No lump sum offered for this benefit 25% 10% 23% 28% Less than $2,500 30% 26% 28% 17% $2,500-$4,999 16% 23% 10% 31% $5,000 or more 23% 38% 32% 5% Don’t know 6% 4% 6%

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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 20% Company does not offer any of these benefits or 33% 16% 13%

only offers lump sum 42% Offer temporary housing allowance 32% 41% 53% 38% Reimburse/pay for home sale costs 22% 39% 55% 36% Reimburse/pay for home purchase costs 19% 37% 55% 34% Offer storage 24% 33% 45% 33% Offer homefinding trips 27% 28% 44% 27% Offer home marketing assistance 12% 28% 42% 26% Reimburse/pay for loss-on-sale 15% 29% 34% 26% Offer duplicate housing assistance 16% 29% 32% 25% Reimburse/pay for federal tax liability 15% 25% 36% 22% Offer bonuses/incentives for employee- 12% 26% 29%

generated home-sale 22% Offer buyer value option for origin home 10% 22% 33% 20% Offer qualified home sale program 9% 22% 28% 18% Offer mortgage subsidy or allowance 10% 22% 21% 16% Offer guaranteed buyout/appraised value 7% 16% 26%

option for origin home

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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 20% Company does not offer any of these benefits or 31% 16% 12%

only offers lump sum 50% Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation 36% 47% 68% 44% Offer temporary housing allowance 33% 46% 55% 37% Offer storage 28% 40% 44% 36% Offer homefinding trips 23% 38% 47% 30% Reimburse/pay apartment search or finder’s fees 18% 30% 42% 26% Reimburse/pay for security deposits 22% 31% 24% 26% Reimburse/pay for hook-up fees 22% 30% 25% 15% Apply temporary living allowance toward rent 13% 18% 15% 14% Reimburse/pay for furniture rental 8% 19% 13% 12% Offer rental subsidy or allowance 7% 15% 13%

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

Transferees Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 66% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 55% 67% 75% 48% Lump sum payment 53% 53% 39% 40% Partial reimbursement based 31% 45% 44% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 16% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 15% 20% 13%

New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 38% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 34% 35% 46% 51% Lump sum payment 52% 51% 48% 41% Partial reimbursement based 36% 48% 39% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 20% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 18% 19% 21%

32. What approximate percentage of your relocations were:* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 44% Fully reimbursed/cost covered by company 35% 42% 56% 27% Lump sum payment only (entire relo) 36% 26% 19%

(question 32 results continued on next page)


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

34 35

34. Does your organization perform candidate assessments prior to relocation offers? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 23% No, candidate assessments are not performed 27% 16% 27% 48% Yes, for all relocations 48% 52% 42% 23% Yes, for domestic relocations 17% 33% 18% 17% Yes, for international relocations 13% 21% 16% 16% Yes, on an “as needed/requested” basis 10% 19% 19% 15% Yes, based on policy tier/reimbursement level 12% 19% 14% 13% Yes, for transferees 12% 14% 14% 12% Yes, for new hires 14% 12% 10% 2% Other 1% 1% 4%

35. In 2014, what approximate percentage of your relocations involved:* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Percent) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 20% Female employees 22% 18% 20% 25% Wife/female partner (Trailing spouse) 24% 23% 28% 21% Husband/male partner (Trailing spouse) 18% 22% 24% 30% Employees with children 29% 27% 36%


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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 47% No elder care assistance 60% 35% 47% 27% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 17% 34% 27% 26% Provide paid personal leave days 16% 35% 27% 25% Provide list of nursing homes and/or 19% 34% 23%

day-care centers 24% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for 17% 30% 23%

outside care 22% Relocate an elderly relative that does not 15% 29% 21% live with the employee currently, but will either live with the employee at the new location or at a nearby residence/facility 1% Other 1% 1% 2%

37. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee for childcare? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 36% No childcare assistance 49% 28% 31% 35% Provide list of local schools/educational options 27% 38% 40% 32% Provide list of childcare providers/services 25% 37% 32%

and/or agencies 30% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 20% 39% 30% 29% Provide paid personal leave days 22% 34% 30% 27% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for 19% 35% 27%

outside care 2% Other 1% 1% 3%

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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% Almost always 12% 14% 12% 49% Frequently 45% 51% 50% 33% Seldom 32% 32% 34% 5% Never 10% 2% 4%


Travel expenses Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 12% No lump sum offered for this benefit 15% 7% 16% 33% Less than $2,500 39% 28% 33% 20% $2,500-$4,999 17% 25% 18% 30% $5,000 or more 22% 37% 29% 5% Don’t know 6% 3% 5%

Temporary housing Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% No lump sum offered for this benefit 18% 10% 14% 23% Less than $2,500 27% 22% 21% 18% $2,500-$4,999 20% 17% 18% 39% $5,000 or more 28% 47% 41% 6% Don’t know 6% 5% 6%

Miscellaneous allowances Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 12% No lump sum offered for this benefit 16% 10% 11% 35% Less than $2,500 39% 35% 29% 16% $2,500-$4,999 13% 16% 18% 31% $5,000 or more 28% 33% 34% 6% Don’t know 5% 6% 7%

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

Performed by: Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 54% Human Resources staff member 59% 60% 40% 38% Finance/Procurement department 35% 43% 35% 32% Relocating employee 28% 43% 23% 31% Relocation team staff member 17% 37% 40% 14% Outsourced 6% 13% 26% 2% Other 2% 2% 3% 5% Not Tracked 3% 2% 10%

Method: Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 31) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 50% Submission of expense reports 56% 54% 36% 41% Excel spreadsheet 35% 46% 42% 34% Online reporting tool 20% 46% 34% 31% In-house software report 22% 39% 31% 14% Outsourced 6% 16% 20% 2% Other 4% 0% 2% 5% Not Tracked 2% 2% 11%

E. EMPLOYEE, SPOUSAL & ASSISTANCE ISSUES33. What is the age range of your most frequently relocated salaried employee?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 10% Less than 30 years 10% 10% 11% 34% 30 – 35 years 29% 35% 39% 37% 36 – 40 years 37% 39% 35% 15% 41 – 45 years 19% 15% 11% 3% More than 45 years 6% 2% 3%




48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

36 37

17% Audit and/or payment of invoice 6% 17% 30% 16% Compensation services (i.e. payroll arrangements, 7% 20% 22%

tax compliance, etc.) 14% Supplementary services (appliances, cleaning, etc.) 9% 17% 15% 1% Other 1% 1% 1%

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

Of those where company outsourced: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 40) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 66% Human resources 59% 72% 63% 41% Relocation 31% 38% 53% 33% Executive management 29% 41% 26% 27% Procurement 23% 25% 33% 1% Other 1% 0% 1%

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

Transferees Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 74% Paid directly by the company 61% 74% 88% 41% Paid by the employee and then reimbursed 46% 43% 34% 22% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 26% 23% 19%

New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 60% Paid directly by the company 55% 57% 68% 38% Paid by the employee and then reimbursed 42% 42% 31% 22% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 20% 28% 19%

42. Who selects the household goods carrier for your employee’s relocation? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% The company 30% 35% 39% 24% The company & employee together 27% 27% 18% 22% The employee 31% 22% 12% 18% A relocation firm 9% 16% 30% 1% Other 2% 0% 1%

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

Of those where company is involved in selection: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 42) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 61% Human resources 67% 65% 48% 41% Relocation 18% 43% 63% 25% Executive management 27% 31% 14% 21% Procurement 20% 16% 29% 2% Other 1% 0% 5%

G. INTERNATIONAL43a. Compared to 2013, did the number of employees your company relocated

internationally during 2014... Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Increase 51% 54% 59% 38% Stay About the Same 42% 40% 33% 7% Decrease 8% 6% 8%

39. Does your company allow the hiring of spouses of employees?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 50% Yes, but not in the same department/division 59% 39% 53% 29% Yes, without restriction 21% 34% 31% 8% Yes, but not at the same location 8% 11% 7% 13% No 13% 17% 9%


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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 65% % of companies indicating “Yes” 54% 69% 72%

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

Of those who did not answer Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried “No assistance” to Question 39a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 46% Provide networking assistance 49% 43% 46% 41% Find employment within company 43% 46% 36% 38% Provide resume preparation assistance 26% 43% 41% 37% Pay for outplacement/career services from an 26% 44% 38%

outside firm 36% Provide interviewing skills training 30% 41% 35% 30% Find employment outside company 25% 41% 23% 5% Other 3% 2% 10%

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

Of those who did not answer “No assistance” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 39a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 27% Average Percent 24% 24% 32%


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

HRO or brokerage firm in 2014? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 27% Did not use a relocation service, HRO or 46% 18% 19%

brokerage firm in 2014 31% Real estate sales/marketing 18% 34% 42% 29% Counseling about the planning & details of 10% 31% 45%

relocation 28% Real estate purchase 13% 31% 40% 27% Contract of household goods carrier 20% 26% 35% 26% Monitoring of shipment 14% 25% 39% 25% Counseling about company policy 12% 28% 36% 24% Arrangement of family’s transportation and 13% 24% 37%

accommodations 24% Management of full relocation program 12% 26% 35% 23% Expense tracking/reimbursement services 10% 21% 39% 22% Orientation tours at new location 6% 20% 42% 21% Assistance with employee claims preparation 9% 27% 29%

and submission 20% Property management 10% 22% 28% 19% Tax gross-up assistance 9% 19% 31%


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

38 39

43h. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with International tiers/levels Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 43g) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 62% Position/Job Title 61% 63% 61% 62% Job or Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, 51% 61% 70%

professional, etc.) 47% New Hire/Current Employee Status 37% 58% 42% 46% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 32% 55% 45% 41% Homeowner/Renter Status 44% 42% 39% 2% Other 0% 1% 5%

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

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 7% No difference between international and 12% 6% 5%

domestic relocation policies 44% Additional leave time that includes at least one 42% 43% 47%

visit back to the employee’s home country 44% Additional tax considerations 29% 30% 65% 42% Allowances for children to attend certain schools 29% 40% 51% 41% Higher relocation allowances 29% 41% 48% 40% Intercultural and language training 22% 36% 56% 39% Financial services assistance (i.e. bank account 22% 38% 50%

setup, specialized compensation arrangements) 37% Higher rental housing allowance 23% 38% 44% 34% Increased allowances for permanent storage 15% 38% 41% 31% Security support program 22% 37% 32% 28% Extended per diem charges 26% 26% 32% 28% Additional leave time 25% 36% 23% 3% Other 3% 4% 3%

43j. Which of the following international services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm in 2014?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 15% Did not use a relocation service, HRO or brokerage 20% 11% 15%

firm for international relocation services in 2014 40% Counseling about the planning & details of 26% 42% 46%

relocating internationally 37% Contract of household goods carrier for 28% 30% 49%

international shipping 36% Monitoring of international shipment 18% 37% 47% 36% Visa & immigration services 20% 32% 50% 35% Management of international relocation program 23% 32% 45% 35% Securing rental property in host country 15% 31% 50% 33% Counseling about company policy concerning 14% 40% 36%

international relocation 31% Destination services/orientation tours in 12% 25% 48%

host country 31% Intercultural and language training 11% 31% 42% 30% Arrangement of family’s international 22% 24% 40%

transportation 29% Repatriation services 15% 27% 39% 26% International real estate (sales/marketing 17% 29% 30%

and/or purchases) 26% Compensation services (i.e. payroll arrangements, 14% 24% 35%

tax compliance, etc.) 24% Arrangement of family’s temporary 11% 19% 37%

accommodations 23% Property management of home at origin 9% 23% 31% 1% Other 3% 0% 1%

43b. Compared to 2014, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during 2015 will...

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 50% Increase 42% 52% 53% 43% Stay About the Same 48% 42% 41% 7% Decrease 11% 6% 5%

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

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 7% Less than 3 months 6% 6% 8% 31% 4 to 12 months 42% 35% 22% 44% Greater than 12 months, but less than 3 years 37% 43% 48% 19% 3 years or more 15% 16% 23%

43d. In 2014, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were:* Of those who answered “Yes” to Question 2: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Percent) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 42% Traditional long-term assignments 41% 41% 43% 20% Short-term/temporary assignments

(less than 12 months) 21% 20% 19% 25% Permanent transfers 24% 22% 29% 8% Other assignment type (commuter, etc) 7% 8% 8% 9% Lump sum payment only 10% 9% 7%


43e. Compared to 2014, do you expect the number of international short-term/temporary assignments (less than 12 months) in 2015 to. . .

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 44% Increase 35% 45% 47% 51% Stay About the Same 57% 50% 49% 5% Decrease 8% 5% 5%

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

International Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 83% International Relocations 74% 79% 91%

(traditional length 1-3 years) 70% Permanent Transfers (international) 57% 67% 79% 59% Localization (international) 45% 59% 67%

% of companies answering “Yes”

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

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 33% No tiers or levels/single policy 32% 28% 38% 23% Two tiers 32% 23% 17% 24% Three tiers 20% 23% 28% 13% Four tiers 10% 22% 5% 7% Five tiers or more 7% 3% 12%

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


48TH

ANNUAL

QUESTION RESPONSES

40 41

46. What is your department’s function? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Human Resources/Personnel - 50% 48% 31%

General/Administration 20% Human Resources/Personnel - Compensation 18% 18% 24%

& Benefits 15% Relocation/Mobility Services 7% 14% 24% 13% Human Resources/Personnel - 15% 12% 10%

Talent Management 3% Finance/Accounting 3% 2% 5% 2% Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing 3% 3% 1% 4% Other 4% 3% 5%

47. What is your position within the company? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 4% President 2% 4% 6% 13% Vice President 15% 16% 6% 26% Director 29% 27% 21% 32% Manager 28% 28% 42% 7% Relocation Administrator 4% 10% 6% 6% Supervisor 7% 8% 4% 4% Coordinator 7% 2% 5% 2% HR Assistant 1% 2% 3% 2% Recruiter 4% 2% 1% 4% Other 2% 3% 7%

48. Which of the following trade publication(s) do you regularly read? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% None 10% 16% 14% 46% HR Magazine 54% 47% 36% 28% Human Resource Executive 28% 32% 25% 27% Employee Benefits News 28% 30% 23% 26% Mobility 14% 24% 42% 26% HR News 29% 28% 21% 25% Workforce 25% 26% 25% 23% Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) Today 20% 28% 21% 16% The Relocation Report 9% 25% 12% 15% National Relocation & Real Estate 8% 22% 12% 11% Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 4% 14% 14% 1% Perspectives 1% 1% 3% 1% HR Reporter 1% 0% 1% 3% Other(s) 2% 1% 5%

49. To what relocation-related association(s) do you currently belong? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 26% None 35% 21% 22% 35% Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee Relocation 20% 40% 45%

Council - ERC) 34% Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) 37% 35% 29% 18% Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) 10% 25% 18% 16% National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) 11% 21% 14% 15% Canadian Employee Relocation Council 7% 21% 17%

(CERC – Canada) 14% Regional or local relocation council 7% 14% 23% 12% Forum for Expatriate Management 9% 14% 13% 3% Other(s) 2% 1% 5%

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

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 23% No assistance 23% 20% 26% 34% Provide networking assistance 29% 38% 32% 30% Find employment within company 34% 35% 24% 30% Pay for outplacement/career services from 22% 29% 36%

an outside firm 29% Pay for work visa in new location 22% 32% 30% 28% Provide resume preparation assistance 25% 33% 25% 24% Provide interviewing skills training 15% 30% 24% 23% Find employment outside company 18% 34% 16% 4% Other 2% 2% 8%

43m. In 2014, what reasons were cited for an employee declining an international relocation or for an international relocation to fail?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 19% No international relocations declined or failed 20% 16% 20% 46% Family issues/ties 38% 50% 47% 33% Lack of adaptability by the spouse/partner 26% 32% 39% 32% Personal reason (non-disclosed) 26% 32% 35% 31% Financial issues/concerns 25% 37% 29% 24% Lack of spousal/partner assistance 22% 34% 17% 24% Lack of adaptability by employee 23% 27% 21% 14% War/terrorism 11% 16% 13% 13% Illness 8% 16% 13% 2% Other 2% 0% 5% 7% Don’t know 6% 3% 11%

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

business classification? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 31% Service (Profit) (includes educational services, 32% 29% 33%

healthcare, high-tech, etc.) 31% Manufacturing/Processing 29% 33% 30% 13% Financial (includes banking, insurance, 6% 17% 16%

investments, etc.) 9% Service (Non-profit) (includes religious 20% 6% 1%

institutions, charities, etc.) 9% Wholesale/Retail 7% 10% 8% 5% Government/Military 4% 4% 6% 3% Other 2% 1% 6%

45. What were your company’s annual sales for 2014?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5% Less than $25 million 13% 3% 0% 7% $26 - $50 million 14% 5% 2% 8% $51 - $99 million 18% 5% 1% 11% $100 - $249 million 17% 11% 5% 11% $250 - $499 million 14% 14% 3% 12% $500 - $749 million 9% 20% 4% 11% $750 million - $1 billion 7% 18% 6% 36% Over $1 billion 8% 23% 78%

*excludes blank responses

TM & © 2015 AWGI LLC Atlas Van Lines, Inc. 1212 St. George Rd., Evansville, IN 47711 Form No. CC012078

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

You’re invited to take part in next year’s survey.Your perspective can help the world better see how our

industry works. To be included in the 49th Annual Atlas Survey, sign up at:

AtlasVanLines.com/TakeSurvey

The 48th Annual Atlas Corporate Relocation Survey

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

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

bigger picture into focus.

Visit us at atlasvanlines.com

Contact us at 800-852-6683

Atlas RESULTS Corporate - WordPress.com · More Relocations Last Year, More Expected in 2015,...

Documents

Transcript of Atlas RESULTS Corporate - WordPress.com · More Relocations Last Year, More Expected in 2015,...