38 th annual corporate relocation survey

integrity | quality | solutions

Copyright © 2005 Atlas World Group, Inc.1212 St. George Road, Evansville, IN 47711-2364800-252-8885 U.S. DOT No. 125550

38th Annual Corporate Relocation

Survey

Management Summary and Results Charts

April, 2005



Table of Contents

Section Slide Number

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

Methodology 3

Management Summary…………………………………………………………………… 4-20

Corporate Profile 4

Factors Impacting Transfers 8

Policy Administration 10

Relocation Costs 11

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues 12

Transportation 15

International 16

Respondent Profile 20

Survey Graphs……………………………………………………………………………… 21-119

Corporate Profile 21

Factors Impacting Transfers 41

Policy Administration 45

Relocation Costs 53

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues 63

Transportation 79

International 93

Respondent Profile 108

2



Foreword

Situational Analysis

Atlas World Group conducts corporate relocation issues research on an annual basis. This is the third year the study has been conducted via the Internet. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to mailing lists of selected relocation-related publications and associations. In order to qualify for the survey, a respondent must: 1) have relocation responsibility and 2) work for a company that has either relocated employees within the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year.

For the 38th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey, Atlas World Group utilized OpinionWare, a software tool developed by SilkRoad Technology for building and conducting survey research on the Internet.

Methodology

For the year 2005, 330 surveys were completed by qualifying participants online from January 26 through March 7. Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/- 1%) due to rounding. Other questions totaling above 100% are due to multiple responses.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) Total % of

Sample

Less than 500 employees – Small 151 46%

500-4999 employees – Mid-size 102 31%

5000 or more employees - Large 77 23%

Total 330 100%

3



Management Summary

Corporate Profile

Forty-six percent of the companies involved in this study employ less than 500 salaried workers, under one-third (31%) employ 500-4,999 salaried employees, and under one quarter (23%) have 5,000 or more salaried employees.

Service and Manufacturing/Processing companies were the most highly represented business classifications in this study (44% and 36%, respectively).

Roughly half of participating companies are international (47%). Large companies (5,000+ salaried workers) surveyed are more likely to be international, as nearly twice as many large companies (70%) are international than small companies (34%). The percentage of mid-size firms indicating they are international dropped slightly from last year, from close to two-thirds (64%) of participating firms to around half (48%).

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

Total Business Classification Service 44% Manufacturing/Processing 36 Financial 10 Government/Military 2 Other 8

4



Management SummaryCorporate Profile (cont.)

Forty-seven percent of the companies surveyed indicated approximately the same number of employee relocations in 2004 as they did in the previous year. Forty-one percent indicated they saw increases over 2003 volume, while 12% indicated relocations decreased from 2003 levels. Unlike last year, company size appears to have been a factor in 2004 relocation volume, with about half of mid-size and large firms reporting increases, and the majority (60%) of small firms indicating 2004 volume was the same as 2003. Companies surveyed reported a median range of 10-19 employee relocations in 2004 (small companies reported a median range of 1-9, mid-sized companies 20-49, and large companies 200-399).

Around fifty percent of the mid-size and large companies surveyed had more money for relocations in 2004 as they did in the previous year. For small companies, about a third (34%) indicated that budgets had increased, with just 10% of all companies responding indicating their budgets decreased.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees)

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more Number of Employees Relocated in 2003 Median Range 10-19 1-9 20-49 200-399

Company Size (By Salaried Employees)

2004 Number of Relocations Compared to 2003

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 41% 32% 47% 51%

Stay About the Same 47

60 40 31

Decrease 12

8 13 18

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

2004 Relocation Budgets Compared to 2003

Increase 42% 34% 51% 48%


58 41 36

Decrease 10

9 8 16

5



Management SummaryCorporate Profile (cont.)

One-third (33%) of firms responding anticipate an increase in the number of relocations in 2005, which is the same percentage of those who expected an increase in 2004. Also, 32% of respondents expect relocation budgets to increase in 2005, which is similar to the percentage (29%) who thought so last year. Company size appears to be playing a role in projections for 2005 as well, with almost half of large firms indicating they expect relocation volume to increase in 2005, while less than a third of mid-size and small firms indicate they expect increases.

Similar percentages of firms to last year expect relocation volume and budgets to remain the same, and the percentage of firms that expect a decrease in these areas has also held fairly steady. Only 16% expect a decrease in relocation volume, the same percent as last year. Correspondingly, only 14% expect relocation budgets to be lower this year than last, down even slightly from the 18% of firms who last year expected decreases.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2005 Expectations: Number of Relocations Compared to 2004

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 33% 28% 31% 47%


51 53 47

Decrease 16

21 16 6

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2005 Expectations: Relocation Budgets

Compared to 2004 Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 32% 28% 27% 44%


56 58 47

Decrease 14

15 15 9

6



Management Summary

Corporate Profile (cont.)

Seventy-six percent of the companies surveyed have a formal relocation policy. Companies with 500-4,999 and 5,000 or more employees are more likely to have a formal relocation policy than are smaller companies (97% of large and 85% mid-size companies vs. 59% small companies).

Over 4 out of 5 (82%) of the large companies surveyed have a centralized relocation department, similar to 85% of mid-sized companies and 83% of the small companies. Most of the companies’ centralized relocation departments are responsible for managing domestic relocation programs (79%) and controlling household goods carrier selection (66%).

At 52% of the companies surveyed, the company is the sole selector of the household goods carrier for the employee’s move.

Thirty-two percent of the companies surveyed allow the employee some say in the household goods carrier selection, but employees of small companies are more likely have this option than those of mid- to large companies (48% of small companies vs. 21% of mid-sized and 16% of large companies).

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

Who Selects Carrier for Employee Moves The Company 52% 43% 57% 61% The Company & Employee Together 22 30 17 13 The Employee 10 18 4 3 A Relocation Firm 15 7 21 21 Other 2 2 2 3

7



Management Summary

Company Size (Salaried Employees)

Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

External Conditions Having Significant Impact

External Conditions Had No Impact 23% 23% 25% 21%

Lack of Qualified People Locally 48 48 49 44

Economic Conditions 40 32 37 57

Growth of Competition (Domestic or International) 20 6

11 20 36

8

Factors Impacting Transfers

Roughly eighty percent of respondents indicated at least one external factor had a significant impact on the number of employee transfers in 2004. Overall, the “lack of qualified people locally” (48%) was the top reason indicated, followed by last year’s top factor, “economic conditions” (40%).

The impact of “lack of qualified people locally” rose in importance from 37% last year overall. Additionally, significantly higher percentages of large (44%) and mid-size (49%) firms compared to 2003 (23% and 36%, respectively), agreed this had a significant impact on their relocation volume in 2004.

For large companies, competition also appeared to play a greater role in 2004 relocation. Over a third (36%) of large firms indicate one form of competition (domestic or international) had a significant impact on relocation volume last year, which is significantly above the twenty percent who indicated as such for 2003.



Management Summary

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

Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 6% 7% 6% 4%

Growth of Company 55 56 58 52

Promotions/Resignations 40 35 42 45

Corporate Reorganization 28 21 28 43

Expansion into New Territories 21 13 28 27

Expansion of Facility 20 16 21 26

Budget Constraints 18 14 16 29

Increased Production 18 13 20 25

Acquisitions/Mergers 16 6 20 32

Closing of Facility 14 7 13 27

International Expansion 12 4 13 25

9

Factors Impacting Transfers (cont.)

This year, over half of firms, regardless of company size, indicated “growth of the company” as the top internal factor relocation in 2004. While “promotions/resignations” and “ corporate reorganization” are still the second- and third-place internal factors, the percentage of firms indicating “budget constraints” dropped significantly, regardless of company size.

For mid-size and large companies, there was a significant increase over 2003 in the percentage citing “increased production” as a factor in relocation volume in 2004 (20% and 25% vs. 9%, respectively). There was also a significant increase in the percentage of large companies citing “international expansion,” “expansion of facility,” and “acquisitions/mergers” as impacting 2004 relocation volume compared to 2003 (25%, 26%, and 32% vs. 8%, 14%, and 23%, respectively).



Management SummaryPolicy Administration

Sixty-four percent of all companies outsourced relocation services in 2004. However, only thirty-nine percent of small companies outsourced, while 79% of mid-size companies and 87% of large companies outsourced relocation services.

The services that are outsourced by a third or more of companies responding are:- Real estate sales (46%)- Real estate purchase/marketing (42%)

- Contract of household goods moving company (38%)- Counseling about the planning/details of moving (34%)- Arrangement of family’s transportation/accommodations (31%)- Orientation tours at new location (31%)

Seventy-eight percent of decision makers say that the Internet was used for relocation-related matters in 2004. The top use was to communicate via e-mail with relocating employees (71%), followed by researching relocation-related matters (45%). Close to two-thirds of large companies also indicated they used the Internet to access their relocation company website for reporting, completing online forms for transferees, and other services.

Companies vary on the amount of time they allow employees to decide on whether to accept a relocation offer. Nineteen percent (19%) of the companies surveyed allow one week or less to accept or decline an offer, 44% of the companies surveyed allow up to two weeks, and 19% allow up to one month to decide.

The majority (81%) of companies surveyed allow the hiring of spouses of current employees. Smaller companies, and this year mid-size companies, are somewhat less likely to hire spouses (77% & 78% respectively); while 93% of large companies said they allow hiring of an employee’s spouse.

Employees are allowed on average 4.9 expense-paid house-hunting days. Spouses of relocating employees are allowed an average of 1.5 expense-paid house-hunting trips.

10



Management Summary

Relocation Costs

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

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

- 81% to pack all items- 68% to move an automobile- 58% to more exercise equipment

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

- 60% offer home finding trips- 60% reimburse/pay for lease cancellation- 48% offer to move one or more automobiles

Total Total Methods of Reimbursement TRANSFEREES NEW HIRES

Full reimbursement of moving expenses 69% 56%

Lump sum payment 25 28

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

No reimbursement of moving expenses 7 9

11



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues

The following is the makeup of those employees transferred in 2004.

-Thirty-seven percent of companies surveyed indicated that the age range of their most frequently transferred employee was 36 to 40 years of age, and over seventy percent (72%) of the companies surveyed indicated some percentage of the employees they relocated were women.

- Nearly 9 out of 10 (87%) of companies indicated some percentage of their relocations involved a trailing spouse who was a wife or female partner, while 3 out of 5 (60%) of the companies indicated that some percentage of relocations had accompanying husbands/male partners.

Forty-one percent of companies surveyed assist an employee’s spouse/partner in finding employment in the new location. Large companies have historically been somewhat more likely to offer spousal assistance, and this year the gap remained close last year’s results: 56% of large companies indicate they provide this assistance versus 32% of small companies.

Overall, the top method of spousal/partner assistance was finding employment outside the company (41%). However, large firms are more likely to pay a job-finders fee than small or mid-size firms, and mid-size and small firms are more likely to find a transferred employee’s spouse employment outside the company.


Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance

Find Employment Outside Company 41% 61% 41% 19%

Pay Job-Finder’s Fee 23 16 16 37

Find Employment Within Company 22 27 25 14

Pay Spouse’s Full or Partial Salary Until Hired 3 2 - 7

Other 43 27 45 58

12



Management SummaryEmployee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Over one-fifth (21%) of companies surveyed provide some type of elder care assistance to the transferee. However, the assistance that is provided by companies is minimal, with very few employers allowing the use of pre-tax dollars for outside care or providing moving expense coverage for the elderly relative.

- 13% Provide a list of nursing homes and/or day-care centers- 7% Allow the transferee to use pre-tax dollars for outside care - 5% Move the elderly relative who will live with the transferee in the new location- 2% Move the elderly relative who does not live with the transferee

Only 12% of respondents believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is never affected by his/her spouse’s employment status, while 45% indicate this is seldom the case. However, 44% believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is "almost always” or "frequently" affected by the employment status of an employee’s spouse, still significantly above over 2001, 2002 and similar to the last two years (42% in 2003 vs. 42% in 2002, 17% in 2001 and 25% in 2000).

Never12%

Seldom47%

Frequently33%

Almost always11%

Q.31 – Frequency of Employee’s Relocation Being Affected by the Employee Status of His/Her Spouse

13



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Most (71%) respondents said that declining the opportunity to relocate does not hinder an employee’s career. Over half (56%) indicated they had employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2004; however, only 38% of respondents from small companies indicated this was the case, while 67% of mid-size and 87% of large companies said they had employees decline relocation.

Around 9 out of 10 (87%) respondents said that the number of employees who declined relocation offers did not change between 2003 and 2004. Six percent said that the number of employees declining relocation offers in 2004 decreased and 8% said it increased.

Reasons employees gave for declining relocation in 2004 were:

- Family issues/ties (76%) - Spouse’s employment (49%)- Cost of living in new location (48%)- No desire to move (43%)- Personal (non-disclosed) (37%)- Housing/mortgage concerns (25%)- Could hurt career (3%)- Other (5%)

14



Management Summary

Transportation

Overall, 61% of companies have contracts with household goods carriers: 38% of small companies, 78% of mid-size companies, and 81% of large companies.

Of those companies surveyed who indicated they had standing contracts with household goods carriers, the average was 2.1 standing contracts with household goods carriers (similar to last year’s 2.2).

About two-thirds (66%) of companies surveyed with carriers under contract specify which carriers are preferred. In 2004, the percentages of companies indicating preferred carriers differed slightly by company size (76% of small versus 62% of mid-size companies and 61% of large companies).

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

- Price (56%) - Reputation (56%)- Claims Processing (48%)- Local Agent(s) (44%)- Technology (29%)

The most important attributes when evaluating a carrier indicated by companies surveyed were*:- Service (86%)- On-time delivery (80%)

- Employee feedback (74%) - Price (62%)- Claims processing (52%)- Extra services (33%)

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

15



Management Summary

International

Forty-six percent of companies surveyed relocate employees internationally: 30% of small companies, 47% of mid-size companies, and 74% of large companies.

Over one-fourth of these companies indicate they expect increases in international relocation volume in 2005. Small companies are more likely to expect decreases, mid-size and large firms are more likely to expect increases in international relocations. However, over half of companies, regardless of size, indicate they expect 2005 relocation volume to remain unchanged from 2004.

Responding firms indicate roughly one-fifth (19%) of 2004 relocations were temporary (less than 12 months). Overall 23% expect the number of temporary assignments to increase, but these expectations are driven mostly by large and mid-size companies’ expectations. The majority of all firms, regardless of company size, expect unchanged volume in temporary international assignments in 2005.

16

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2005 Expectations: Number of Intl

Relocations Compared to 2004 Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 27% 15% 25% 39%


52 63 56

Decrease 16

33 13 5

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2005 Expectations: Number of Temp

Intl Relocations Compared to 2004 Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 23% 7% 19% 40%


78 77 60

Decrease 6

15 4 -



Management Summary

International (cont.)

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

- Additional tax considerations (61%)- Additional leave time (includes at least one visit to US or CAN) (52%) - Allowances for children to attend certain schools (50%)- Intercultural and language training (48%)- Increased allowances for permanent storage (48%) - Additional leave time (47%)- Higher rental housing allowance (32%) - Higher moving allowance (32%) - Extended per diem charges for hotel (21%)- More communication equipment (phones/laptops) (14%)- More leniency on insurance coverage (11%)- Other (6%).

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

- Service (89%) - Scheduling (70%) - Reputation (62%) - Price (61%) - Third Party (48%) - Technology (39%)

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

17



Management SummaryInternational (cont.)

Only 58 percent of companies who relocate employees internationally indicate they outsourced an international relocation service in 2004 (down significantly from 70% in 2003). Of those companies who outsource relocation services domestically, 70% indicate they do so internationally (down from 82% in 2003).

Differences in outsourcing domestically carried over to the international side by company size, as small companies (28%) are much less likely to outsource international relocation services than medium (67%) and large (76%) firms, and medium and large companies report outsourcing a greater variety of their international relocation services than small companies.


International Services Outsourced in 2003 Did not use a relocation service or brokerage firm for international relocation services in 2004

42% 72% 33% 24%

Securing Rental Property at International Location 37 15 42 52

Destination Services/Orientation Tours at New Location 36 13 40 54

Contract of Household Goods Moving Company – Intl Shipping 34 20 40 43

Intercultural and Language Training 31 11 33 46

Monitoring of International Shipment 30 15 35 39

Arrangement of Family’s Intl Trans. & Temp. Accommodations 27 15 29 35

Management of International Relocation Program 26 11 40 28

Counseling – Planning & Details of Moving Internationally 25 9 32 33

International Real Estate Sales/Purchase 25 13 31 30

Counseling – Company Policy Concerning Intl Relocation 20 7 29 24

Candidate Assessment 4 2 6 4

Other 3 - 2 7

18



Management Summary

International (cont.)

Over half (54%) of companies do not use electronic data interchange (EDI) interface capabilities on international shipments.

Almost 3 out of 4 companies (76%) offer no assistance to internationally transferred employees’ spouses/partners in finding employment in the new location.

Overall, 47% of companies that move employees internationally reported no international relocations were declined or failed in 2004 (80% of small companies, 46% of mid-size companies, and 21% of large companies). However, 21% of companies responded they did not know why an international relocation was declined or failed in 2004, with mid-size to large companies (23% and 33%, respectively) reporting not knowing more often than small companies (4%).


Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Int’l Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 47% 80% 46% 21%

Family Issues/Ties 25 13 25 33

Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 16 7 15 25

Lack of Adaptability by Spouse/Partner 12 4 15 16

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 9 4 8 12

Terrorism 8 4 8 11

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 5 2 6 7

Pet Quarantine 3 - 6 4

Illness 3 - 2 7

Don’t Know 21 4 23 33

Other 3 - 2 7

19



Management Summary

Respondent Profile

Most respondents (76%) work in Human Resources/Personnel departments. There were a variety of different positions held among those who completed this survey – from managers (25%), directors (30%), vice-presidents (16%), and relocation administrators (9%), as well as a myriad of other positions, including a few presidents, department heads, supervisors, coordinators, and others.

A majority of the respondents regularly read trade publications (94%). The most popular publications were*:

- HR Magazine (63%)- Human Resource Executive (57%)- Mobility (28%)- Employee Benefits News (24%).

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

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

Total

Employees who belong to a relocation related association

Total 56%

Large companies 84

Mid-size companies 58

Small companies 39

20



Corporate Profile

Financial10%

Govt / Military

2%Other

8%

Service44%

Mftg / Processing

36%

Total

Other10%

Financial15%

Service 38%

Mftg/ Proc.35%

Govt/ Military

2%

Financial14%

Other6%

Govt/ Military

3%

Mftg/Proc.39%

Service38%

Less than 500 Salaried Employees

500 – 4999 Salaried Employees

5000+ Salaried Employees

Q.1 – Business Classifications of Companies Participating

Other7%

Financial5%

Service 52%

Mftg/ Proc.36%

Govt/ Military

1%

21



Corporate Profile

National29%

Regional 24%

International47%

Total

Regional38%

National28%

Intl34%

Regional18%

Intl48%

National34%

Regional5%

National25%

Intl70%




Q.2 – Is your company…

22



Corporate Profile

over $1 billion33%

$500 million - $1 billion

13%

$100-$499 million22%

$26-$99 million17%

Less than $25 million

15%

Total


4% $26-$99 million

6%

over $1 billion

34%

$500 million - $1

billion28%

$100-$499 million

27%

over $1 billion87%

$500 million - $1

billion5%

$100-$499 million

4%


4%




Q.3 – Participating Companies Annual Sales for 2004

over $1 billion

5%

$500 million - $1

billion7%


29%$100-$499 million

26%$26-$99 million

32%

23



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

Employed by Company

46%

31%23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Less than 500Salaried Employees

500 - 4999 SalariedEmployees

5000+ SalariedEmployees

24



Corporate ProfileQ.5 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2004


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Number of Employees Relocated in 2002

None 6% 11% 2% -%

1-9 42 74 24 1

10-19 8 7 12 4

20-49 12 5 29 4

50-99 8 2 15 13

100-199 9 - 13 21

200-399 6 - 1 23

400 or more 9 0

1 4 34

Don’t know - - 1 -

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

By Company Size (Salaried Employees)

25



Corporate Profile

Increase41%

Stay About the Same

47%

Decrease12%

Total

Stay About the

Same60%

Decrease8%

Increase32%

Increase47%

Decrease13%

Stay About the

Same40%

Increase51%

Stay About the

Same31%

Decrease18%




Q.6 – Compared to 2003, did the number of employees you relocated in 2004…

26



Corporate Profile

Increase42%

Stay About the Same

48%

Decrease10%

Total

Stay About the

Same58%

Decrease9%

Increase34%

Increase51%

Decrease8%

Stay About the

Same41%

Increase48%

Stay About the

Same36%

Decrease16%




Q.7 – Compared to 2003, did your 2004 relocation budget…

27



Corporate Profile

Increase33%

Stay About the Same

51%

Decrease16%

Total

Stay About the

Same51%

Decrease21%

Increase28%

Increase31%

Decrease16%

Stay About the

Same53%

Increase47%

Stay About the

Same47%

Decrease6%




Q.8 – Compared to 2004, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2005 will…

28



Corporate Profile

Increase32%

Stay About the Same

55%

Decrease14%

Total

Stay About the

Same56%

Decrease15% Increase

28%

Increase27%

Decrease15%

Stay About the

Same58%

Increase44%

Stay About the

Same47%

Decrease9%




Q.9 – Compared to 2004, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2005 will…

29



Corporate Profile

None2%

Don't know1%

50 or more31%

10-4922%

1-944%

Total

None2%

50 or more27%

10-4944%

1-926%

50 or more86%

10-4910%

1-91%Don't know

3%




Q.9a – Number of Employees Relocated in 2004 Within the U.S.

Don't know1%

50 or more2%

None4%

10-4912%

1-981%

30



Corporate Profile

None72%

Don't know4%

50 or more1%

10-493%

1-921%

Total

10-492%

50 or more1%

Don't know2%

1-922%

None73%

50 or more3%

10-498%

1-943%

Don't know9%

None38%




Q.9b – Number of Employees Relocated in 2004 Between the U.S. and Canada

Don't know1%

1-97%

None91%

31



Corporate Profile

10-492%

50 or more1%

Don't know4%

1-99%

None84%

Total

10-491%

50 or more2%

Don't know

2%1-96%

None89%

None57%

1-925%

10-495%

Don't know10%

50 or more3%




Q.9c – Number of Employees Relocated in 2004 Between the U.S. and Mexico

1-93%

Don't know1%

None96%

32



Corporate Profile

50 or more6%

Don't know4%

10-498%

1-922% None

60%

Total

10-497%

50 or more3% Don't

know3%

1-928%

None59%

10-4921%

50 or more19%

Don't know9%

None23%

1-927%




Q.9d – Number of Employees Relocated in 2004 Between the U.S. and Another Country

10-491%

50 or more1%

Don't know1%

1-914%

None83%

33



Corporate Profile

1-97%

10-493%

50 or more1%

Don't know13%

None76%

Total

10-493%

50 or more1%

1-96%

Don't know9%

None81%

50 or more3%

10-496%

Don't know38%

1-914%

None39%




Q.9e – Number of Employees Relocated in 2004 Within a Single Foreign Country

10-491%1-9

4%

Don't know1%

None94%

34



Corporate Profile

10-493%

50 or more3%

Don't know11%

1-97%

None76%

Total

None78%

1-98%

Don't know8%

50 or more2%

10-494%

Don't know32%

50 or more9%

10-495%

1-916%

None38%




Q.9f – Number of Employees Relocated in 2004 Between Two Foreign Countries

1-91%

50 or more1%

Don't know1%

None96%

35



Corporate Profile

76%

59%

85%97%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Less than500 SalariedEmployees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.10 – Companies with a Formal Relocation Policy*

* % of companies answering “Yes”

36




Corporate Profile

Other2%

Relocation Firm15%

Employee10%

Company & Employee

22%

Company52%

Total

Other2%

Company57%

Employee4%

Company &

Employee17%

Relocation Firm21%

Other3%

Relocation Firm21%

Employee3%

Company &

Employee13%

Company61%




Q.11 – Who Selects The Carrier for Employee Moves

Company43%

Other2%

Relocation Firm

7%

Employee18%

Company &

Employee30%

.

37



Corporate Profile

84% 83% 85%82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.12 – Companies Who Administer Employee Relocations from a Centralized (Corporate) Department*


38




Corporate Profile

Total

Q.12a - Does your company’s centralized relocation department… *

*those who answered “Yes” to Q12 / excludes those who “don’t know”

20%

27%

29%

31%

37%

38%

66%

79%

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

Recommend Site and Space Selection for OfficeRelocations

Handle Office Relocations

Handle Air Travel Via Commercial Airlines

Control Air Carrier Selection

Control Freight Carrier Selection

Manage International Relocation Programs

Control Household Goods Carrier Selection

Manage Domestic Relocation Programs

39



Corporate Profile


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Centralized Relocation Department’s Duties

Manage Domestic Relocation Programs 79% 67% 84% 95%

Control Household Goods Carrier Selection 66 61 67 73

Manage International Relocation Programs 38 24 39 67

Control Freight Carrier Selection 37 43 33 30

Control Air Carrier Selection 31 37 26 24

Handle Air Travel Via Commercial Airlines 29 37 24 21

Handle Office Relocations 27 38 22 13

Recommend Site and Space Selection for Office Relocations

20 30 14 8

Q.12a – Centralized Relocation Department Duties by Company Size*

*those who answered “Yes” to Q12 / excludes those who “don’t know”


40



7%

1%

2%

2%

2%

11%

15%

40%

48%23%

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

Other

Natural Disasters - International

Natural Disasters - Domestic

Terrorism

War in Iraq/Afghanistan

Growth of International Competition

Growth of Domestic Competition

Economic Conditions

Lack of Qualified People Locally

External Conditions Had No Impact

Factors Impacting TransfersQ.13 – External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number

of Employee Relocations in 2004

Total

41





Total

Less than 500

500-4999 5000 or more

External Conditions Having Significant Impact

External Conditions Had No Impact 23% 23% 25% 21%

Lack of Qualified People Locally 48 48 49 44

Economic Conditions 40 32 37 57

Growth of Domestic Competition 15 8 17 29

Growth of International Competition 11 5 10 23

War in Iraq/Afghanistan 2 1 2 6

Terrorism 2 1 2 3

Natural Disasters – Domestic (i.e. hurricanes, wildfires, floods, etc.) 2 1 2 3

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

Other 7 5 10 8


Q.13 – External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2004

42



5%

1%

3%

12%14%

16%18%

18%

20%

21%

28%

40%

55%

6%

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

Other

Security Issues

Decreased Production

International Expansion

Closing of Facility

Acquisitions/Mergers

Increased Production

Budget Constraints

Expansion of Facility

Expansion into New Territories

Corporate Reorganization

Promotions/Resignations

Growth of Company

Internal Conditions Had No Impact

Factors Impacting TransfersQ.14 – Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of

Employee Relocations in 2004

Total

43





Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 6% 7% 6% 4%

Growth of Company 55 56 58 52

Promotions/Resignations 40 35 42 45

Corporate Reorganization 28 21 28 43

Expansion into New Territories 21 13 28 27

Expansion of Facility 20 16 21 26

Budget Constraints 18 14 16 29

Increased Production 18 13 20 25

Acquisitions/Mergers 16 6 20 32

Closing of Facility 14 7 13 27

International Expansion 12 4 13 25

Decreased Production 3 3 2 5

Security Issues 1 - 1 1

Other 5 5 5 5


Q.14 – Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2004

44



Policy Administration

1 week or less19%

Up to 2 months or

longer8%

Up to 1 month

19%

Up to 3 weeks

10%

Up to 2 weeks

44%

Total

Up to 2 months

or longer9%

Up to 3 weeks

9%

Up to 1 month17%

1 week or less18%

Up to 2 weeks47%

Up to 2 months or

longer11%

Up to 1 month11%

Up to 3 weeks15%

Up to 2 weeks40%

1 week or less23%




Q.15 – Length of Time Employees Have to Accept a Transfer Offer*

Up to 2 months

or longer6%

1 week or less18%

Up to 1 month24%

Up to 3 weeks

8%

Up to 2 weeks44%

* excludes those who “don’t know”

45




81% 77% 78%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q. 16 – Companies that Allow the Hiring of Spouses of Employees*

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

46





Outsourced63%

Not Outsourced

37%

46%42%

38%34%

31% 31%25% 24% 24% 22%

15%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Q. 17 – Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services in 2004 – the answers received indicate that…

TotalPercent Outsourced

TotalServices Outsourced

47





Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Services Outsourced

Did not use a relocation service or brokerage firm in 2004 37% 61% 21% 13%

Real Estate Sales 46 21 61 73

Real Estate Purchase/Marketing 42 21 53 68

Contract of Household Goods Moving Company 38 22 54 47

Counseling About the Planning & Details of Moving 34 14 47 55

Orientation Tours at New Location 31 14 39 56

Arrangement of Family’s Transportation & Accommodations 31 17 44 44

Monitoring of Shipment 25 9 34 44

Audit and/or Payment of Invoice 24 9 31 47

Counseling About Company Policy 24 6 30 49

Assistance with Employee Claims Preparation & Submission 22 8 29 39

Supplementary Services (appliances, cleaning, etc.) 15 7 18 29

Other 4 2 8 4


Q. 17 – Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service or Brokerage Firm in 2004

48




Used Internet

78%

Did not use22%

3%

31%

34%

45%

71%

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

Other

To complete online forms for transfereerelocation

To access relocation company website forreporting or other services

To research relocation-related matters

To communicate via e-mail with relocatingemployees

Q.18 – Respondents were given a list of possible relocation-related uses for the Internet in 2004 – the answers received indicate that…

TotalPercent Used

TotalInternet Uses

49






Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

How the Internet was Used

Did not use the Internet for relocation-related matters in 2004 22% 34% 19% 3%

To communicate via e-mail with relocating employees 71 60 76 87

To research relocation-related matters 45 35 46 65

To access relocation company website for reporting/other svcs 34 13 39 68

To complete online forms for transferee relocation 31 14 33 62

Other 3 1 4 4

Q.18 – How the Internet was Used for Relocation-Related Matters in 2004

50



Q.19 – Average number of expense paid TRIPS for SPOUSE to find housing in new location*

1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



51




4.94.0

5.1

6.5


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.20 – Average number of expense paid DAYS EMPLOYEES are allowed for house-hunting trips*



52




Relocation CostsQ.21a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of

TRANSFEREES

Total

7%

22%

25%

69%

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

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement

53



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Extent TRANSFEREES are Reimbursed

Full Reimbursement of Moving Expenses 69% 55% 76% 87%

Lump Sum Payment 25 25 23 27

Partial Reimbursement Based on Salary, Position, Tenure, etc. 22 29 20 10

No Reimbursement of Moving Expenses 7 11 6 1

Q.21a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of TRANSFEREES

54



Relocation Costs

Paid directly by company

82%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

14%

Paid by employee

4%

Total Paid by

employee then

reimbursed21%

Paid by employee

8%


71%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

9%

Paid by employee

2%


89%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

6%


94%




Q.21b – How Carrier Transportation Expenses for TRANSFEREES are Paid

55



Relocation CostsQ.22a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of

NEW HIRES

Total

9%

35%

28%

56%

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

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement

56



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Extent NEW HIRES are Reimbursed

Full Reimbursement of Moving Expenses 56% 44% 59% 76%

Lump Sum Payment 28 25 31 30

Partial Reimbursement Based on Salary, Position, Tenure, etc. 35 41 36 23

No Reimbursement of Moving Expenses 9 13 7 3

Q.22a – Extent Company Reimburses Moving Expenses of NEW HIRES

57



Relocation Costs


75%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

19%

Paid by employee

6%

Total

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

28%

Paid by employee

11%


62%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

16%

Paid by employee

3%


81%


92%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

6%

Paid by employee

1%




Q.22b – How Carrier Transportation Expenses for NEW HIRES are Paid

58



Relocation Costs

Total

6%

13%18%

18%

27%

30%

31%

41%

42%42%

43%

58%

68%

81%

11%

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

Hire Temporary Maid Service

Move a Boat

Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence

Move Satellite TV Dishes

Move Pets

Have Permanent/Extended Storage

Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects

Move a Second Automobile

Move Unlimited Weight

Move Recreation and Lawn Equipment

Carry Items Down from Attic

Move Exercise Equipment

Move an Automobile

Pack All Items

Company does not pay for any of these items

Q.23 – For a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE, does your company reimburse/pay (to)…

59



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Covered Moving Expenses Company does not pay for any of these items 11% 22% 4% 1%

To Pack All Items 81 67 90 95 To Move an Automobile 68 51 75 93 To Move Exercise Equipment 58 51 61 69 To Carry Items Down from the Attic 43 39 43 53 To Move Recreation and Lawn Equipment 42 39 37 55 To Move Unlimited Weight 42 26 49 64 To Move a Second Automobile 41 26 43 68 To Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects 31 20 31 52 To Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some Possessions 30 28 29 34 To Move Pets 27 24 21 39 To Move Satellite TV Dishes 18 13 15 32 To Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence 18 17 17 21 To Move a Boat 13 10 14 19 To Hire Temporary Maid Service 6 6 5 8

Q.23 – For a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE, does your company reimburse/pay…

60



Relocation Costs

24%

31%

34%

38%

41%

48%

60%

60%

13%

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

Reimburse/Pay Security Deposits

Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees

Apply Temporary LivingAllowance Toward Rent

Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder's Fees

Offer Storage

Offer to Move One or MoreAutomobiles

Reimburse/Pay for LeaseCancellation

Offer Homefinding Trips

Company does not offer any ofthese benefits

Q.24 – When a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE will be renting (not buying), does your company…

Total

61



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Covered Moving Expenses When Employee will be Renting

Company does not offer any of these benefits 13% 26% 5% 1% Offer Homefinding Trips 60 42 71 83 Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 60 40 68 90 Offer to Move One or More Automobiles 48 22 57 85 Offer Storage 41 23 52 61 Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder’s Fees 38 20 41 68 Apply Temporary Living Allowance Toward Rent 34 42 31 20 Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees 31 30 26 40 Reimburse/Pay Security Deposits 24 28 20 21

Q.24 – When a TRANSFEREE or NEW HIRE will be renting (not buying), does your company…

62




9%

18%

37%

30%

5%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Less than 25 years

25-29 years

30-35 years

36-40 years

41-45 years

More than 45 years

Q.25 – Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred Salaried Employee*

Total


63





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred Employee

Less than 25 years 1% 1% -% 2%

25 – 29 years 5 8 3 -

30 – 35 years 30 28 39 24

36 – 40 years 37 34 39 44

41 – 45 years 18 17 13 28

More than 45 years 9 12 7 2

Employee, Spousal & Assistance IssuesQ.25 – Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred

Salaried Employee*


64



Q.26 – In 2004, What Approximate Percentage of Your Company’s Transferred Employees Were Women?*

* excludes those who don’t know


18% 16% 18%25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

65



Q.27 – In 2004, What Approximate Percentage of Relocations Involved a Trailing Spouse that was a Wife or Female Partner?*


52% 49%

58%53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent


66



Q.28 – In 2004, What Approximate Percentage of Relocations Involved a Trailing Spouse was a Husband or Male Partner?*



11% 8%13% 15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

67



Q.29 – Companies that Assist an Employee’s Spouse or Partner in Finding Employment in the New Location*

41%32%

43%

56%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



68




Q.29a – Methods of Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance*


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance

Find Employment Outside Company 41% 61% 41% 19%



Pay Spouse’s Full or Partial Salary Until Hired 3 2 - 7

Other 43 27 45 58



* those who answered “Yes” to Q29

69



Q.29b – Percentage of Relocated Employees with a Spouse/Partner who Used this Employment Assistance*

* those who answered “Yes” to Q29 / excludes those who don’t know


23%31%

13%23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

70



Q.30 – Companies that Offer Elder Care Assistance

21%

9%

27%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



71



Q.30 – Elder Care Assistance Offered


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Elder Care Assistance

No Elder Care Assistance 79% 91% 73% 60%

Provide List of Nursing Homes and/or Day-Care Centers 13 3 17 26

Allow Transferee to Use Pre-Tax Dollars for Outside Care 7 1 9 17

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

5 1 3 17

Move an Elderly Relative That Does Not Live with a Transferee 2 1 1 8

Reimburse for Outside Care 2 1 2 3

Other 5 4 6 7



72



Never12%

Seldom45%

Frequently33%

Almost always11%

Total Never17%

Frequently32%Seldom

38%

Almost always14%

Never8%

Frequently28%

Seldom50%

Almost always14%

Never6%

Almost always

1%

Seldom51%

Frequently42%




Q.31 – Frequency of Employee’s Relocation Being Affected by the Employment Status of His/Her Spouse


73



Q.32 – Companies Indicating Declining Relocation Usually Hinders an Employee’s Career*

29% 32%22%

34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




74



Q.33 – Companies that had Employees Decline the Opportunity to Relocate in 2004*

56%

38%

67%

87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


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


75



Decrease from 2003

6%

Remain about the same as

200387%

Increase from 2003

8%

Total Increase

from 20039%

Decrease from 2003

7%


200384%

Decrease from 2003

7%

Increase from 2003

7%


200386%

Increase from 2003

5%

Decrease from 2003

3%


200392%




Q.34 – Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2004…


76



5%

3%

25%

37%

43%

48%

49%

76%

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

Other

Could Hurt Career

Housing/Mortgage Concerns

Personal Reasons (non-disclosed)

No Desire to Move

Cost of Living in New Location

Spouse's Employment

Family Issues/Ties

Q.34a – Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation*

Total



77



Q.34a – Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation*




Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Reasons for Declining Relocation

Family Issues/Ties 76% 70% 73% 88%

Spouse’s Employment 49 52 47 49

Cost of Living in New Location 48 32 57 56

No Desire to Move 43 38 47 44

Personal Reasons (non-disclosed) 37 20 49 44

Housing/Mortgage Concerns 25 16 37 22

Could Hurt Career 3 4 4 -

Other 5 6 6 2


78



61%

38%

78% 81%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.35 – Companies with Contractual Agreements with Carriers for the Transportation of Household Goods*

Transportation

* % of companies indicating contracts with one or more carriers

79




Transportation

2.11.7

1.9

2.6


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.35 – Of Companies with Contracts: Average Number of Household Goods Transportation Carriers on Contract*

* of those companies indicating contracts with one or more carriers

80




Q.36 – Companies that Specify Preferred Carriers of Those Under Contract*

Transportation

66%

76%

62% 61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

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

81




Transportation

29%

44%

48%

56%

56%

85%

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

Technology

Local Agent(s)

Claims Processing

Reputation

Price

Service

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

Q.37 – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“

*excludes those who “don’t know”

82





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

Service 85% 79% 90% 91%

Price 56 62 61 35

Reputation 56 56 62 46

Claims Processing 48 39 58 52

Local Agent(s) 44 44 50 37

Technology 29 26 34 26


TransportationQ.37 – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier*

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

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

83



Transportation

33%

52%

62%

74%

80%

86%

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

Extra Services

Claims Processing

Price

Employee Feedback

On-time Delivery

Service

Total

Q.38 – Importance of Attributes when EVALUATING a Carrier*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“



84





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

Service 86% 82% 88% 91%

On-time Delivery 80 81 84 73

Employee Feedback 74 70 77 76

Price 62 66 66 49

Claims Processing 52 49 52 58

Extra Services 33 29 37 36


TransportationQ.38 – Importance of Attributes when EVALUATING a Carrier*

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

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

85



Q.39 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Salesperson/Origin Agent*


Transportation


Salesperson/Origin Agent

0% 58% 63% 60% 44%

10% 27 21 23 43

20% 6 6 7 6

30% 1 1 1 3

40% 1 1 1 -

50% or more 7 8 7 4


86



Q.39 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Packing/Broken Items*


Transportation


Packing/Broken Items

0% 20% 26% 19% 11%

10% 40 36 51 36

20% 14 15 12 16

30% 9 9 5 14

40% 2 1 2 6

50% or more 14 13 12 17


87



Q.39 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Driver/Timeliness*


Transportation


Driver/Timeliness

0% 34% 36% 39% 23%

10% 33 26 38 39

20% 9 12 2 13

30% 8 9 5 10

40% 3 1 5 3

50% or more 14 16 11 12


88



Q.39 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Destination Agent/Unpacking*


Transportation


Destination Agent/Unpacking

0% 43% 47% 49% 27%

10% 30 28 28 36

20% 9 11 5 11

30% 8 6 6 14

40% 2 - 2 4

50% or more 8 8 10 7


89



Q.39 – Percentage of Time Complaints Received from Transferred Employees Concerning – Claims Processing*


Transportation


Claims Processing

0% 37% 42% 42% 21%

10% 31 26 38 33

20% 10 15 1 13

30% 8 7 6 10

40% 4 - 5 9

50% or more 10 10 8 14


90



Transportation

77%

10%

10%

14%

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

Electronic Transfer of Fundsto Your Carrier for Relocation

Costs

On-Line Registration Accesswith Your Carrier

On-Line Access with YourCarrier for Shipment

Records/History

None of the Above

Q.40 – Which of the following does your company use?

Total

91



Q.40 – Which of the following does your company use?


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Used By Company

Electronic Transfer of Funds to Your Carrier for Relocation Costs

14% 15% 8% 21%

On-line Registration Access with Your Carrier 10 11 7 13

On-line Access with Your Carrier for Shipment Records/History 10 10 9 12

None of the Above 77 76 84 68

Transportation


92



Q.41 – Companies that Transfer Employees Between Countries*

International

46%

30%

47%

74%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


93




Decrease16%

Stay About the Same

57%

Increase27%

Total

Increase15%

Decrease33%

Stay About the Same

52%

Decrease13% Increase

25%

Stay About the Same

63%

Increase39%

Decrease5%

Stay About the Same

56%




Q.41a – Compared to 2004, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during

2005 will…*

94

International




International

6%

11%14%

21%

32%32%

47%48%

48%50%

52%

61%

21%

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

Other

More Leniency on Whom Insurance Covers

More Communication Equipment (Phones/Laptops)

Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel

Higher Moving Allowances

Higher Rental Housing Allowance

Additional Leave Time

Increased Allowance for Permanent Storage

Intercultural and Language Training

Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools

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

Additional Tax Considerations

No difference between int'l/domestic policies

Q.41b – Comparing your international relocation policy with your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…*

Total


95



International



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

International Relocation Policy Offers Different from Domestic

No difference between international and domestic relocation policies

21% 43% 19% 5%

Additional Tax Considerations 61 41 62 78 Additional Leave Time (Includes At Least 1 Visit Back to U.S./Canada)

52 39 50 65

Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools 50 28 56 61 Intercultural and Language Training 48 28 52 61 Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage 48 26 46 68 Additional Leave Time 47 33 42 63 Higher Rental Housing Allowance 32 15 33 46 Higher Moving Allowances 32 26 33 35 Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel 21 11 21 28 More Communication Equipment (Phones/Laptops) 14 13 15 14

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

11 4 15 12

Other 6 4 4 9

Q.41b – Comparing your international relocation policy with your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…*


96



InternationalQ.41c – Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced international

relocation services in 2004 – the answers received indicate that…*

37% 36% 34%31% 30% 27% 26% 25% 25%

20%

4% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

TotalPercent Outsourced

TotalServices Outsourced

Outsourced58%Not

Outsourced42%


97



International


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Services Outsourced

Did not use a relocation service or brokerage firm for international relocation services in 2004

42% 72% 33% 24%

Securing Rental Property at Intl Location 37 15 42 52

Destination Services/Orientation Tours at New Location 36 13 40 54

Contract of Household Goods Moving Company for Intl Shipping 34 20 40 43

Intercultural and Language Training 31 11 33 46

Monitoring of International Shipment 30 15 35 39

Arrangement of Family’s Intl Trans. & Temp. Accommodations 27 15 29 35

Management of International Relocation Program 26 11 40 28

Counseling About the Planning & Details of Moving Internationally 25 9 32 33

International Real Estate Sales/Purchase 25 13 31 30

Counseling About Company Policy Concerning Intl Relocation 20 7 29 24

Candidate Assessment 4 8

2 6 4

Other 3 - 2 7


Q. 41c – International Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service or Brokerage Firm in 2004*


98



Q.41d – In 2004, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were temporary assignments (less than

12 months)?*

International

19%24%

16% 17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

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

99


Average Percent



Decrease6%

Stay About the Same

71%

Increase23%

Total Increase7%

Decrease15%

Stay About the Same

78%

Stay About the Same

60%

Increase40%




Q.41e – Compared to 2004, do you expect the number of international temporary assignments (less than 12 months) to…*

100

International

Increase19%

Decrease4%

Stay About the Same

77%




International

39%

48%

61%

62%

70%

89%

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

Technology

Third Party

Price

Reputation

Scheduling

Service

Total

Q.41f – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier for International Relocations*1 = "not important" 8 = "extremely important"4 = "somewhat important“ 10 = "critically important"6 = "very important“


* those who answered “Yes” to Q41 / excludes those who “don’t know”

101





Important Attributes when Selecting an Intl Carrier (Top 3-Box)

Service 89% 75% 94 94%

Scheduling 70 68 73 70

Reputation 62 58 72 56

Price 61 55 69 58

Third Party 48 44 54 47

Technology 39 35 42 38

InternationalQ.41f – Importance of Attributes when SELECTING a Carrier for International

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

* those who answered “Yes” to Q41 / excludes those who “don’t know”

102




Seldom8%

Frequently26%

Always12%

Never54%

InternationalQ.41g – Does your company use EDI on international

shipments?*

(EDI = Electronic Data Interchange)

* those who answered “Yes” to Q41 / excludes those who “don’t know”NOTE: Due to low base sizes, company breakdown by size not included.

103



Q.41h – Method of Employment Assistance for Internationally Relocated Employee’s Spouse or Partner*

International

2%

10%

12%

14%

76%

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

Pay Spouse's Full/PartialSalary Till Hired

Find Employment WithinCompany

Find Employment OutsideCompany

Pay Job-Finder's Fee

No Assistance

Total


104




Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Spousal Employment Assistance – International

No Assistance 76% 76% 79% 72%


Find Employment Outside Company 12 15 11 11


Pay Spouse’s Full/Partial Salary Until Hired 2 4 - 2

InternationalQ.41h – Method of Employment Assistance for Internationally Relocated

Employee’s Spouse or Partner*



105



3%

21%

3%

3%

5%

8%

9%

12%

16%

25%

47%

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

Other

Don't Know

Illness

Pet Quarantine

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance

Terrorism

Lack of Adaptability by Employee

Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner

Personal Reason (non-disclosed)

Family Issues/Ties

No international relocations declined or failed

Q.41i – In 2004, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail*

Total

International


106




Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Intl Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 47% 80% 46% 21%

Family Issues/Ties 25 13 25 33

Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 16 7 15 25

Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner 12 4 15 16

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 9 4 8 12

Terrorism 8 4 8 11

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 5 2 6 7

Pet Quarantine 3 - 6 4

Illness 3 - 2 7

Don’t Know 21 4 23 33

Other 3 - 2 7

InternationalQ.41i – In 2004, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International

Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail*



107



Respondent Profile

Male41%

Female59%

Total

Female47%

Male53%

Male34%

Female66%

Male27%

Female73%




Q.42 – Respondent Gender

108



Respondent Profile

Traffic/ Transportation

1%Compensation & Benefits

4%

Administration3%

Relocation Services

12%

Other4%

HR/Personnel76%

Total

Other6%

Traffic/ Trans.

1%

Admin.2%

Comp. & Benefits

6%

HR/ Personnel

80%

Relocation Services

5%Other4%

Comp. & Benefits

6%Admin.

1%

Relocation Services

44%

HR/ Personnel

44%




Q.43 – Departmental Function

Other3%

Traffic/ Trans.

1%

HR/ Personnel

89%

Comp. & Benefits

2%Admin.4%

Relocation Services

1%

109



6%

3%

2%

3%

9%

1%

1%

25%

30%

0%

16%

4%

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

Other

HR Assistant

Recruiter

Coordinator

Relocation Administrator

Supervisor

Department Head

Manager

Director

Assistant Vice President

Vice President

President

Total

Respondent ProfileQ.44 – Respondent’s Position

110




Respondent’s Position

President 4% 7% -% 3%

Vice President 16 25 15 3

Assistant Vice President - - 1 -

Director 30 40 22 21

Manager 25 13 24 51

Department Head 1 1 1 1 Supervisor 1 - 2 1 Relocation Administrator 9 1 16 16

Coordinator 3 2 7 1

Recruiter 2 1 3 -

HR Assistant 3 4 3 1 Other 6 6 8 3


Respondent ProfileQ.44 – Respondent’s Position

111



6%5%

3%

5%7%

8%8%

12%14%

15%15%

16%

18%24%

28%

57%63%

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

None

Other

HR Wire

Human Resource Outsourcing (HRO) Today

HR Innovator

Human Capital

National Relocation & Real Estate

HR Focus

Runzheimer Reports on Relocation

HR News

HR & Corporate Relocation

HR Solutions

Workforce

Employee Benefits News

Mobility

Human Resource Executive

HR Magazine

Total

Respondent ProfileQ.45 – Which Trade Publications Respondent’s Regularly Read

112




Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Trade Publications Respondent’s Read

HR Magazine 63% 75% 67% 35%

Human Resource Executive 57 81 44 25

Mobility 28 2 29 80

Employee Benefits News 24 38 19 5

Workforce 18 21 17 13

HR Solutions 16 20 17 8

HR & Corporate Relocation 15 9 18 24

HR News 15 19 15 6

Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 14 3 13 39

HR Focus 12 15 12 8

National Relocation & Real Estate 8 2 7 22

Human Capital 8 13 5 1

HR Innovator 7 9 7 3

Human Resource Outsourcing (HRO) Today 5 5 8 1

HR Wire 3 3 4 1

Other 5 6 5 3

None 6 4 11 5


Respondent ProfileQ.45 – Which Trade Publications Respondent’s Regularly Read

113



Total

Respondent ProfileQ.46 – Which Online/E-mail Trade Publications Regularly Read

2%

1%

4%

10%

23%

25%

28%

58%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

shrm.org

hr.com

erc.org

workforce.com

hrhero.com

bound4.com

hrradio.com

Other

114





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Online/E-mail Trade Publications Regularly Read

None 19% 18% 23% 17%

shrm.org 58 73 54 34

hr.com 28 36 27 14

erc.org 25 3 25 66

workforce.com 23 30 20 12

hrhero.com 10 16 8 3

bound4.com 4 1 1 12

hrradio.com 1 1 1 3

Other 2 2 1 3

Respondent ProfileQ.46 – Which Online/E-mail Trade Publications Regularly Read

115



Total

Respondent ProfileQ.47 – Respondent Membership in Relocation-Related Associations

4%

1%

2%

16%

30%

31%

44%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

SHRM

ERC - US

Regional or Local Relocation Council

CERC (Canada)

Industrial Traffic League

Other

116





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Relocation-Related Associations – Respondent Membership

None 44% 61% 42% 16%

SHRM 31 33 34 24

ERC – US 30 3 33 81

Regional or Local Relocation Council 16 3 15 42

CERC (Canada) 2 1 - 7

Industrial Traffic League 1 - 2 1

Other 4 4 4 5

Respondent ProfileQ.47 – Respondent Membership in Relocation-Related Associations

117



Total

Respondent ProfileQ.48 –What Relocation-Related Association Conferences Typically Attended

6%

16%

10%

1%

2%

12%

14%

18%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

ERC National Relocation Conference

SHRM Conference & Exposition

ERC Global Workforce Symposium

Employee Mgmt Assoc. Annual Conference & Expo

HRO World

Regional SHRM Conference

Local ERC Conference

Other

118





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Relocation-Related Associations – Conferences Attended

None 57% 76% 55% 23%

ERC National Relocation Conference 18 1 18 53

SHRM Conference & Exposition 14 13 16 14

ERC Global Workforce Symposium 12 1 6 40

Employee Management Association’s

Annual Conference & Exposition 2 2 3 1

HRO World 1 - 2 -

Regional SHRM Conference 10 10 6 13

Local ERC Conference 16 3 17 39

Other 6 3 5 10

Respondent ProfileQ.48 –What Relocation-Related Association Conferences Typically Attended

119



Contact Information

For further details and survey results from prior years…

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

Or contact:

Katrina Starnes

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

38 th annual corporate relocation survey

Documents