atlas world group industry’s longest running surveyhighlightssu rve y atlas ® is pleased to bring...

Industry’s Longest Running SurveyAT L A S W O R L D G R O U P

Survey Highlights

Survey Responses

4

46

INDICATE HISTORICAL SHIFTSTHE 2020 SURVEY RESULTS

2

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Accommodations for employee needs are at or near historic highs.

• Companies offered more spouse/partner employment assistance both overall and internationally.

• An increase of additional incentive offers to encourage relocation acceptance.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, expectations were mostly positive.

• Relocation volumes and budgets, both overall and internationally were stable or increasing.

• Economic growth and stability was expected both in the U.S. and globally.

• Candidate assessments were performed by most companies prior to some relocations.

• The continuation of the outsourcing relocation services, both overall and internationally.

Factors keeping company resources/budgets in line are also at or near historic highs.

• Most likely to be a younger Gen X or older Millennial.

New data on the relocating employee profile.

• Mostly male (79%).

• Roughly one in three have children relocating with them.

3

HighlightsSURVEY

Atlas ® is pleased to bring you this 53rd edition of our annual survey,

the industry's first and longest-running investigation into corporate

relocation policies and practices.

ATLAS IS IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL

As we have done every year since 1968, we consider the demographic,

geopolitical, and economic shifts affecting our industry. We analyze

the findings and uncover the trends to more clearly understand the

evolving challenges—and learn how we, as relocation professionals,

can answer them.

SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS BY SECTIONR E L O C AT I O N V O L U M E S & B U D G E T S6

FA C T O R S I M PA C T I N G R E L O C AT I O N8

B R E X I T10

E C O N O M I C O U T L O O K12

E M P L OY E E S D E C L I N I N G R E L O C AT I O N14

S P O U S E & PA R T N E R A S S I S TA N C E16

R E L O C AT I O N P O L I C Y18

R E L O C AT I O N R E I M B U R S E M E N T30

L U M P S U M32

C O S T C O V E R A G E38

O U T S O U R C I N G43

I N T E R N AT I O N A L A S S I G N M E N T S44

4

ATLAS® WORLD GROUP 2020 CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY

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

Invited via email, 414 decision-makers completed online questionnaires between January 15 and March 13, 2020. Each respondent is responsible 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.

W H O R E S P O N D E D ?

C O M PA N Y S I Z E S W E S U R V E Y E D

Service

42%

Manufacturing/Processing

24%

Financial

12%

Wholesale/ Retail

10%

Government/ Military

9%

Other

3%

34% are small companiesF E W E R T H A N 5 0 0 S A L A R I E D E M P L OY E E S

31% are mid-size companies5 0 0 - 4 , 9 9 9 S A L A R I E D E M P L OY E E S

35% are large companies5 , 0 0 0 + S A L A R I E D E M P L OY E E S

5

INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS

In general, 2019 was positive for the relocation industry; roughly nine out of ten

organizations indicate both volumes and budgets either held steady or increased.

More than half of mid-size firms reported budget increases compared to just 43% of

smaller and larger firms. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, projections for 2020 were

similarly optimistic. Roughly four out of ten organizations expected increases in

volumes and budgets for 2020, with mid-size firms holding the greatest expectations for

growth. Expectations were mostly in line with last year’s experiences across company

size; however, small firms hold markedly less optimism for volume increases. Firms

of all sizes expected growth or stability for volumes and budgets, and few expected

decreases—all before the dramatic events of the spread of coronavirus across the globe.

Among firms relocating employees internationally, 44% saw increases in international

volumes last year and 44% expected increases in 2020. Only around one-fifth saw

decreased volumes last year and one-sixth expected decreased international activity

in 2020. While projected increases outpaced decreases roughly three-to-one, both the

pandemic and Brexit create marked uncertainty. One-fourth of firms moving employees

internationally are unsure of Brexit’s impact on 2020 volumes, and the global pandemic

was not on the radar as a significant global threat until a few months into the new year.

RELOCATION VOLUME & BUDGETS

44%overall saw increases

in international volumes.

2 0 1 9

44%overall anticipate increases

in international volumes.

2 0 2 0

6


RELOCATION VOLUME & BUDGETS Q5a Overall Relocation Volume

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

IncreaseStay the SameDecrease

44%

10%

Q5b Relocation Budget Expectation

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


49%

40%

11%

Q42b International Relocation VolumeCompared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees

your company will relocate internationally during [this year] will…


44%

16%

40%

46%

2010 20142007 2011 20152008 2012 20162009 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020

2010 20142007 2011 20152008 2012 20162009 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020

2010 20142007 2011 20152008 2012 20162009 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020

7


Q11 External Factors: Political and Regulatory Environment - Significant Impact: 2012-2019

FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONFor the past nine years, the key external factor

affecting relocation volumes was the lack of qualified

local talent. Recruiting the right people with the right

skill sets is crucial for company growth and operations, so

relocation continues to function as a pivotal talent engine.

The impact of available talent remains markedly above

the level reported in 2009 (31%) and far above much

lower levels seen before 1996. Regardless of company

size, talent shortfalls remain a key driver of relocation

volumes overall.

• The top factor affecting relocation last year was a

lack of local talent.

• As a relocation driver, company growth falls notably

below the previous post-recession recovery levels and

within the recessionary levels of 2008-2009 (24%-33%).

However, more firms (39%) report volumes are affected

by expansion (facility, new territories, or international),

indicating efforts to expand the company footprint are a

larger driver than overall growth.

• Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, potential challenges

were already emerging: 28% of firms reported economic

conditions as a factor in relocation, similar to 2018 (28%)

and up from 2017 (21%). The impact of budget constraints

on volumes also increased for a second year (20% & 16%

(2018) vs. 13%). Both factors remain within historic ranges

for recovery, after falling to historic lows in 2017, but are

elevated for a second straight year. If these were signs of

economic headwinds beginning to affect relocation prior

to the pandemic, the fallout from both is likely to be very

challenging for the industry.

While the top factor impacting relocations continues to

vary by company size, competition growth (international

or domestic), expansion efforts, and lack of local talent

notably affected firms of all sizes in 2019.

• Large firms were most affected by organizational

changes (acquisitions/mergers or corporate

reorganization/restructuring, 45%), followed by

expansion efforts (40%), competition growth (40%),

and local talent shortages (39%).

• For mid-size firms, the biggest impact on relocation

resulted from competition growth (international or

domestic, 46%), with expansion efforts (43%) and a lack

of local talent (43%) in second place.

• Small firms’ biggest issue was lack of local talent (42%),

with expansion efforts (36%), competition growth (35%)

and company growth (34%) closely following.

18%

20192018201720162015201420132012

Political/regulatory environments (domestic

or international) as a notable impact on

relocation volumes continue its trend of

rising over the last six years. For a second

year, the highest percentage of firms are

reporting political and regulatory issues

as having a significant influence. Political

and regulatory issues including visa/

immigration restrictions, trade bloc treaty

changes, Brexit concerns, and others appear

to be increasingly affecting the numbers of

relocations being performed by companies.

8


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

Q12 Select Internal Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: 1990-2019What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on

the number of your employee relocations in [last year]?

Expansion (All Types) Budget ConstraintsCompany Growth

Q11 Select External Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: 1990-2018What external factors had the most significant impact on the number

of your employee relocations in [last year]?

Economic Conditions Real Estate MarketLack of Qualified People Locally

200619931990 200719941991 200819951992 20091996 20101997 20111998 20122002 20132003 20142004 20152005 2016 2017 2018 2019

41%

28%

15%

30%39%

20%

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

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

200619931990 200719941991 200819951992 20091996 20101997 20111998 20122002 20132003 20142004 20152005 2016 2017 2018 2019

FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATION

9


One-fourth of firms that relocate employees internationally are vastly uncertain of Brexit’s impact

on relocation this year, both within the United Kingdom and the Europe/Middle East/Africa (EMEA)

trade bloc. The consensus is that relocation volumes, administration complexity, and costs in the

U.K. will either increase or be unchanged, rather than decrease, while recruiting difficulty and policy

changes are likely to stay the same or see increases as well. The projections for the EMEA region

are similar; roughly one-third of companies expect relocation volumes and costs to increase in

response to Brexit, as well as administration complexity, policy changes and recruiting difficulty,

while around one-third feel things will stay similar to current conditions for each aspect listed.

51% of mid-size firms believe Brexit will increase administration complexity in the U.K., compared

to fewer small (42%) or large (37%) firms.

The anticipated impact of Brexit among firms that relocate internationally varies across company size:

Looming Uncertainty: Brexit The additional wildcard in the mix of relocation this year, aside from COVID-19, is the exit of Great Britain from the European Union. Political negotiations continue, and there is a sense of unknowability about the ultimate fallouts.

Brexit Impact — Complexity of Relocation Administration

Increase Decrease

United Kingdom

EMEA Trade Bloc

43%

35%

7%

7%

IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

• Mid-size firms are the most likely to believe relocation

volumes (47%), administration complexity (51%) and

recruiting difficulty will increase (38%) compared to

smaller and larger firms.

• Large firms are less likely to anticipate cost increases

(35%), more policy changes (22%), or increased

recruiting difficulty (25%) compared to smaller firms.

10


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

Brexit Impact — Relocation Policy Changes

Increase Decrease

United Kingdom

EMEA Trade Bloc

31%

31%

9%

6%

Brexit Impact — Number of Relocations Performed

Increase Decrease

United Kingdom

EMEA Trade Bloc

38%

32%

7%

9%

Brexit Impact — Difficulty Recruiting Employees to Relocate

Increase Decrease

32%

36%

10%

8%

United Kingdom

EMEA Trade Bloc

Brexit Impact — Relocation Costs

Increase Decrease

40%

37%

5%

7%

United Kingdom

EMEA Trade Bloc

IN THE EMEA TRADE BLOC

• Mid-size firms are the most likely to believe relocation

volumes (42%), administration complexity (42%), costs

(51%), and policy changes (41%) will increase compared to

smaller and larger firms.

• Large firms are least likely to anticipate cost increases

(26%) or more difficulty in recruiting (28%) compared to

smaller firms.

COMPARING U.K./EMEA IMPACT

• Overall, small firms indicate they expect increases across

each aspect of relocation listed in the United Kingdom

more often than in the EMEA area, except for recruiting

difficulty (42% vs. 33%).

• Both large and mid-size firms have similar relocation

impact expectations from Brexit across both regions;

the exceptions are greater expectations among mid-size

firms for increased administration complexity in the U.K.

than EMEA (51% vs. 42%) and more large companies

expecting increased costs in the U.K. than EMEA

(35% vs. 26%).

11


ECONOMIC OUTLOOKPrior to COVID-19, Expectations Were Mostly PositiveBefore the global pandemic reset the world stage, the vast

majority of firms expected either stability or improvement in the

U.S. economy in 2020, with a greater percentage expecting further

improvement compared to 2018 (50% vs. 46%). Although not as

high as other years, this sentiment ran similar to higher overall

recovery levels (51%+). Most firms expected improvement in their

company’s overall financial performance this year. Nearly all firms

anticipated either economic improvement or stability, similar to

other post-recession years. It is unfortunate that these positive

expectations for the U.S. economy and company performances in

early 2020 are likely to remain unrealized.

Globally, expectations trended positive but there was some

dissonance. Overall expectations shifted back to growth vs.

stability as the percentage of firms expecting improvement in

both emerging and developed global market economies went

back up (49% vs. 43%, emerging; 47% vs. 39%, developed).

However, firms in both emerging and developed markets saw

projections for worsening performances more than double in

two years (14% vs. 6%, emerging; 16% vs. 7%, developed). These

projections indicate that even prior to COVID-19, there were signs

that the global picture showed areas of potential weakness.

Expectations for improvement in the U.S. real estate market

also remained similar to the last two years (41% vs. 37%+), far

below 2017 (55%), with 14% of firms projecting the market would

worsen in 2020, similar to 2019 (18%). Prior to the interventions

responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, interest rates were rising

to stave off inflation as housing costs were notably higher after

roughly eight years of recovery from the Great Recession. Even

as nearly half of firms expected stability during 2020 prior to

COVID-19, there were still indications of potential challenges

emerging in the domestic real estate market.

BEFORE THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: • Across company size, nearly two-thirds of firms anticipated

better performances in 2020; around half expected improvement

in both developed and emerging global market economies.

• Roughly half of firms across size expected further improvement

in the U.S. economy and around four out of ten expected stability.

• Expectations for the U.S. real estate market were essentially the

same across size, as roughly half expected stability and four out

of ten expected improvement. Approximately one-tenth of firms

across size expected the market to worsen.

When asked about expectations for 2020 economic performance by trade bloc, projections were essentially positive prior to the pandemic:

U.S./CANADA/MEXICOAmong all firms responding, 87% predicted stability or

improvement, and one in eight predicted worsening. Small firms

held divergent opinions: one in five expected the North American

trade bloc economic performance to worsen, but 42% expected

improvement. Mid-size and large firms were less likely to predict

worsening conditions, with the vast majority holding firm to

expectations of stability or improvement.

GREAT BRITAINAround eight of ten international firms across size predicted

stability or improvement for Great Britain’s economy in 2020,

while roughly one in five predicted worsening conditions. Across

size, nearly half of these firms expected Great Britain’s economy

would improve.

EUROPEAN UNIONAmong all firms responding, 82% anticipated stability or

improvement in 2020. Roughly one in five firms expected

worsening conditions. Small firms were the least optimistic, with

one in four expecting the EU trade bloc to underperform, followed

by large firms, with one in five expecting worsening conditions.

Mid-size firms were the most positive, with 52% expecting

improvement and 37% expecting stability.

After seeing positive expectations for the year in early 2020,

it is painful to realize how different the emerging reality will be

post-pandemic for many companies and the world at large.

It is also humbling to see predictions for a bright future dashed

by a combination of factors that leave us in very different

circumstances than what was expected less than two months ago.

12


U.S

. Eco

no

my

2009 2012 20152010 2013 2016 201820082007 2011 2014 2017 2019

50%

39%

11%

2020

Same WorseBetter

Same WorseBetter

Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. * U.S. Real Estate Market added in 2008

Q14 Anticipated Performance: 2007-2020*

Q14 Anticipated Performance: 2013-2020

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

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

Your

Co

mp

any

2009 2012 20152007 2010 2013 2016 20182008 2011 2014 2017 2019

6%

2020

65%

29%

U.S

. Rea

l Es

tate

Mar

ket

2009 2012 20152010 2013 2016 20182011 2014 2017 20192008

14%

2020

46%

41%

Emer

gin

g

Glo

bal

Mar

kets

2013 2015 20172014 2016 2018 2019

14%

2020

37%

49%

Dev

elo

ped

G

lob

al M

arke

ts

16%

2013 2015 20172014 2016 2018 2019 2020

38%

47%

13


EMPLOYEES DECLINING RELOCATIONFor the past seven years, family issues/ties have taken

the top spot as a reason for declined relocations, while

spouse/partner employment held second place. The impact

of housing/mortgage concerns stayed within pre-recessionary

levels, but it increased slightly over the past two years.

Dual-income households with family commitments continue

to be a prime reason for declined relocations.

• Remaining near its lowest point in more than 15 years, housing/

mortgage concerns remain within pre-recession levels for the

fifth time since 2007 overall and for the fourth year in a row

across company size. However, one in four firms indicated it still

played a role in their employees’ decisions to stay put.

• Family issues/ties continues to take the top spot among firms of

all sizes, although it nearly ties with spouse/partner employment

among large firms. Family issues/ties was cited by more than

half of firms across size at similar levels. However, this reason

falls notably, from around two-thirds of firms overall from 2011-

2017, to just over half (52%) last year.

• Spouse/partner employment falls from the far higher levels

recorded 2013-2018 (52%+) back to levels similar to the period

of the Great Recession and recovery (39%-48%, 2007-2012).

The impact of spouse/partner employment had fallen to 39% in

2011, likely due to the Great Recession’s effect on employment

opportunities, but it had returned to more historically normative

levels and higher in recent years. This shift downward may

reflect more flexible work arrangements becoming normalized

in recent years (i.e. telecommuting/working from home) and

greater job opportunities (high unemployment rate).

• Nearly half of both small and large companies say employees

simply told them they had no desire to relocate, compared to

only around one-third of mid-size firms last year. This reason

even surpassed spouse/partner employment at small firms

(48% vs. 43%). Close to half of large firms said employees told

them the destination location was undesirable. Convincing

employees to relocate continues to present more challenges.

Q9a Select Reasons Relocations Declined: 2006-2019

What reasons did employees give for declining relocation?

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

45%

52%

26%

Family Issues/Ties Spouse's/Partner's EmploymentHousing/Mortgage Concerns

E M P L OY E E S D E C L I N I N G R E L O C AT I O N

14


When asked about the number of employees declining relocation in 2019:

Q9 Number of Employees Declining Relocation: 2006-2019

Did the number of employees declining relocation (last year) increase or decrease from the previous year?

Decrease from the previous yearIncrease from the previous year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

6 out of 10 firms saw employees decline relocation last year,

in the mid-range historically.

29%

15%

Employee reluctance in 2019 stayed above post-recession levels

for a second year (29% vs. 26% in 2018 vs. 11%-18% during 2010-

2013). This comes after employee reluctance trended lower

in 2015-2017 (18%-22%) and returned to the higher levels of

2008 & 2014 (28%) and 2009 (29%). While more than a tenth

of firms across sizes saw reluctance decrease last year, it appears

the reluctance to accept relocation offers experienced a slight

uptick overall, even as organizations worked to secure talent in

the right locations.

• Half of small firms saw employees decline relocation last year,

similar to 2015-2016 & 2018 levels (50% vs. 48%, 55% & 46%),

notably higher than 2017 (39%) and above historical norms.

Increased reluctance also remains above previous recessionary

levels for small firms for a second year (25% & 26% (2018) vs.

15%-19%).

• Increased reluctance at mid-size firms also remains notably

higher for a second year (35% & 32% (2018) vs. 20% (2017)),

staying above the 2014-2015 level (30%) and recessionary ranges

(20%-30%) for the previous four years.

• Increased reluctance among large firms jumped higher last year

(28%) and above post-recession recovery ranges (7%-21%)

following an increase in 2017-2018 (19% & 18% vs. 12% (2016)).

However, it remains markedly lower than recessionary levels

(40+%) for large firms overall.

15


Q37 Spouse Employment Impact: 2007-2020How frequently is an employee's relocation affected by the

employment status of that employee's spouse/partner?

Almost Always/FrequentlySeldom/Never

2010 20142007 2011 20152008 2012 20162009 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020

64%

36%

SPOUSE & PARTNER ASSISTANCE

Q38a & 42k Spouse/Partner Employment Assistance: 2007-2020Percentage of firms offering this assistance

2010 20142007 2011 20152008 2012 20162009 2013 2017 2018 2019 2020

OverallInternationally

77%

66%

16


Q38c Spouse Employment Assistance Usage: 2007-2019What approximate percentage of relocated employees with

a spouse or partner used this employment assistance?

Overall Small Midsize Large

The challenge of dual-income households with family commitments remains a pivotal one; for the sixth year in a row roughly six in ten firms indicate spousal/partner employment “almost always” or “frequently” affects relocations.

This year’s percentage is the second highest ever

recorded. We see continued efforts to manage the

impact with the highest historical levels of employment

assistance for spouses/partners being offered, overall and

internationally.

• The impact of spouse/partner employment shifts back

to the pattern of mid-size and large firms being more

affected than small firms this year (68% & 65% vs. 58%).

This impact for small firms falls dramatically compared

to 2018 (68%) to more historically normative levels (58%)

and lower than 2016-2017 (60% & 64%).

With the impact of spouse/partner employment well

above historical averages for the past six years overall,

we see a corresponding rise in employment assistance.

During this period, firms of all sizes offered assistance far

more often than in previous years.

• Among small firms, the most popular form of help is

networking assistance, offered by nearly half; only

one-third of larger companies indicate they offer this

assistance.

• Among large firms, the most popular form of assistance

was resume preparation help (42%), far more often than

at smaller firms.

• Around one-third of both mid-size and large firms state

they pay for outplacement/career services from an

outside firm, far more often than small firms (22%).

Across firms of all sizes, around one in four

employees with a spouse/partner used employment

assistance. In the past, far fewer small firms offered

employment assistance. Among the subset of small

firms that offered such benefits, higher percentages of

employees took advantage of them than at larger firms. As

far more firms across all sizes have added these benefits

over the past six years, usage has increased at mid-size

and large firms and has leveled off at small firms, so usage

is now comparable overall across firms of all sizes.

24%29%

27%26%

2010 20142008 2012 20162007 2011 20152009 2013 2017 2018 2019

17


Adaptability & Budgets — The Balancing Act

Multiple Policy Types & Practices Leveraged, Traditional Assignments Remain the Majority

RELOCATION POLICY

Relocation programs remain quite diverse. Similar to the

past few years, the majority of relocation professionals manage

policies for domestic (83%) and international relocations (83%),

along with policies for permanent international transfers (62%),

short-term/temporary assignments (61%), and international

localization (55%). Essentially half maintain intra-regional

(international) (51%) and extended-business travel policies (53%)

as well, and 43% have a policy for long-distance commuter

arrangements.

Most firms continue to define levels, or tiers, within policies. The

larger the firm, the more likely its overall domestic policy includes

levels. Firms using levels manage essentially two or more such

policies on average, across company size, for both domestic

and international relocations. Levels are based on a variety of

factors; however, the top two, domestically, across firm size, are

job/grade level and position/job title. However, job/grade level

is nearly equal in weight to position/job title at mid-size firms

(56% vs. 54%), while position/job title outweighs job/grade level

at small firms (63% vs. 45%), while the reverse is true at large

firms (61% job/grade level, 47% position/job title). Domestically,

homeowner/renter status is more likely to be a consideration

at mid-size and large firms than small firms (31% & 41% vs. 15%),

while assignment length and new hire/current employee status

are more likely to be a tier/level consideration at large firms than

smaller ones.

Nearly a decade after the Great Recession, the changes

born from those economic challenges set the stage for all

the ways “relocation” works today. Building in the capacity

for relocation to be adaptable to employee needs while keeping

costs contained is now a nearly universal policy stance across

organizations. Assignment type versatility, candidate vetting

and multiple policy types continue to provide methodology

options and guardrails. Fixed/flex policy, additional incentives

and cost containment strategies also allow companies to

continue to flex the adaptive muscles developed during the

Great Recession to keep their talent mobile.

Factors such as alternative assignments use and candidate assessments being performed prior to at least some relocations hit historic highs.

18


Q17 Formal Relocation Policies

2015 2016 2018 2019 20202017

Domestic

83%

Short-term/ Temporary

61%

Extended Business Travel

53%

Long-distance Commuter

43%

Q42f Formal Relocation Policies*

International

83%

Permanent Transfers

(International)

62%

Localization (International)

55%

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

Intra-regional (International)

51%

2015 2016 2018 2019 20202017

19


Q35 Candidate Assessments Performed: 2012-2020Does your organization perform candidate assessments prior to relocation offers?

Overall Trendline Overall

20132012 2015 20172014 2016 2018 2019 2020

79%

CANDIDATE ASSESSMENTSOver the last six years, the majority of firms have used candidate assessments to support relocations. This year

79% of firms assessed candidates prior to making offers—reaching a historical high. This percentage is similar to most

recent years and maintains a marked increase over the roughly half of firms that assessed candidates from 2012 to 2014.

Usage nearly matches the highest level recorded last year for mid-size firms (83% vs. 85%) and remains well above

other recent years (74%+). Candidate assessment matches the highest level recorded for small firms (78%), similar to last

year (72%) and notably above 2018 (67%). Usage also attains the previous high recorded for large firms (76%), a dramatic

increase over 2018-2019 (54% & 64%, respectively).

• Around half of small and mid-size firms perform

candidate assessments for all relocations; roughly

four out of ten large firms do so.

• One in five mid-size firms assess candidates for

domestic relocations.

Overall, the most popular method continues to be

assessments for all relocations (44%), similar to the past

five years and more than double the 21% levels reported

from 2012 to 2014. Usage among large firms increases

over the past two years (37% vs. 32% in 2019, 29% in 2018),

inching closer to levels reported in 2015-2016 (42%+) and

remaining roughly double the percentages seen in 2012-

2014. Around half of mid-size firms continue to perform

candidate assessments for all relocations, similar to the

previous five years and more than twice the historical

rate. Among small firms, 50% performed candidate

assessments for all relocations, a progressive increase

over the past two years (43% in 2019, 39% in 2018) similar

to 2015-2017 (44%-48%) and far higher than in 2012-2014

when essentially one-fourth did.

Q35 Candidate Assessments Performed for All Relocations: 2012-2020Percentage of firms indicating candidate assessments

are performed for all relocations


44%45%50%

37%

2014 2015 20162013 2017 2018 2019 20202012

20


Q19b Use of Fixed/Flex Policy in Relocation: 2013-2020

Flexible use of a portion of coverage applicable to a list of possible services (employee dependent)

Flexible use of a portion of coverage applicable to a list of possible services (all employees)

Flexible use of a portion of coverage applicable to a list of possible services (policy dependent)

2019

39%

22%

201520142013 2016 20182017

29%

2020

Flexible use of full coverage amount applicable to a list of possible services (employee level dependent)

Flexible use of full coverage amount applicable to a list of possible services (all employees)

Flexible use of full coverage amount applicable to a list of possible services (policy dependent)

2019201520142013 2016 20182017

40%

21%

37%

2020

Coverage of specific items (i.e., fixed components) policy dependent

Coverage of specific items (i.e., fixed components) across all employees

Coverage of specific items (i.e., fixed components) employee level dependent

2019201520142013 2016 20182017

54%

17%

35%

2020

21


Q19c Core Coverage/Fixed Benefits

2017201820192020

Rental assistance /transaction costs

34%

Real estate costs-destination

/purchasing

36%

Miscellaneous allowances

40%

Storage

40%

Real estate costs-origin

/selling

41%

Home finding trip(s)

(travel expenses)

48%

Household goods

shipping

47%

Temporary housing

51%

Final move (travel expenses)

53%

More than half of firms now say they offer the coverage of specific items in relocation for all employees, matching the high in 2015 (54%).

FIXED BENEFITS/FLEX BENEFITS LIST-DRIVEN POLICY

Over the past decade, companies have gained a fundamental

understanding that relocation policies must have built-in flexibility.

Many companies do this by identifying what relocation costs are

considered “core coverage,” or by allowing relocation funds to

be used on select services from which an employee can choose.

Stipulations by employee level and/or policy are often built in, while

many companies simply make these types of flexibility available to

all relocating employees.

From 2015 to 2019, more than 80% of firms used aspects of fixed/

flex policy, a marked increase from 2013-2014. Usage jumps to 96%

in 2020, and 95%+ across company size, indicating that offering

some form of flexibility in how relocation benefits can be used is

essentially universal practice. The option to cover specific items

as fixed/core benefits or allow flexible use of all or a portion of

relocation benefits can be made available to all employees, be

employee level dependent, or—new for this year’s survey—policy

dependent. Capturing this additional option presents an even

clearer picture of how these benefits are being built into relocation

programs.

However, company size has an impact:

• Across company size, more than half of firms indicate they offer

coverage of specific items to all relocating employees. However,

making coverage dependent on employee level is more likely to

be done at mid-size firms (46%) than small (29%) or large (32%).

Roughly one out of five mid-size or large firms say this can also

be policy dependent, and one out of five small firms state it is not

offered at all.

• Four out of ten firms say flexible use of the full relocation

benefit amount is offered to all employees or is employee level

dependent. Small firms are the most likely to make the full benefit

available to all (44%), rather than dependent on employee level

(30%) or policy (14%). Larger firms are nearly evenly split between

these two options. One in four mid-size and large firms say flexible

use is likely to be policy dependent, while around one in five firms

overall say it isn’t offered at all.

• Having the option to flexibly use a portion of relocation coverage

is offered by around four in ten firms across size. However, around

one in three mid-size and large firms say this is likely dependent

on employee level, and one in four say it may be policy dependent,

compared to far fewer small firms. One in five firms don’t offer this

kind of flexibility in any capacity.

22


What type(s) of relocation components are considered fixed benefits within your relocation policy?

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

Travel- Final Move

Temporary Housing

Household Goods

Shipping

Travel- Home

Finding

Real Estate Costs-

Origin/selling

Storage Misc. Expenses

Real Estate Costs-Destination

/purchasing

Rental Costs

47%47%49%

54%53%53%

60%62%61%

Q19c 2020 Core Coverage/Fixed Benefits By Company Size

Coverage of core components remains the most popular aspect of fixed/flex policy.For a fifth year we dug deeper into what falls into this category.

Overall, the top components are travel expenses–final move

(53%), temporary housing (51%), travel expenses for home finding

trips (48%), and household goods shipping (47%)—similar to the

previous three years of comparable data. Across nearly all cost

types, large firms are more likely than small or mid-size firms

to consider a cost as a core benefit, with close to half or more of

large firms doing so for all components. Two exceptions: roughly

half of all size firms consider travel expenses for home finding

trips to be a fixed benefit and mid-size and large firms share

similar core coverage for one other item: real estate costs–origin/

selling. Nearly half of these firms report real estate origin/sales

costs as a fixed benefit in their policies.

26%35%36%35%44%44%45%45%46%

33%

29%26%

47%

35%

46%50%

25%

28%

Overall Trendline

Q19a Fixed/Flex List-Driven Policy Use: 2013-2020Does your relocation utilize aspects of a fixed/flex benefits, list-driven policy?

Overall

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 20202018

96%

23


Incentives continue to prove highly successful; essentially nine in ten report incentives work almost always or frequently, consistent with historical levels.

Q8a Additional Incentives Offered: 2008-2019Did your company offer additional non-standard incentives or

exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

INCENTIVESIn addition to having flexibility in policy, the ability to use additional incentives to convince a key employee

to take a relocation assignment remains mission critical. Over the past six years, most firms across company

size indicate they are offering additional, non-standard incentives or policy exceptions. Since 2008, the overall use of

incentives/exceptions has grown 30% (90% vs. 60%: 2008).

• Relocation/sign-on bonuses remains the number

one incentive for a second year across company

size. However, at both mid-size and large companies,

extended temporary housing benefits and cost-of-living

adjustments (COLAs) are close seconds.

• Both extended temporary housing benefits and cost-

of-living adjustments (COLAs) round out the top three

incentives used across company size.

• Even as housing/mortgage pressures lessened and

the percentage of firms offering extended temporary

housing benefits last year remains near the lowest levels

since measurement began, extended temporary housing

remains among the top three incentives offered over the

past six years.

Cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) remain in the top three for

incentives across company size.


2010 20142011 20152012 20162013 2017 2018 2019

89%90%

88%94%

2008 2009

24


COST CONTAINMENTHowever, even with built-in flexibility and high usage

rates of incentives/exceptions, cost containment

measures are also nearly universal. The use of cost

containment reaches another historical high, which

essentially proves the last six years of near-constant

elevated usage of these tactics to keep relocation budgets

within scope is the “new normal.” Prior to 2014, far fewer

companies indicated using these types of measures, and

those that did were far more likely to be large companies.

Company size no longer plays a notable role, as overall

usage is now similar across firms of all sizes. So, even

while companies flex to move talent, they are also flexing

to keep costs down.

Q21 Cost Containment Methods Used: 2009-2019 By Company Size: 2009-2019

500-4,999Less Than 500 5,000+Overall

2010

2017

2012

2015

2014

2013

2016

2011

2018

2009

2019 85%

82%

77%

84%

76%

77%

54%

60%

70%

61%

64% 201120102009 2012 2014 20162013 2015 2017 2018 2019

87%80%

89%

COLAs in Salary at New Location

2019

Extended Temporary Housing Benefits

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Q8b Additional Incentives Offered (Top 3): 2013-2019Which of the following additional non-standard incentives or exceptions did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

47% 49%

58%

Relocation/Sign-on Bonuses

• Six in ten firms offered relocation/sign-on bonuses

across company size; while similar to 2018 for small and

mid-size firms, this is a marked decrease among large

firms (58% vs. 71%) comparatively.

• Roughly half of mid-size and large firms used COLAs in

salary; only 40% of small firms did so.

• A telecommuting option (1-2 days a week) was flexed

by around a third of firms and at similar levels across

company size.

25


The top cost containment method continues to be using

lump sum payments for relocations, with 40% of companies

indicating they use lump sum payments for this purpose. In 2019,

roughly one out of every four moves by firms participating in

the survey was estimated to have been entirely paid for by lump

sums. Additionally, while most firms use lump sum payments

for domestic relocations, this year lump sum payments for

international long-term assignments jumped to 40% and usage

for short-term, temporary assignments remained above 40% for

a second straight year (44% & 42%).

• Roughly one-third of firms capped relocation benefits to

contain costs in 2019, which was similar across company sizes.

• Large firms were the most likely to review/renegotiate supplier

contracts last year (38%), followed by mid-size firms (24%).

Small firms were much less likely to have done so (16%).

• Large firms were roughly three times as likely to offer pre-

decision counseling than smaller firms (33% vs. 13% small, 11%

mid-size) to contain costs.

• Mid-size and large firms were more likely to have restructured

policy tiers/eligibility for benefits last year compared to small

firms (25% vs. 17%).

• One in four firms across size say they offered short-term/

extended travel/commuter arrangements rather than

relocating employees in 2019 as a cost containment measure.

Q21 Cost Containment Measures (Top 6): 2016-2019

2016 2017 2018 2019

Restructure Policy Tiers/Eligibility for

Benefits

23%

Review/Renegotiate

Supplier Contracts

26%

Offer Short-term/EBT/Commuter Arrangements

26%

Limit Misc. Allowance

Benefits

29%

Cap Relocation Benefit Amounts

31%

Use Lump Sum Payments for

Relocation

40%

Q21 Cost Containment Measures Use of Lump Sum Payments for Relocation: 2016-2019

LargeMidsizeSmallOverall

38%40%

2016 2017 2018

39%

2019

42%

26


ALTERNATIVE ASSIGNMENTSOver the last six years, most firms have come to rely on

other arrangements to supplement traditional relocations.

This year, 71% of firms state they use alternative assignments,

reaching a historic high and an increase over the past five years

(61%-67%), as well as far more often than during 2012-2014.

The percentage of large firms using such arrangements nearly

reaches the highest level measured (77% vs. 78%: 2018) and

jumps markedly over last year (68%). However, usage remains

similar to 2015-2017 (72%-74%) and far above 2012-2014 (60%-

66%). Usage among mid-size firms jumps to a historic high (78%),

roughly twice that of 2014 (37%) and surpassing 2015-2019 levels

(64%-75%). Increasing for a second straight year, usage among

small firms also jumps to match the previous historic high of 2017

(59% vs. 53%: 2019, 40%: 2018), which is above 2015-2016

(48%-54%) and roughly three times that of 2014 (19%).

The methods for incorporating alternative assignments into policy

vary widely. Such arrangements were birthed to meet strategic

business needs geographically without incurring the costs of

traditional relocations. In the past, the overwhelming policy driver

was accomplishing strategic business goals. Most policy reasons

show similar usage levels overall in recent years, indicating that

they are being used to solve specific challenges at individual

firms. While one-fourth or more of firms use nearly every

potential policy method, a few differences emerge by size.

• Four out of ten large firms use these in addition to short-term

assignments, far more often than smaller firms.

• More than one-third of large firms use them to develop internal

talent, more often than smaller firms.

Overall Trendline

Q27 Alternative Assignments Used: 2012-2020Is your company utilizing "alternative assignments" (i.e., extended business travel, cross-

border commuting, rotational, localization, permanent international transfers, etc.)?

71%

Overall

20132012 2015 20172014 2016 2018 2019 2020

Nearly half of large firms use alternative assignments to meet strategic business goals (43%), far more often than smaller firms.

27


Q27b Alternative Assignments Use Determining Factors (Top 4)

Q27a 2020 Alternative Assignments Use in Employee Mobility Policy – By Company Size

Used in Addition to Long-term

Assignments

Used to Meet Strategic Business

Goals

Used in Addition to Traditional Short-term

Assignments

Used in Place of Short-term Assignments

Used to Develop Internal Talent

Used in Place of

Long-term Assignments

Used to Accommodate

Employee Needs

Used to Maximize Budget/

Corporate Resources

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

44% 43%

38%37%

35% 34% 34%

28%

43% 32% 25% 41% 24% 34% 29% 26%39% 33% 23% 39% 27% 34% 35% 23%

Overall, the top factors in determining whether alternative assignments are brought into play are business need (60%), followed by assignment purpose (44%), cost (42%), employee requests (41%), job function (39%) and career development (34%). However, while business need is the clear top factor across size, the weight of other factors varies.

28


SUMMARY STATEMENTAs pressures mount from a variety of places, companies continue

to utilize the lessons learned during the Great Recession

and the following recovery. With a global pandemic and the

corresponding economic contractions and expansions that will

inevitably follow, it is assured that companies moving talent

will continue to find ways to balance both employee needs and

company budgets to keep the world moving.

• Among large firms, business need (63%) and assignment

purpose (54%) are the clear top two considerations.

Assignment purpose carries more weight at large firms

compared to smaller ones overall.

• At mid-size firms, the top factor is business need (57%),

with cost (45%) and employee requests (43%) as closely-

rated secondary factors, and around one-third rate every

other factor as pivotal.

• At small firms, the top factor is business need (58%) by

the widest margin. Roughly four in ten say employee

requests (42%), cost (40%) and assignment purpose

(40%) are important factors—nearly equally weighted for

second place.

Cost remains a major factor in alternative assignments

for close to half of firms across sizes.

Q27b 2020 Alternative Assignments Factors by Company Size

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

Q27b Alternative Assignments Use Determining Factors (Top 4)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Employee Requests

41%

Business Need

60%

Cost

42%

Assignment Purpose

44%

Business Need

Assignment Purpose

Career Development

Job Function

Cost Employee Requests

36%

40%

39%41%

54%

63%

34%39%43%45%36%57% 31%36%42%40%40%58%

29


RELOCATION REIMBURSEMENT

The continued use of multiple methods for reimbursement shows

how companies tailor assistance to the needs of employees and

businesses. For a sixth year, full reimbursement for new hires

(39%) remains near the lowest levels historically (36%-

38%, 2015-2016), out of favor in comparison to lump-sum

payments (58%). Full reimbursement for transferees remains

higher than in 2016 (62% vs. 55%) and similar to highs of the past

13 years (63%-66%). We note a trend in the continued resurgence

of partial reimbursement for new hires or transferees among

nearly half of firms for the fourth year in a row. This number was

closer to one-third during the previous five years; it remains at

levels seen for new hires from 2009-2011 (45% vs. 45%-51%) and

remains at the historical high for transferees (48%) for a third year

in a row, similar to the previous high in 2011 (47%). Lump-sum

usage for transferees remains near last year’s record high (54%

vs. 56%) and similar to the previous high in 2017 (55%). Usage

of lump-sum payments for new hires matches the highest level

recorded in 2018 (58%).

Continued Use of Multiple Methods, Differentiation Between Transferees & New Hires

Q31 Transferee/New Hire Reimbursement: 2004-2020To what extent does your company reimburse: Transferees? New Hires?

Partial ReimbursementLump Sum Full Reimbursement

New Hire

2006 20072004 20082005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

58%

39%45%

Transferee

2006 20072004 20082005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

62%

54%48%

30


1 in 4 firms surveyedstate some relocations (transferee or new hire) receive no reimbursement of expenses.

Before the turn of the century, full reimbursement was by

far used most frequently to cover costs for both transferees

and new hires. As seen in recent years, firms continue to

differentiate between current employees and new hires for

full reimbursement (62% for transferees vs. 39% for new

hires overall). Use of partial reimbursement remains similar

for transferees and new hires overall, but it is far more likely

to be leveraged for transferees at mid-size and large firms

than small (54% & 53% vs. 37%), while mid-size firms use

partial reimbursement for new hires more frequently than

those larger or smaller companies (54% vs. 40%). Current

employees have a far greater probability of receiving full

reimbursement than new hires overall and at mid-size or

large firms specifically. Additionally, lump-sum payments

continue to be popular and offered with equal frequency to

new hires or transferees over the past two years.

Companies overall estimate that roughly half of their

relocations were either partially reimbursed or paid by lump

sum only in 2019. Small firms were more likely to have paid

entirely by lump sum compared to larger firms (34% vs. 22%).

Roughly half of relocations were fully reimbursed at mid-size

or large firms, while around one-third were fully reimbursed

at small firms. One out of ten relocations at firms across size

were employee-paid and received no reimbursement.

Q32 Relocation Reimbursement Composition

Fully Reimbursed/Cost Covered by Company

Lump Sum Payment Only (Entire Relo)

Partially Reimbursed by Company

Not Reimbursed (Employee Paid)

Overall

43%

26%

21%

10%

Less than 500

36%

34%

20%

10%

500-4,999

45%

22%

22%

10%

5,000+

48%

22%

20%

10%

Q31 2020 Relocation Reimbursement by Type/Size

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

Full Reimbursement

Tranferees

Full Reimbursement

New Hires

Lump Sum Payments

Transferees

Lump Sum PaymentsNew Hires

Partial Reimbursement

Tranferees

Partial Reimbursement

New Hires

No Reimbursement

Tranferees

No Reimbursement

New Hires

71%

47%52%

56%53%

40%

16%23%

61% 41% 56% 58% 54% 54% 33% 29%53% 29% 53% 61% 37% 40% 28% 28%

31


LUMP SUMSupplemental Use Remains Higher

Q32 Relocation Reimbursement Composition: 2011-2019

Lump Sum Payment Only (Entire Relo)

Partially Reimbursed by Company

Fully Reimbursed/Cost Covered by Company

43%21%

26%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Even as companies continue their reliance on lump sums, they are

using them not just to replace relocation benefits but as a flexible

supplement for specific costs. Our survey continues to investigate

which costs fall under lump-sum payments, and to whom and for

what types of relocations they are applied.

Among firms using lump sums, around four in ten apply them

for the entire cost of relocation, essentially consistent with

findings since measurement began. On average, half of these

companies use lump sums for travel expenses, miscellaneous

expense allowances, household goods shipping/storage and

temporary housing. Each follows a general trend of progressively

increasing across these categories over the past decade except

for miscellaneous expenses, which trends slightly lower. Firms

using lump sums for rental assistance/transactions and real

estate assistance/transactions have also progressively increased

to roughly one-third.

The use of fully-reimbursed/cost-covered relocations has declined progressively and remains near its historical low. For the past eight years, firms estimate one in four relocations are lump-sum payment only (for the entire relocation) and roughly one in five are partially reimbursed.

32


Q32a Lump Sum Payment Application to Relocation Costs: 2011-2020For what types of relocation costs are lump sum

payments typically offered to relocating employees?

Household Goods Shipping/Storage Travel ExpensesMiscellaneous Expense Allowances

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

48% 47%45%

Temporary HousingEntire Relocation Cost

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

46%

39%

Rental Assistance/TransactionsReal Estate Assistance/Transactions

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

32%32%

33


Q32c Lump Sum Ranges

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

Real Estate Assistance/ Transactions $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 $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 $10,000-$14,999 $10,000-$14,999 $10,000-$14,999

Rental Assistance/ Transactions $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $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 $5,000-$7,499 $2,500-$4,999

Misc. Expense Allowances $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $5,000-$7,499 $2,500-$4,999

• One in every two firms uses lump sums for most expense

categories on this list, showing wide diversity in their application

for relocation management. The exceptions: entire relocation

cost (four in ten firms), rental assistance/transactions (one in

three) and real estate assistance/transactions (one in three).

• Usage of lump sums has increased notably over time:

• Since 2015, around one-third of firms used lump sums for

rental assistance/transactions compared to 16%-21% from

2011-2014.

• For the sixth year running, nearly twice as many firms used

lump sums for real estate assistance/transactions (32% vs.

11%-15% for 2011-2014).

• Except for 2018, firms applying lump sums to household

goods shipping/storage has progressively increased since

2011 to roughly half (45% vs. 28%).

• In the past, far more differences existed among companies in

how lump sums were applied. In recent years, frequencies of

lump sum use are mostly similar across company size. Notable

differences this year include: mid-size and small firms are less

likely to use them for temporary housing (36% & 47% vs. 56%

of large firms) and small firms are much more likely to use them

for household goods shipping/storage than larger firms (54% vs.

41% mid-size & 39% large).

As lump sum usage has grown, the survey has

incorporated questions about monetary ranges for

categories of reimbursement. Over the past seven years,

most offerings are more frequent and generous than

in 2013 and 2014, despite some being lower than 2015.

The overall median ranges match the highest levels in

seven years for every category. However, there remain

differences in offerings by company size.

• The median amounts offered for lump sum miscellaneous

expense allowances varied widely by firm size; mid-size

firms were the mid-range ($2,500-$4,999). Large firms

were slightly more generous, small firms slightly less

generous.

• Mid-size and large firms offered the same median

amounts for real estate assistance/transactions ($5,000-

$9,999), household goods shipping/storage ($5,000-

$9,999), temporary housing ($5,000-$7,499), rental

assistance/transactions ($2,500-$4,999) and travel

expenses ($2,500-$4,999). Small firms were slightly less

generous for each category.

• Median amounts across company size were the same

for the entire relocation cost ($10,000-$14,999).

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

34


Q32b 2020 Relocation Types Receiving Lump Sums By Company Size

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

EMPLOYEE AND RELOCATION TYPES RECEIVING LUMP SUMSMost firms across company size continue to most

often apply lump sums for domestic relocations.

More than 40% use lump sums for short-term/temporary

assignments for a second straight year, a marked increase

over 2018 (44% & 42% vs. 27%). Additionally, use of lump

sums for international long-term assignments also jumps

to 40%, which is a marked increase over roughly one-third

historically. One in five firms use lump sums for alternative

assignments, similar to last year. Use of lump sums for

short-term/temporary assignments is now essentially

the same for firms across size. Mid-size and large firms

are the most likely to use lump sums for international

assignments (42% & 46% vs. 33%).

Domestic Relocations

Short-term/Temporary Assignments

International Long-term Assignments

Alternative Assignment Types

64% 78%83% 46% 45%41% 42% 46%33% 19% 19%15%

Q32b Types of Relocations Receiving Lump Sum Payments: 2016-2020

Alternative Assignments

18%

International Long-term Assignments

40%

Short-term/Temporary Assignments

44%

2019 2018 2017 20162020

Domestic Relocations

75%

35


Q32b Lump Sum Payment Application

to Relocation Employee Type: 2011-2020

Experienced Professionals ExecutivesEntry Level Employee

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

58%57%

44%

New HiresTransferees

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

36%

40%

HomeownersRenters

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

36%33%

36


Q32b 2020 Employee Types Receiving Lump Sum By Company Size

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

Experienced professionals

Executives Entry level employees

New hires Homeowners RentersTransferees

29%33%41%34%36%35%39%34%44%40%63%58%54%69%

Among firms using lumps sums, usage rates across executives and experienced professionals have increased progressively. However, this year, use of lump sums for entry-level employees sees a slight dip to more mid-level ranges historically.

A progressive overall decline remains the trend for

new hires, and usage of lump sums ticks up slightly for

transferees but remains below historical norms. Usage of

lump sums for homeowners remains dramatically higher

for a second year, notably above historical norms, while for

renters it remains right within the historical midrange.

• Small firms are the most likely to offer lump sums to

experienced professionals compared to larger firms (69%

vs. 54% and 52%).

• Six in ten small and mid-size firms use them for

executives; just half of large firms do so.

• Around one in three firms across size use lump sums

for new hires, homeowners or renters.

Large firms are more likely to offer lump sums to transferees than

small firms (46% vs. 34%).

37%38%46%49%51%52%

32%

37


COST COVERAGE

Across company size, firms estimate that around half of

relocations were mid-level jobs and roughly one-fifth were entry-

level, which is similar to the past four years. Mid-size and small

firms estimate around one-third of their relocations last year were

for executive-level moves, similar to 2017-2018 and higher than

just over one-fourth in 2015-2016. Large firms estimate 28% of

relocations were in this top tier. While mid-size and large firms

see more volume than small firms do, their employee-level

compositions remain similar, with mid-level moves occurring

more than twice as often as entry-level moves.

Customizing relocation packages continues, with assistance most often provided based on job/grade level or position/job title.

OVERALL & SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS/RENTERS

Q23 New Hires by Company Size: 2011-2019

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

49%53%

41%

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

Q23 Relocating Employee Composition: 2011-2019

20192012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

53%

47%

2011

New Hires Transferees

38


EMPLOYEE LEVEL IMPACTS OFFERINGS

Overall, the likelihood of a lump sum or no reimbursement

policy is much more likely for entry-level moves compared

to executive (34% vs. 21%), with mid-level moves at the

mid-point (28%). Around half of small firms say lump sums

or no reimbursement is their policy for entry-level or mid-level

employees, while only around one-third of them use this policy

for executives. Mid-size firms are roughly twice as likely to use

lump sums or no reimbursement for entry-level or mid-level

moves compared to executive as well (36% & 30% vs. 17%).

Additionally, while one in four large firms also have this policy in

place for entry-level employees, lump sums or no reimbursement

are far less likely to be offered to mid-level employees or

executives (24% vs. 12% & 10%).

The biggest differences appear when analyzing company size

and employee level together: small and mid-size firms are more

likely to use lump sum only or not reimburse costs for entry-level

or mid-level relocations compared to large firms (45% and 36%

vs. 24%, entry-level; 43% and 30% vs. 12%, mid-level). Small firms

are also two to three times more likely to use this approach than

larger firms for executives (36% vs. 17% mid-size & 10% large). For

a third year in a row, small firms are more likely to use this option

for entry-level employees than large firms (45% vs. 24%). The

percentage of small firms using this option remains nearly double

2017 for entry-level (45% vs. 21%) and mid-level (43% vs. 22%)

relocations, and it remains elevated for executives (36% vs. 20%).

As we expected and true to what we found over the last four years, coverage for specific items is more likely for mid-level and executive/top-level positions than for entry-level positions.

Q23 2019 By Company Size

Tranferees vs. New Hires

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

Employee Level

What percentage of your company’s relocating employees were classified as: transferees versus new hires? Employee level?

Transferees

59%52%47%53%

New Hires

41%49%53%47%

Entry Level

22%20%19%20%

Mid-Level

50%48%48%48%

Executives/Top Level

28%33%33%31%

39


Q28 Cost Coverage (Selected) By Employee Level

Entry Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level

• However, roughly half or more of both mid-level and

executive moves cover the top two (pack all items and

move an automobile), far more than for entry-level

relocations (one-third). Mid-level moves also trend higher

in coverage for most individual categories compared to

entry-level moves. There is one notable commonality —

close to one-third of firms, across employee levels, cover

containerized shipping.

• Company size plays a role in coverage. Large firms are

much more likely to cover packing all items for entry-

level relocations than smaller firms (47% vs. 24%+).

The same holds true for a single automobile relocation

(45% vs. 26%+), containerized shipments (37% vs. 23%+)

and moving a second automobile (24% vs. 13%+). Other

coverages for entry-level employees are more similar

across firm size.

• Coverage for mid-level moves trend more generous

across many items at large firms, however, those

offering unpacking all items, moving recreation and lawn

equipment, partial/custom unpacking, carrying items from

the attic, permanent/extended storage and picking up

belongings from a second residence saw similar levels

across company size. This trend indicates a slightly more

competitive landscape for mid-level positions.

• While executives saw far more large companies offering

to pack all items, move an automobile, second automobile

or pick up belongings from a second residence, mid-size

firms essentially met or exceeded the percentages of

large companies offering nearly every other individual

cost coverage item for relocations. So even though

far fewer small firms offered individual cost coverage

items comparatively, this indicates a highly competitive

environment between mid-size and large firms for key

executive talent.

Unsurprisingly, executives see higher levels of coverage for individual categories than do

lower-level relocations overall.

Pack

A

ll It

ems

55%

50%

34%

Mov

e an

Aut

omob

ile53%

46%33

%

Mov

e V

ia

Con

tain

eriz

ed

Ship

men

t

39%

35%

29%

Mov

e a

Seco

nd

Aut

omob

ile

44%

29%

18%

Mov

e H

ighl

y

Val

uabl

e O

bjec

ts/

Col

lect

ions

41%

24%

16%

Mov

e Ex

erci

se

Equi

pmen

t

41%

34%

23%

Mov

e Pe

ts

39%

35%

26%

Mov

e R

ecre

atio

n an

d La

wn

Equi

pmen

t

38%

33%

23%

Part

ial/

Cus

tom

Unp

acki

ng

38%

31%

20%

Car

ryIt

ems

Dow

nFr

om A

ttic

37%

31%

21%

44%

Unp

ack

All

Item

s34

%23

%

41%

Mov

e U

nlim

ited

Wei

ght

30%

21%

40%

Perm

/Ext

ende

d

Stor

age

of S

ome

Poss

essi

ons

29%

20%

40


SPECIALIZED ASSISTANCE FOR HOMEOWNERS/RENTERSMost firms continue to offer special types of assistance to

homeowners/renters, with shifts that began two years ago

remaining solid trends. For the fifth year, we asked what types

of assistance are offered across employee levels, regardless of

status (transferee or new hire). While the vast majority of mid-

size and large firms offer specialized assistance, roughly four in

ten small firms offer only lump sums or no specialized assistance

at all, which is similar to 2018-2019 and notably above 2015-2017

levels.

HOMEOWNERS

However, the biggest differences occur by company size. Nearly

half of small firms say lump sums or no reimbursement is their

policy for every employee level. They are also the most likely to

flex this option across company size. Mid-size firms are roughly

twice as likely to use lump sums or no reimbursement for mid-

level or executive moves compared to large firms (35% vs 17%,

mid-level: 22% vs. 10%, executive).

• Across nearly every category, homeowner assistance is more

likely to be offered for mid-level or executive relocations, rather

than entry-level. This difference is most pronounced at mid-size

and large firms.

• Even though most assistance categories are offered less often

at the entry-level, smaller firms do offer benefits at similar levels

to mid-size firms across almost every assistance category. Small

firms offer benefits at similar levels to large firms at roughly half

of assistance categories. This data indicates that the competitive

landscape is more similar across size for entry-level hires.

Generally, homeowner assistance for specific items is more likely for mid-level and executive/ top level relocations than for entry-level positions.

Q29 Homeowner Assistance (Top 6) By Employee Level

Entry Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level

Offer Homefinding

Trips

Offer Temporary Housing

Allowance

OfferStorage

Reimburse/ Pay for Home

Sale Costs

Reimburse/ Pay for Home

Purchase Costs

Offer Home MarketingAssistance

52%

46% 47% 45%42%

39%

44%31% 43% 39% 38% 36% 36%30% 29% 26% 20% 21%

Homeowner Renter

2016 20182017 2019 2020

Assistance Offered: Composite Percentages

57%54%

41


RENTERSThis year overall, the likelihood of renter assistance being offered

is similar across employee level. However, company size plays

a role. Lump sum or no assistance is more likely for employees

at small firms compared to larger companies across every

employee level. Roughly four out of ten small firms and one out

of four mid-size firms offer a lump sum or no renter assistance

across employee levels. Only at large companies does this pattern

shift, where this policy is more likely to be used for entry-level

employees vs. executives (26% vs. 14%).

• Home finding trips, storage, and apartment search/finder’s fee

reimbursement are more likely to be offered for mid-level or

executive relocations than for entry-level moves overall. Most

other categories are similar across employee level.

71%

64%

66%

Q36 Caregiving Assistance Offered: 2012-2020

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Elder Care ChildcareDisabled Family Member

Q30 Renter Assistance (Top 5) by Employee Level

Entry Level Mid-Level Executive/ Top Level

Reimburse/ Pay For Lease

Cancellation

Offer Temporary

Housing Allowance

Offer Homefinding

Trips

OfferStorage

Reimburse/ Pay Apartment

Search or Finder Fees

46%

46%41%

44%

40%35%

48%

46%33%

38%

41%28%

35%

41%26%

• Company size is impactful. Mid-size and large firms are far more

likely to offer temporary housing allowances and storage across

employee levels. Mid-size and large firms are also far more

likely to offer apartment search/finder’s fee reimbursement for

entry-level and mid-level moves, and home finding trips to mid-

level employees. Large companies are more likely than mid-size

or small firms to offer lease cancellation reimbursement for both

mid-level and executive moves, as well as temporary housing

allowances, home finding trips, and apartment search/finder’s

fees reimbursement for executives.

CAREGIVING ASSISTANCEAn estimated one in ten relocations last year involved an

employee in a caregiving role. Almost one in three relocations

involved an employee with children. Seventy-eight percent of

companies estimate the most frequently relocated, salaried

employee is 30-45 years of age. Both older Millennials and the

youngest members of Generation X find themselves in this range,

many who are raising children and have elderly parents for whom

they are shifting into a caretaking role. Many experience this

“sandwich” of dual caregiving challenges, and relocation policies

have had to adapt.

• Seventy-one percent of firms offer childcare assistance for

relocating employees—increasing again over last year’s largest

percentage measured for this accommodation.

• Sixty-six percent offer accommodations for elder care—also

increasing for another year to the highest percentage ever seen.

• Sixty-four percent offer disability-caregiving assistance; this is

the second year we have measured it and it experienced a slight

increase over last year (60%).

Assistance types vary—such as paid personal leave days, flexible

scheduling or telecommuting, as well as providing lists of service

providers/options or of local schools/organizations. Overall, it

appears the majority of firms are trying to ensure that employees

who relocate get the support they need to transition successfully

while managing family obligations.

42


Q39 & 42j Outsourcing: 2007-2019Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced

relocation services; the answers received indicate that…

Outsourced - InternationalOutsourced - Overall

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

90%

77%

OUTSOURCING

Roughly three in four companies outsourced relocation

services last year. This number matches the historical high

of 2016 (77%) and surpasses other highs in 2014-2015 & 2018

(73%-76%) and similar to the past five years and 2011 peak

(72%). Outsourcing continues for the overwhelming majority

of large firms (near highest levels historically) and in the high

range for mid-size firms. Usage among small firms remains

near historical highs in 2015-2016 (60% vs. 63%-65%) and

similar to 2018 (59%) after falling to roughly half (49%) in 2017.

It remains far above the previous 12-year average of roughly

one third. Large firms continue to outsource to a greater

extent and more services than mid-size or small firms.

Even with more firms continuing to outsource overall in

2019, the use of most individual service categories is similar

to 2017-2018 and remains slightly lower compared to 2016.

However, worth noting is that the outsourcing of counseling

about planning and details of relocation has increased over

the past two years (36% vs. 25%+) and is now just over 2016

levels (34%). While real estate purchase (31% vs. 36%) and

real estate sales/marketing (33% vs. 39%) stay below 2016,

these are also seeing slight increases over the past two

years. Overall, most service categories remain down from

historical highs to between historical lows and mid-ranges.

The management of service provider GDPR/data privacy

compliance is newer: one in every eight firms outsources this

function; for large firms, the ratio is one in six. Companies

remain extremely strategic, using external expertise only

where it is most cost effective, as evidenced by high overall

outsourcing but not across service categories.

INTERNATIONALSimilar to the previous six years, far more firms relocating

employees internationally outsourced in 2019 than did

overall (90% vs. 77%). International outsourcing reaches

historic highs overall and across company size, but with great

variation across service categories. However, large firms

continue to outsource a greater variety of services than mid-

size and small firms do.

In 2019, international outsourcing across service categories

remains essentially the same, or increased across most

service categories compared to 2018, which saw levels

rebound slightly after most categories decreased in 2017.

However, most outsourcing levels remain below 2016

levels and in the mid to lower ranges historically for most

categories. One exception: counseling about company policy

concerning international relocation rebounds and surpasses

2016 (36% vs. 34%) after falling to 24%+ the past two years.

Outsourcing categories far below 2016 levels are: contract of

household goods carrier (31% vs. 44%), destination services/

orientation tours (32% vs. 43%), arrangement of family’s

temporary accommodations (29% vs. 42%), and intercultural

& language training (24% vs. 34%). The management of

service provider GDPR/data privacy compliance is new:

roughly one in every ten small international firms outsources

this service; among mid-size and large firms, the number is

one in five.

Among companies that outsourced relocation services

domestically in 2019, those that also outsourced

internationally (97%) remains similar to 2014’s historical

high (98%). For the sixth straight year, firms that outsource

domestic services and relocate internationally almost

universally outsource services abroad. Large firms continue

to be the most active for outsourcing internationally: around

one-third or more did so across almost all survey categories.

43


INTERNATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS

DURATIONThis year, typical assignment lengths of 1-3 years increase

back to over 50%—a marked increase from last year (52%

vs. 43%), though still lower than 2011-2014 (54%-61%). Until

2015, the majority of firms overall reported international

assignments were typically 1-3 years in duration. The

percentage of these assignments dropped from 59% in 2014

to 44% in 2015 and remained under 50% for the past five

years. Assignments of less than a year (35%) remain roughly

three times as likely than prior to 2015. Longer engagements

of three years or more are far less utilized (14%) and are at the

lowest levels historically.

• In a departure from the last three years, firms across size see

far more similar usage of short international assignments

(42% small, 35% mid-size, and 30% large) compared to

last year (48%, 45%, & 21%) and 2017-2018. Use of short

assignments at small firms is now similar to more traditional

lengths of 1-3 years (42% vs. 38%) rather than more frequent

(48% vs. 30%: 2019). At large firms, short assignments as

a “typical” assignment length returns to the high seen five

years ago (30%), 2-3 times higher than historical norms.

Overall, use of shorter assignment types by mid-size and

small firms remains roughly double or more that of 6-7

years ago.

• Standard assignment lengths of 1-3 years are reported by

56% of large firms and 54% of mid-size firms, far more than

by small firms (38%).

• Overall, firms estimated around four out of ten assignments

were 1-3 years, more than one-fifth were short-term, and

roughly one-fourth were longer in 2019. Very few belonged

to another type of assignment (commuter, rotational, etc.).

Q42c Typical International Relocation Assignment Duration: 2011-2020

>12 Months, <3 Years12 Months or Less 3 Years or More

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

52%

35%

14%

• Prior to the pandemic, 61% of mid-size and four out of ten

small firms and large firms expected their use of short-

term/temporary assignments to increase during 2020.

Few mid-size or large firms anticipated decreasing usage

of shorter assignments, but more than one-fifth of small

firms anticipated doing less. Roughly half of large firms

expected stability in frequency for this type of international

assignment.

DESTINATIONDespite stricter immigration enforcement and a challenging

political climate, the United States was a top international

destination again in 2019. The six most-frequented destinations

for relocations between the U.S. and other countries/regions

were: Canada (35%), United States (34%), Eastern Europe (28%),

Asia (26%), Western Europe (24%) and the United Kingdom (23%).

The United States was first in intraregional transfers of expatriates.

Both immigration to the U.S. and movement of foreign nationals

within the U.S. remain markedly higher for a sixth year (31%+ vs.

18% in 2013). Canada ranked second for intraregional transfers

(28%), followed closely by Asia (23%), Eastern Europe (23%)

and Western Europe (22%). The United States tied for the top

destination for interregional transfers with Asia (32%), followed by

Western Europe (28%), Eastern Europe (25%), United Kingdom

(24%) and Canada (23%).

• Across all types of international relocations, European

destinations combined (U.K., Eastern & Western Europe)

continue to eclipse most other regions, with roughly half of firms

citing this geographic block as a most frequent destination—

whether outbound from the U.S. (47%) or inbound from another

country (52%). Only North America (U.S. and Canada combined)

generates similar percentages for international origins and

44


destinations (50% & 55%). The North America region saw

similar intraregional activity last year to 2018 (53% vs. 56%),

which was much greater than 2017 (40%). Around one-third

of firms overall cite an Asian Continent/Australian/Pacific Rim

destination for outbound moves from the U.S. or within another

foreign country/region, and 44% report moves to the Asian

Continent/Australian/Pacific Rim happened inter-regionally.

POLICYMost firms, regardless of size, average two tiers within

each international-policy type (overall, permanent transfer,

localization and intraregional). For tiers in the overall policy,

two of the top three criteria are job/grade level (47%) and

position/job title (44%), similar to domestic policy (55%

and 54%). Assignment length ties with position/job title in

second place at large firms (42%) and ties for third place

with homeowner/renter status (34%) at mid-size firms.

Assignment length plays a far lesser role at small firms

internationally (20%); these firms cite the position/job title

as the top criterion (43%) roughly twice as often as any other

factors.

• For international policy, job/grade level outstrips all other

factors at large firms (59%), essentially the same for

domestic policy (61%).

• New hire/current employee status carries far more weight

internationally at large companies than smaller firms (39%

v. 18%+).

• For small firms, assignment length is equally important

to all other factors except job/grade level which is the top

factor (43%).

• Job/grade level, assignment length, homeowner/renter

status, assignment location/region and company vs.

employee-initiated relocation each carry more weight in

international policy for mid-size and large firms compared

to small firms.

For the sixth year in a row, the vast majority of firms (and

the highest percentages historically) report differences

between domestic and international policies. Generally, the

percentages of firms offering specific policy allowances fall

roughly at last year’s levels, with many individual offerings

remaining near historical lows. We note these exceptions:

• More firms continue to offer additional leave time with a

visit home than did two years ago (41% vs. 36%), closer to

the previous seven-year historical mid-ranges (42%-48%)

and 2019 (45%).

• Financial services assistance remains similar to the past

seven years (32% vs. 31%-39%) and above the low (18%:

2012).

• Additional leave time is similar to that over the last five

years (33% vs. 28%-35%) and above historical lows (16%-

18%).

• Extended per-diem charges fall in the mid-range (21% vs.

11%-28%) of the last 17 years.

• The percentages of firms offering additional tax

considerations also remains similar to the past five years,

albeit far lower than six years ago (42% vs. 41%-46% (2015-

2019) & 61% (2014)).

• Additionally, a policy consideration we first surveyed four

years ago—international transportation allowance (rental car,

commuting costs, etc.)—finds one-third of firms offer it (33%),

similar to the last three years (33%-36%).

For a second time, we asked if stronger data privacy

protocols/protection rules for service providers were

being incorporated into international policy compared to

domestic—one out of six firms on average are doing so,

similar to 2019 (16% vs. 20%).

Q10b 2019 Most Frequent Destinations

What were the most frequent destinations for transferees?

United States Canada Europe (Western)

United Kingdom

Europe (Eastern)Asia

26%23%24%

35%34%

Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region

Within Single Foreign Country/Region

Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions

25%32%

24%28%

23%32%

23%23%15%

22%28%31%28%

45


SURVEY

Responses

For further details and graphical representations of all the data contained in this report, please go to atlasvanlines.com/corporate-relocation/survey

The following information is based upon the findings of Atlas ® World

Group’s 53rd Annual Survey of Corporate Relocation Policies conducted

from January 15 through March 13, 2020 via the Internet. This year, 414

online questionnaires were completed. Unless otherwise noted, all data

refers to domestic relocations occurring in 2019. 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:

SURVEY RESPONSES BY SECTIONA : R E L O C AT I O N V O L U M E S & B U D G E T S47

B : FA C T O R S I M PA C T I N G R E L O C AT I O N S51

C : P O L I C Y A D M I N I S T R AT I O N56

D : R E L O C AT I O N C O S T S61

E : E M P L OY E E , S P O U S E & A S S I S TA N C E I S S U E S65

F : S U P P L I E R M A N A G E M E N T67

G : I N T E R N AT I O N A L69

H : C O R P O R AT E / R E S P O N D E N T P R O F I L E72

46


46

A. RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS1. How many employees did your company relocate in 2019?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 2% None 5% 1% 1% 22% 1-9 44% 18% 4% 15% 10-19 21% 17% 7% 12% 20-49 13% 13% 11% 12% 50-99 8% 17% 11% 11% 100-199 5% 15% 14% 9% 200-399 1% 8% 18% 16% 400 or more 4% 12% 34%

*excludes those who don’t know

20 - 49 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 58% % of companies answering "Yes" 37% 63% 73%

3. Is your company. . . Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 24% Regional 39% 25% 10% 23% National 29% 20% 20% 52% International 32% 54% 71%

4a. Compared to 2018, did the number of employees you relocated in 2019… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% Increase Significantly 16% 14% 13% 31% Increase Somewhat 33% 32% 28% 43% Stay About the Same 45% 41% 41% 10% Decrease Somewhat 6% 9% 15% 2% Decrease Significantly 0% 4% 3%

4b. Compared to 2018, did your 2019 relocation budget… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% Increase Significantly 13% 14% 14% 33% Increase Somewhat 30% 40% 29% 41% Stay About the Same 46% 35% 41% 11% Decrease Somewhat 9% 8% 15% 2% Decrease Significantly 1% 3% 1%

5a. Compared to 2019, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2020 will…

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% Increase Significantly 9% 24% 10% 30% Increase Somewhat 26% 31% 33% 46% Stay About the Same 51% 39% 49% 8% Decrease Somewhat 12% 4% 8% 2% Decrease Significantly 3% 3% 1%

47

INDUSTRY'S LONGEST RUNNING SURVEY RESPONSES

5b. Compared to 2019, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2020 will… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 12% Increase Significantly 11% 18% 8% 28% Increase Somewhat 25% 31% 29% 49% Stay About the Same 54% 42% 51% 9% Decrease Somewhat 9% 6% 11% 2% Decrease Significantly 1% 3% 2%

6. Did any employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2019?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 62% % of companies answering "Yes" 50% 65% 73%


7. 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 37% % of companies answering "Yes" 36% 40% 36%

8a. Did your company offer additional non-standard incentives or exceptions to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 90% % of companies indicating "Yes" 89% 88% 94%

8b. Which of the following additional non-standard incentives or exceptions did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

Of those who offered incentives or exceptions: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 8a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 58% Relocation/sign-on bonuses 60% 56% 58% 49% Extended temporary housing benefits 44% 52% 50% 47% Cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) 40% 52% 50% in salary at new location 31% Telecommuting option (one or two days 28% 29% 34% each week) to curtail commuting costs 30% Guarantee of employment contract (for 39% 28% 23% specified length of time) if relocation accepted 24% Guaranteed buyout option for origin home 14% 24% 32% 22% Buyer value option for origin home 10% 18% 36% 22% Extended duplicate housing benefits 14% 22% 28% 20% Loss-on-sale protection 12% 22% 26% 15% Mortgage payoffs/loans (if property sale 8% 21% 17% won’t cover employee mortgage debt) 2% Other 2% 1% 2%

8c. How often did offering the above incentives or exceptions prove successful in convincing an employee to relocate?*

Of those who offered incentives or exceptions: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (See Question 8a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 34% Almost always 35% 35% 34% 54% Frequently 52% 54% 55% 12% Seldom 14% 11% 11% 0% Never 0% 0% 0%

*excludes not applicable/don’t know responses

48


9. Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2019...* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 29% Increase from the 2018 level 25% 35% 28% 56% Remain about the same as the 2018 level 58% 53% 57% 15% Decrease from the 2018 level 18% 12% 15%


9a. What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? Of those who had employees decline relocation: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 6) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 52% Family issues/ties 51% 55% 52% 45% Spouse’s/partner’s employment 43% 39% 51% 41% No desire to relocate 48% 30% 45% 37% Destination location 36% 32% 42% 35% Personal reasons (non-disclosed) 26% 35% 43% 35% Cost of living in new location 29% 32% 41% 26% Housing/mortgage concerns 25% 27% 25% 17% Job security concerns 13% 27% 13% 3% Other 4% 0% 3%

10a. How many employees did your company relocate in 2019 in each of the following:*

Within the U.S. Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 4% None 7% 2% 2% 27% 1-9 52% 21% 7% 19% 10-19 23% 21% 12% 14% 20-49 11% 17% 14% 11% 50-99 4% 17% 13% 8% 100-199 1% 10% 14% 7% 200-399 0% 4% 17% 10% 400+ 2% 6% 20%

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 53% None 69% 52% 36% 22% 1-9 19% 21% 24% 8% 10-19 3% 9% 14% 6% 20-49 3% 6% 8% 4% 50-99 2% 2% 7% 5% 100-199 4% 6% 4% 1% 200-399 0% 2% 2% 2% 400+ 0% 2% 5%

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 49% None 72% 43% 32% 20% 1-9 16% 23% 20% 8% 10-19 5% 13% 8% 7% 20-49 3% 6% 13% 6% 50-99 3% 6% 9% 2% 100-199 1% 3% 3% 4% 200-399 0% 5% 7% 3% 400+ 0% 1% 9% *excludes those who don’t know

(Question 10a results continued on next page) 49


49

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 62% None 76% 62% 47% 15% 1-9 13% 15% 18% 8% 10-19 5% 8% 10% 4% 20-49 4% 6% 3% 4% 50-99 1% 4% 7% 3% 100-199 1% 3% 7% 1% 200-399 0% 2% 3% 2% 400+ 0% 0% 8%

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 62% None 83% 58% 45% 15% 1-9 10% 20% 17% 7% 10-19 3% 12% 7% 4% 20-49 3% 2% 8% 4% 50-99 1% 4% 6% 3% 100-199 0% 2% 8% 1% 200-399 0% 2% 1% 3% 400+ 0% 1% 9%


10b. 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 34% Northeast 32% 35% 36% 34% South 33% 34% 36% 30% Midwest 30% 27% 31% 22% West 17% 25% 25% 18% Southwest 14% 15% 24% 13% Central 10% 16% 14%

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 35% Canada 39% 36% 32% 34% United States 39% 33% 33% 28% Europe (Eastern) 25% 27% 31% 26% Asia 20% 25% 31% 24% Europe (Western) 18% 20% 31% 23% United Kingdom 14% 23% 27% 14% South America 10% 11% 19% 11% Australia/Pacific Rim 8% 11% 12% 10% Central America/Caribbean 12% 11% 9% 9% Middle East 8% 7% 12% 7% Africa (North) 6% 7% 8% 6% Russia 4% 7% 5% 5% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 4% 5% 6% 3% Other 2% 4% 3%

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 31% United States 24% 27% 38% 28% Canada 18% 37% 28% 23% Asia 26% 18% 24% 23% Europe (Eastern) 11% 31% 24% 22% Europe (Western) 5% 18% 33% 15% United Kingdom 13% 12% 17%

(Question 10a results continued)

50


11% Central America/Caribbean 5% 14% 12% 10% Australia/Pacific Rim 16% 8% 9% 6% Africa (North) 3% 10% 5% 6% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 0% 8% 8% 6% Middle East 8% 4% 7% 6% South America 8% 4% 7% 5% Russia 0% 6% 7% 1% Other 3% 0% 1%

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 32% Asia 30% 30% 35% 32% United States 30% 30% 35% 28% Europe (Western) 4% 15% 47% 25% Europe (Eastern) 30% 15% 31% 24% United Kingdom 7% 30% 25% 23% Canada 30% 30% 16% 14% Central America/Caribbean 11% 17% 13% 12% Australia/Pacific Rim 11% 11% 12% 11% Middle East 4% 9% 15% 6% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 4% 8% 7% 6% Russia 0% 4% 11% 6% Africa (North) 4% 6% 7% 6% South America 4% 4% 8% 2% Other 4% 0% 3%

*excludes N/A responses

B. FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONS11. What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your

employee relocations in 2019? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% External conditions had no impact 17% 7% 14% 41% Lack of qualified people locally 42% 43% 39% 28% Economic conditions 25% 28% 32% 23% Growth of domestic competition 22% 28% 19% 18% Political/regulatory environment – domestic or 11% 23% 20% international (i.e., political polarization, visa/ immigration restrictions, trade agreement changes, Brexit, etc.) 17% Growth of international competition 13% 18% 21% 15% Real estate market 16% 16% 15% 15% U.S. tax reform legislation/tax 12% 19% 15%

compliance challenges 13% Natural/man-made disasters – domestic 13% 12% 13% or international (i.e., hurricanes earthquakes, war/civil unrest, etc.) 1% Other 1% 2% 1%

12. What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2019?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 5% Internal conditions had no impact 8% 2% 4% 30% Growth of company 34% 28% 29% 27% Knowledge/skills transfers 18% 28% 34% 26% Promotions/resignations 21% 25% 31% 21% Corporate reorganization/restructuring 15% 19% 27% 20% Budget constraints 15% 22% 23% 19% Expansion into new territories 21% 22% 14% 17% Expansion of facility 12% 22% 18% 16% Acquisitions/mergers 12% 19% 18% 16% International expansion 10% 18% 20%

(Question 12 results continued on next page)

51


51

14% Increased production 16% 17% 11% 14% Use of short-term assignments 11% 13% 16% 14% Technology deployment/integration 13% 12% 15% 13% Use of frequent business travel/telecommuting 12% 11% 15% 12% Closing of facility 8% 10% 16% 11% Employee ineligibility/inability to relocate 8% 11% 13% 1% Other 1% 0% 2%

13. Compared to 2018, from your company’s perspective, please rate the following in 2019:*

Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 61% Better than 2018 61% 61% 62% 24% Same as in 2018 25% 26% 21% 15% Worse than 2018 14% 13% 17%

The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 48% Better than 2018 46% 50% 49% 38% Same as in 2018 34% 39% 40% 14% Worse than 2018 20% 11% 11%

Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Better than 2018 42% 57% 55% 36% Same as in 2018 39% 35% 35% 12% Worse than 2018 19% 8% 10%

Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 45% Better than 2018 47% 47% 43% 44% Same as in 2018 40% 47% 45% 11% Worse than 2018 14% 6% 12%

The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% Better than 2018 46% 58% 55% 37% Same as in 2018 41% 33% 38% 10% Worse than 2018 13% 9% 7%

U.S./Canada/Mexico trade bloc economic performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% Better than 2018 41% 43% 39% 41% Same as in 2018 36% 38% 48% 18% Worse than 2018 23% 20% 13%

United Kingdom economy Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% Better than 2018 40% 38% 44% 35% Same as in 2018 25% 45% 31% 24% Worse than 2018 35% 17% 25%

(Question 12 results continued)

52


European Union trade bloc economic performance Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 34% Better than 2018 30% 38% 33% 43% Same as in 2018 39% 50% 39% 23% Worse than 2018 30% 12% 28%

*excludes those who don’t know/not applicable responses

14. Compared to 2019, please indicate what you anticipate for 2020:*

Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 65% Better than 2019 70% 61% 64% 29% Same as in 2019 22% 35% 30% 6% Worse than 2019 8% 4% 6%

The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% Better than 2019 41% 41% 40% 46% Same as in 2019 43% 49% 46% 14% Worse than 2019 16% 10% 15%

Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 49% Better than 2019 49% 53% 45% 37% Same as in 2019 34% 34% 41% 14% Worse than 2019 17% 13% 14%

Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 47% Better than 2019 51% 45% 44% 38% Same as in 2019 33% 38% 43% 16% Worse than 2019 16% 17% 14%

The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 50% Better than 2019 49% 51% 51% 39% Same as in 2019 37% 38% 40% 11% Worse than 2019 14% 10% 9%

U.S./Canada/Mexico trade bloc economic performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 40% Better than 2019 42% 45% 34% 47% Same as in 2019 39% 45% 56% 13% Worse than 2019 19% 10% 9%

United Kingdom economy Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 46% Better than 2019 45% 44% 47% 37% Same as in 2019 34% 39% 35% 18% Worse than 2019 21% 16% 18%

European Union trade bloc economic performance Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 44% Better than 2019 42% 52% 38% 38% Same as in 2019 32% 37% 43% 18% Worse than 2019 26% 12% 19%

*excludes those who don’t know/not applicable responses 53


53

15. With the upcoming exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union (i.e. Brexit) delayed but still planned, what types of impacts do you feel this will have on relocation?

Within the United Kingdom*Number of relocations performed

Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 16% Increase Significantly 17% 22% 11% 22% Increase Somewhat 19% 25% 21% 29% Stay About the Same 31% 29% 28% 5% Decrease Somewhat 8% 4% 4% 2% Decrease Significantly 2% 3% 1% 26% Don't Know/Unsure 23% 18% 35%

Complexity of relocation administration Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 18% Increase Significantly 12% 20% 18% 25% Increase Somewhat 31% 30% 18% 28% Stay About the Same 33% 24% 28% 5% Decrease Somewhat 2% 4% 7% 2% Decrease Significantly 4% 3% 0% 23% Don't Know/Unsure 19% 19% 28%

Relocation costs Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 11% Increase Significantly 13% 13% 8% 29% Increase Somewhat 31% 32% 27% 32% Stay About the Same 29% 37% 30% 4% Decrease Somewhat 6% 3% 5% 1% Decrease Significantly 0% 1% 2% 22% Don't Know/Unsure 21% 15% 28%

Relocation policy changes Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 10% Increase Significantly 6% 16% 7% 21% Increase Somewhat 31% 23% 16% 38% Stay About the Same 33% 35% 42% 8% Decrease Somewhat 12% 6% 8% 1% Decrease Significantly 0% 1% 1% 22% Don't Know/Unsure 19% 18% 27%

Difficulty recruiting employees to relocate Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% Increase Significantly 13% 18% 11% 18% Increase Somewhat 19% 20% 15% 35% Stay About the Same 31% 38% 34% 6% Decrease Somewhat 6% 8% 6% 4% Decrease Significantly 8% 1% 5% 24% Don't Know/Unsure 23% 15% 30%

*among those relocating internationally

54


Within EMEA (Europe/Middle East/Africa trade bloc)*Number of relocations performed

Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 16% Increase Significantly 13% 24% 12% 16% Increase Somewhat 12% 18% 17% 32% Stay About the Same 35% 32% 30% 6% Decrease Somewhat 10% 6% 5% 3% Decrease Significantly 6% 4% 2% 26% Don't Know/Unsure 25% 16% 34%

Complexity of relocation administration Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 12% Increase Significantly 12% 14% 11% 23% Increase Somewhat 21% 28% 19% 34% Stay About the Same 31% 38% 33% 4% Decrease Somewhat 6% 3% 4% 3% Decrease Significantly 4% 1% 3% 25% Don't Know/Unsure 27% 16% 30%

Relocation costs Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% Increase Significantly 15% 19% 7% 24% Increase Somewhat 19% 32% 19% 30% Stay About the Same 27% 28% 34% 6% Decrease Somewhat 4% 5% 9% 1% Decrease Significantly 4% 0% 1% 26% Don't Know/Unsure 31% 16% 30%

Relocation policy changes Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% Increase Significantly 8% 22% 10% 18% Increase Somewhat 21% 19% 16% 38% Stay About the Same 33% 39% 40% 4% Decrease Somewhat 4% 4% 5% 2% Decrease Significantly 4% 0% 3% 24% Don't Know/Unsure 31% 16% 27%

Difficulty recruiting employees to relocate Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried "Yes" to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% Increase Significantly 17% 15% 9% 23% Increase Somewhat 25% 25% 19% 31% Stay About the Same 23% 28% 37% 4% Decrease Somewhat 2% 9% 2% 4% Decrease Significantly 2% 5% 4% 26% Don't Know/Unsure 31% 18% 29%

*among those relocating internationally

55


55

C. POLICY ADMINISTRATION16. Does your company have a formal global mobility strategy?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 32% Yes, basic policies and procedures 37% 22% 35% 12% Yes, policies & procedures and risk mitigation 9% 17% 11% 19% Yes, policies & procedures, and 23% 20% 14% supporting technology 22% Yes, policies & procedures supporting 7% 23% 32% technology and risk mitigation 4% No, but we plan to develop a formal global 6% 6% 1% mobility strategy in the next year 11% No, we do not have a formal global mobility 17% 12% 6% strategy and have no plans to create one *excludes N/A responses

17. Does your company have a formal policy for the following types of relocations? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 83% Domestic Relocations 74% 84% 90% 61% Short-Term/Temporary Assignments 48% 63% 72% (less than 12 months) 53% Extended Business Travel 45% 51% 62% 43% Long-Distance Commuter 38% 44% 46%

% of companies answering "Yes"

18a. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within the following relocation policies?

Domestic Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 17) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 32% No tiers or levels/single policy 48% 23% 27% 33% Two tiers 38% 43% 20% 22% Three tiers 12% 23% 28% 8% Four tiers 2% 7% 13% 6% Five tiers or more 1% 4% 11%

2.2 Average Number of Domestic Tiers 1.7 2.3 2.6 (of companies with tiers/levels)

Short-term/temporary assignments (less than 12 months) Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 17) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% No tiers or levels/single policy 59% 47% 58% 22% Two tiers 20% 25% 20% 15% Three tiers 16% 16% 14% 6% Four tiers 5% 9% 5% 2% Five tiers or more 0% 3% 3%

1.8 Average Number of Short-Term/ 1.7 1.9 1.8 Temporary Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels)

Extended business travel Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 17) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% No tiers or levels/single policy 58% 35% 59% 24% Two tiers 25% 29% 19% 13% Three tiers 8% 23% 10% 7% Four tiers 5% 8% 9% 4% Five tiers or more 3% 5% 4%

1.9 Average Number of Extended Business 1.7 2.2 1.8 Travel Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels)

56


Long-distance commuter Of those with policy: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 17) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 45% No tiers or levels/single policy 51% 29% 53% 26% Two tiers 33% 31% 16% 16% Three tiers 10% 27% 13% 8% Four tiers 4% 10% 8% 6% Five tiers or more 2% 4% 10%

2.0 Average Number of Long-Distance Commuter 1.7 2.3 2.0 Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels)

18b. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with Domestic tiers/levels: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 18a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Job or Grade Level (i.e., staff, management, 45% 56% 61%

professional, etc.) 54% Position/Job Title 63% 54% 47% 34% Length of Assignment 27% 31% 40% 31% Homeowner/Renter Status 15% 31% 41% 29% New Hire/Current Employee Status 25% 20% 38% 27% Assignment Location/Region 27% 26% 27% 23% Assignment Objectives (i.e., developmental, etc.) 20% 25% 23% 22% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 15% 26% 22% 1% Other 0% 1% 2%

19a. Does your relocation policy incorporate any aspects of a core/flex, fixed benefits/flexible benefits, list-driven policy (i.e. "structured flexibility")?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees

96% % of companies indicating "Yes" 96% 97% 95%

19b. Does your relocation policy incorporate any of the following aspects of a core/flex, fixed benefits/flexible benefits, list–driven policy (i.e. "structured flexibility")?

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


54% Available to All Relocating Employees 52% 57% 52% 35% Employee Level Dependent 29% 46% 32% 17% Policy Dependent 11% 18% 22% 13% Not Offered 20% 9% 10% Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount applicable

to list of possible services Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried

Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 40% Available to All Relocating Employees 44% 43% 33% 37% Employee Level Dependent 30% 42% 38% 21% Policy Dependent 14% 25% 24% 19% Not Offered 20% 14% 22%

Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage applicable to list of possible services


39% Available to All Relocating Employees 41% 42% 35% 29% Employee Level Dependent 21% 35% 30% 22% Policy Dependent 14% 29% 25% 22% Not Offered 27% 14% 24%(Question 19b results continued on next page) 57


57

Other type of structured flexibility Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried

Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 10% Available to All Relocating Employees 8% 8% 17% 17% Employee Level Dependent 19% 19% 13% 10% Policy Dependent 6% 15% 13% 67% Not Offered 69% 65% 67%

19c. What type(s) of relocation components are considered fixed benefits within your relocation policy?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% Travel expenses–final move 50% 46% 61% 51% Temporary housing 46% 45% 62% 48% Travel expenses-home finding trip(s) 47% 44% 53% 47% Household goods shipping 35% 45% 60% 41% Real estate assistance/transaction 26% 44% 53% costs-origin/selling 40% Storage 29% 35% 54% 40% Miscellaneous expense allowances 33% 36% 49% 36% Real estate assistance/transaction costs- 25% 35% 47% destination/purchasing 34% Rental assistance/transaction costs 28% 26% 47% 2% Other 0% 2% 5% 7% None of the above are considered fixed benefits 11% 7% 3%

20a. Does your company have a centralized relocation/mobility department/team? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 88% % of companies indicating “Yes” 75% 95% 95%

20b. Does your company’s centralized relocation/mobility department/team...* Of those with a centralized relocation/mobility Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried department: (see Question 20a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% Develop/maintain relocation policy 45% 50% 61% 47% Manage domestic relocation programs 33% 41% 63% 36% Control household goods carrier selection 21% 36% 48% 36% Manage international relocation programs 25% 35% 45% 36% Control additional relocation services 20% 30% 52% provider(s) selection 31% Manage business travel programs 37% 31% 27% 30% Coordinate visa applications/immigration policy 22% 23% 41% 30% Impact talent management/recruitment 32% 27% 30% decisions/processes 28% Coordinate air travel via commercial airlines 28% 28% 27% 26% Control freight carrier selection 20% 26% 31% (air, land, sea or rail) 25% Coordinate office relocations 31% 29% 18% 23% Develop/maintain mobility 12% 17% 37% risk management and mitigation 15% Audit GDPR/data privacy compliance of 11% 16% 16% relocation providers(s)


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 40% Use lump-sum payments for relocations 39% 42% 38% 31% Cap relocation benefit amounts 30% 31% 31% 29% Limit miscellaneous expense allowance 27% 34% 25% benefits (coverage items, amounts)

(Question 19b results continued)

58


26% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 16% 24% 38% 26% Offer short-term/extended travel/commuter 25% 27% 27% arrangements rather than relocate employees 23% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for 17% 25% 25% certain benefits (i.e., add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement flexible policy, etc.) 19% Offer pre-decision counseling 13% 11% 33% 18% Modify COLA offering policy 11% 23% 20% 17% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 12% 22% 17% 1% Other 1% 0% 1% 15% No cost containment measures beyond 20% 11% 13% typical relocation policy or program utilized

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% 34% 31% 35%

23. In 2019, what approximate percentage of your company’s relocating employees were classified (at origin):*

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% Transferees 47% 52% 59% 47% New Hires 53% 49% 41% 49% Homeowners 50% 51% 45% 36% Renters 38% 31% 39% 15% N/A (Neither Homeowners/Renters) 13% 18% 16% 31% Executives/Top Level 33% 33% 28% 48% Mid-Level Employees 48% 48% 50% 20% Entry Level 19% 20% 22%


24. How long does an employee have to…*

Accept a relocation offer Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% 1 week or less 19% 10% 8% 37% Up to 2 weeks 35% 35% 42% 13% Up to 3 weeks 10% 19% 11% 23% Up to 1 month 24% 19% 27% 6% Up to 2 months 5% 8% 6% 4% Up to 3 months 2% 5% 4% 3% More than 3 months 5% 4% 2%

Report to work at the new location Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 7% 1 week or less 8% 5% 6% 14% Up to 2 weeks 14% 18% 9% 11% Up to 3 weeks 8% 14% 12% 25% Up to 1 month 24% 23% 29% 18% Up to 2 months 19% 14% 21% 17% Up to 3 months 17% 17% 16% 8% More than 3 months 10% 8% 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 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.7

(Question 25 results continued on next page) 59


59

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 4.1 3.7 3.8 4.7


26. How was the Internet/technology used for relocation-related matters in 2019? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 76% Communicate via e-mail with relocating employees 77% 69% 80% 37% Communicate via text messages with 43% 32% 35% relocating employees 35% Utilize company intranet platforms 24% 33% 46% 34% Complete online forms for employee relocation 26% 32% 45% 30% Communicate via Internet messaging with 27% 28% 34% relocating employees 29% Initiate/execute employee relocation services 16% 31% 39% 27% Research relocation-related matters 22% 21% 38% (policy, benchmarking, etc.) 25% Access relocation company website for reporting 15% 24% 36% or other services 21% Research relocation service providers 16% 21% 25% 20% Analytics/reporting on relocations/relocation 9% 20% 31% provider service 19% Use web-based software platforms to 11% 20% 25% manage/vet suppliers 18% Dashboards/online reporting 11% 9% 33% 17% Audit/verify prices quoted for relocation services 15% 17% 19% 17% Utilize mobile applications from relocation providers 9% 15% 25% 15% Data integration with relocation providers 8% 15% 22% (API arrangements, etc.) 13% Utilize external social media/networking tools 12% 10% 16% 11% Verify GDPR/data privacy compliance 10% 11% 12% of relocation provider(s) 0% Other 1% 1% 0% 4% Did not use the Internet/technology for 9% 3% 1% relocation-related matters in 2019

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

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 25% Yes, domestically (limited basis) 21% 28% 25% 24% Yes, internationally (limited basis) 16% 29% 29% 19% Yes, internationally (frequently) 11% 27% 21% 17% Yes, domestically (frequently) 16% 17% 18% 7% No, but we plan to do so in the coming year 10% 6% 5% 1% Other 1% 0% 3% 29% No, and we do not plan to do so 41% 22% 23%

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 42% Used in addition to long-term assignments 39% 43% 44% 39% Used in place of traditional short-term 39% 41% 37% assignment arrangements 36% Used to meet strategic business goals 33% 32% 43%


60


34% Used in place of long-term assignments 34% 34% 34% 33% Used to accommodate employee needs 35% 29% 34% 30% Used in addition to traditional short-term 23% 25% 38% assignment arrangements 29% Used to develop internal talent 27% 24% 35% 26% Used to maximize budget/corporate resources 23% 26% 28% 1% Other 1% 0% 3%

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

Of those utilizing “alternative assignments”: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 27) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 60% Business need 58% 57% 63% 44% Assignment purpose 40% 36% 54% 42% Cost 40% 45% 41% 41% Employee requests 42% 43% 39% 39% Job function 36% 39% 40% 34% Career development 31% 34% 36% 2% Other 2% 0% 4%

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 65% Pack all items 49% 66% 80% 64% Move an automobile 51% 67% 76% 55% Unpack all items 48% 59% 57% 54% Move via containerized shipment 42% 60% 60% 54% Move a second automobile 45% 51% 64% 52% Move recreation and lawn equipment 44% 60% 52% 51% Have permanent/extended storage 43% 60% 51% of some possessions 50% Move exercise equipment 41% 52% 57% 50% Move unlimited weight 41% 50% 58% 49% Move collections of highly valuable objects 38% 57% 53% like statues, paintings, antiques 48% Move pets 44% 54% 49% 48% Carry items down from the attic 40% 53% 53% 48% Partial/custom unpacking of items 39% 56% 51% 44% Have belongings picked up from a secondary 39% 44% 47% residence (summer home, relative’s home, etc.) 40% Move a boat 36% 49% 35% 47% Company does not pay for any of these items 57% 50% 35% or only offers lump sum *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower)

29. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a current 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 60% Offer homefinding trips 47% 61% 71% 57% Reimburse/pay for home sale costs 38% 57% 73% 56% Offer temporary housing allowance 46% 52% 67% 55% Offer storage 38% 60% 66% 54% Reimburse/pay for home purchase costs 37% 57% 66%



61

47% Offer home marketing assistance 29% 53% 58% 45% Reimburse/pay for federal tax liability 31% 50% 54% 44% Reimburse/pay for loss-on-sale 34% 48% 51% 40% Offer guaranteed buyout/appraised value 24% 42% 53% option for origin home 39% Offer buyer value option for origin home 21% 42% 54% 37% Offer duplicate housing assistance 27% 36% 46% 36% Offer bonuses/incentives for employee- 23% 39% 47% generated home-sale 33% Offer mortgage subsidy or allowance 35% 31% 32% 46% Company does not offer any of these benefits 58% 50% 32% or only offers lump sum

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

30. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a current renter, does your company...*

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 64% Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation 55% 64% 71% 58% Offer homefinding trips 51% 59% 65% 53% Offer temporary housing allowance 40% 59% 60% 52% Offer storage 38% 59% 59% 49% Reimburse/pay apartment search or finder’s fees 39% 54% 54% 41% Reimburse/pay for security deposits 36% 54% 35% 38% Reimburse/pay for hook-up fees 35% 50% 33% 35% Offer rental subsidy or allowance 32% 46% 30% 33% Reimburse/pay for furniture rental 29% 40% 31% 31% Offer home purchase loans 26% 37% 31% 43% Company does not offer any of these benefits 54% 46% 32% or only offers lump sum

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

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 62% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 53% 61% 71% 54% Lump sums (direct or managed cap) 53% 56% 52% 48% Partial reimbursement based 37% 54% 53% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 26% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 28% 33% 16%

New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 39% Full reimbursement of relocation expenses 29% 41% 47% 58% Lump sums (direct or managed cap) 61% 58% 56% 45% Partial reimbursement based 40% 54% 40% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 27% No reimbursement of relocation expenses 28% 29% 23%

32. What approximate percentage of your relocations were:

Payment Type Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Fully reimbursed/cost covered by company 36% 45% 48% 26% Lump sum payment only (entire relo) 34% 22% 22% 21% Partially reimbursed by company 20% 22% 20% 10% Not reimbursed (employee paid) 10% 10% 10%


62


Category (Domestic Only) Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 69% Traditional/permanent relocations 70% 63% 74% 16% Short-term relocation assignments 16% 19% 13% (less than 12 months in length) 12% Alternative assignments 10% 16% 10% (i.e., rotational, commuter, etc.) 3% Other 3% 2% 3%

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 Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 48% Travel expenses (i.e., housing hunting trips, 53% 42% 48% final move, etc.) 47% Miscellaneous expense allowances 46% 41% 53% 46% Temporary housing 47% 36% 56% 45% Household goods shipping/storage 54% 41% 39% 39% Entire relocation cost 40% 40% 38% 32% Real estate assistance/transactions 29% 35% 32% 32% Rental assistance/transactions 29% 29% 37% 2% Other 0% 2% 4%

32b. What types of relocating employees and relocation types most commonly receive lump sum payments?

Employee Types Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees

58% Experienced professionals 69% 54% 52% 57% Executives 58% 63% 51% 44% Entry level employees 40% 44% 49% 40% Transferees 34% 39% 46% 36% New hires 35% 36% 38% 36% Homeowners 34% 41% 32% 33% Renters 33% 29% 37% 2% Other 1% 1% 4%

Relocation Types Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees

75% Domestic relocations 83% 64% 78% 44% Short-term/temporary assignments 41% 46% 45% 40% International long-term assignments 33% 42% 46% 18% Alternative assignment types 15% 19% 19% (i.e., commuters, EBTs, etc.) 1% Other 0% 3% 0%

32c. For the applicable cost 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 Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 21% No lump sum offered for this benefit 21% 13% 28% 23% Less than $5,000 28% 25% 17% 15% $5,000–$9,999 17% 16% 12% 33% $10,000 or more 25% 37% 36% 8% Don’t know 8% 9% 8%

(Question 32c results continued on next page) 63


63

Household goods shipping/storage Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 16% No lump sum offered for this benefit 15% 9% 23% 28% Less than $5,000 36% 28% 19% 18% $5,000-$9,999 19% 19% 16% 31% $10,000 or more 24% 34% 36% 7% Don’t know 6% 10% 6%

Entire relocation cost Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 6% No lump sum offered for this benefit 3% 4% 11% 12% Less than $5,000 18% 12% 7% 22% $5,000-$9,999 22% 20% 23% 52% $10,000 or more 48% 56% 52% 9% Don’t know 9% 9% 8%

Rental assistance/transactions Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 19% No lump sum offered for this benefit 20% 12% 25% 29% Less than $2,500 37% 28% 22% 17% $2,500-$4,999 16% 18% 16% 26% $5,000 or more 19% 32% 26% 9% Don’t know 8% 10% 11%

Travel expenses Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 11% No lump sum offered for this benefit 10% 9% 14% 31% Less than $2,500 39% 27% 25% 17% $2,500-$4,999 18% 18% 15% 31% $5,000 or more 26% 35% 33% 10% Don’t know 7% 11% 13%

Temporary housing Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% No lump sum offered for this benefit 16% 10% 15% 22% Less than $2,500 27% 25% 15% 15% $2,500-$4,999 17% 14% 14% 39% $5,000 or more 33% 41% 43% 10% Don’t know 7% 11% 14%

Miscellaneous expense allowances Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 11% No lump sum offered for this benefit 15% 9% 9% 33% Less than $2,500 44% 34% 20% 14% $2,500-$4,999 12% 13% 17% 31% $5,000 or more 19% 33% 41% 12% Don’t know 11% 12% 14%

(Question 32c results continued)

64


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 Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Human Resources staff member 61% 59% 46% 34% Finance/Procurement department 41% 33% 27% 31% Relocating employee 34% 33% 27% 31% Relocation team staff member 25% 37% 32% 22% Relocation company managed cap program 16% 28% 24% 2% Other 2% 1% 2% 7% Not Tracked 3% 6% 11%

Method: Of those offering lump-sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Questions 31 & 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 44% Submission of expense reports 52% 40% 39% 37% Excel spreadsheet 39% 45% 28% 32% In-house software report 28% 32% 36% 27% Relocation company report 17% 31% 33% 26% Online reporting tool/mobile app 26% 27% 27% 1% Other 2% 0% 2% 11% Not Tracked 6% 10% 17%

E. EMPLOYEE, SPOUSE & 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 11% Less than 30 years 12% 8% 12% 29% 30 – 35 years 29% 35% 24% 30% 36 – 40 years 27% 31% 33% 18% 41 – 45 years 17% 17% 20% 9% 46 – 50 years 10% 6% 10% 2% More than 50 years 4% 2% 1%


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 21% No, candidate assessments are not performed 22% 17% 24% 44% Yes, for all relocations 50% 45% 37% 18% Yes, for domestic relocations 13% 22% 18% 13% Yes, for international relocations 9% 13% 16% 11% Yes, for new hires 13% 13% 8% 10% Yes, on an “as needed/requested” basis 6% 15% 10% 8% Yes, for transferees 6% 13% 5% 5% Yes, based on policy tier/reimbursement level 3% 8% 5% 2% Other 0% 2% 4%

35. In 2019, what approximate percentage of your relocations involved:* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Percent) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 21% Female employees 16% 23% 27% 22% Wife/female partner (Trailing spouse) 24% 18% 25% 13% Husband/male partner (Trailing spouse) 11% 15% 16% 29% Employees with children 29% 28% 31% 8% Employees in caregiving roles 6% 11% 9% 6% Contractors (Not Employees) 4% 8% 6% 12% Diverse family situations 9% 15% 13% 12% Small shipments (less than 2,000 pounds) 11% 13% 14%

*excludes those who don’t know 65


65

36. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee in the following caregiving situations?

Elder care: Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 34% No elder care assistance 40% 24% 36% 33% Provide paid personal leave days 35% 31% 32% 32% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 34% 35% 28% 21% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for 18% 28% 18%

outside care 21% Provide list of nursing homes 16% 23% 23% and/or day-care centers 17% Relocate an elderly relative that does not 11% 23% 18% live with the employee currently, but will either live with the employee at the new location or at a nearby residence/facility 2% Other 0% 2% 3%

Childcare: Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 29% No childcare assistance 42% 17% 27% 32% Provide paid personal leave days 28% 36% 33% 29% Provide list of local schools/educational options 21% 31% 36% 29% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 25% 30% 32% 29% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for 24% 30% 32% outside care 25% Provide list of childcare providers/services 22% 26% 27% and/or agencies 22% Reimburse childcare costs 18% 28% 20% 0% Other 0% 0% 1%

Disabled family member: Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 36% No disability caregiving assistance 48% 21% 36% 26% Allow flexible scheduling or telecommuting 21% 34% 25% 24% Provide paid personal leave days 24% 28% 22% 21% Provide list of care providers/services 19% 22% 23% and/or agencies 21% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for 13% 27% 23% outside care 18% Provide list of local specialized schools/ 12% 20% 23% educational options 18% Relocate a disabled family member that 15% 20% 18% does not live with the employee currently, but will either live with the employee at the new location or at a nearby residence/facility 15% Reimburse care costs 12% 17% 15% 1% Other 0% 2% 1%

37. 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 19% Almost always 20% 18% 18% 45% Frequently 38% 50% 47% 32% Seldom 35% 30% 30% 5% Never 6% 2% 5%


66


38. 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 12% No 18% 11% 6% 53% Yes, but not in the same department/division 49% 50% 62% 26% Yes, without restriction 24% 31% 25% 9% Yes, but not at the same location 10% 9% 8%


38a. 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 66% % of companies indicating “Yes” 54% 74% 72%

38b. 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 38a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 37% Provide networking assistance 43% 36% 33% 35% Provide resume preparation assistance 33% 28% 42% 30% Provide interviewing skills training 26% 28% 35% 30% Pay for outplacement/career services 22% 32% 34% from an outside firm 28% Find employment within company 36% 26% 26% 22% Reimburse for career transition expenses 18% 26% 22% (i.e., interview trips, certifications, etc.) 22% Find employment outside company 13% 30% 22% 1% Other 0% 2% 1%

38c. What approximate percentage of relocated employees with a spouse or partner used this employment assistance?*

Of those who did not answer Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried “No assistance” to Question 38a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 26% Average Percent 27% 29% 24%


F. SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT39. Which of the following services did your company outsource to a relocation service,

HRO or brokerage firm in 2019? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 23% Did not use a relocation service, HRO or 40% 18% 10%

brokerage firm in 2019 36% Counseling about the planning and details 21% 39% 46% of relocation 33% Real estate sales/marketing 21% 27% 49% 31% Real estate purchase 17% 31% 46% 28% Counseling about company policy 15% 28% 40% 26% Contract of household goods carrier 16% 21% 39% 25% Management of full relocation program 13% 24% 37% 24% Coordination and monitoring of shipment 13% 23% 37% 21% Expense management/tracking/ 9% 23% 32% reimbursement services 21% Arrangement of family’s transportation and 14% 20% 29% accommodations 21% Tax gross-up assistance 11% 19% 31% 20% Orientation tours at new location 11% 17% 30%



67

18% Assistance with employee claims preparation 9% 16% 29% and submission 17% Audit and/or payment of invoice(s) 7% 17% 27% 17% Property management 8% 18% 24% 14% Supplementary services (appliances, cleaning, etc.) 6% 16% 18% 13% Compensation services (i.e., payroll arrangements, 6% 13% 19% tax compliance, etc.) 12% Management of service provider(s) GDPR/data 6% 13% 16% privacy law compliance 0% Other 1% 0% 0%

39a. 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 39) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 61% Human Resources 64% 65% 55% 39% Relocation/Mobility Services 23% 41% 49% 28% Executive Management 34% 26% 24% 25% Procurement 15% 27% 29% 1% Other 3% 0% 1%

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

Transferees Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% Paid directly by the company 52% 72% 77% 42% Paid by the employee then reimbursed 47% 43% 36% 29% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 29% 32% 25%

New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Paid directly by the company 38% 58% 67% 41% Paid by the employee then reimbursed 50% 44% 30% 25% Paid by the employee and not reimbursed 28% 24% 23%

41. 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 31% The company 23% 30% 41% 24% The employee 42% 20% 11% 23% The company and employee together 26% 23% 20% 21% A relocation firm 9% 26% 27% 1% Other 1% 2% 1%

41a. 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 41) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 56% Human Resources 60% 67% 44% 38% Relocation/Mobility Services 26% 34% 51% 24% Executive Management 26% 25% 21% 17% Procurement 12% 18% 20% 1% Other 1% 0% 1%


68


G. INTERNATIONAL42a. Compared to 2018, did the number of employees your company relocated

internationally during 2019... Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 17% Increase Significantly 17% 24% 11% 27% Increase Somewhat 23% 25% 31% 34% Stay About the Same 35% 30% 36% 16% Decrease Somewhat 19% 14% 17% 6% Decrease Significantly 6% 6% 6%

42b. Compared to 2019, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during 2020 will...

Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 18% Increase Significantly 13% 22% 17% 26% Increase Somewhat 31% 28% 23% 40% Stay About the Same 37% 38% 43% 11% Decrease Somewhat 6% 8% 16% 6% Decrease Significantly 13% 5% 2%

42c. 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 10% 6% 6% 28% 4 to 12 months 33% 29% 24% 52% Greater than 12 months, but less than 3 years 38% 54% 56% 14% 3 years or more 19% 10% 14%

42d. In 2019, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were:*

Assignment Length (Average Percent) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 22% Less than 12 months (short-term) 22% 20% 24% 40% 1-3 years (traditional/long-term) 31% 39% 45% 26% More than 3 years (extended or permanent) 33% 28% 20% 12% Other assignment type 14% 14% 11% (EBT, commuter, rotational, etc.)

Reimbursement Method (Average Percent) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 63% Fully covered/reimbursed 57% 58% 70% 17% Lump sum payment only 19% 21% 14% 12% Partially reimbursed 12% 14% 11% 7% Not reimbursed 12% 7% 5%


42e. Compared to 2019, do you expect the number of international short-term/ temporary assignments (less than 12 months) in 2020 to. . .

Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 17% Increase Significantly 15% 23% 13% 31% Increase Somewhat 27% 38% 28% 40% Stay About the Same 37% 33% 47% 8% Decrease Somewhat 10% 5% 10% 4% Decrease Significantly 12% 1% 3%

69


69

42f. Does your company have a formal policy for the following types of international relocations?

Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 83% International Relocation Assignments 77% 81% 87%

(1-3 years) 62% Permanent Transfers (international) 50% 62% 67% 55% Localization (international) 37% 53% 65% 51% Intra-Regional Assignments (international) 33% 51% 60%

% of companies answering "Yes"

42g. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within the following international relocation policies?

International relocation assignments (1-3 years) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 39% No tiers or levels/single policy 43% 36% 40% 23% Two tiers 41% 10% 26% 24% Three tiers 14% 34% 21% 11% Four tiers 3% 18% 9% 3% Five tiers or more 0% 2% 5%

2.1 Average Number of International Relocation 1.8 2.4 2.1 Assignment Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels)

Permanent transfers (international) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 40% No tiers or levels/single policy 38% 32% 46% 20% Two tiers 35% 21% 14% 21% Three tiers 19% 26% 18% 11% Four tiers 4% 13% 12% 8% Five tiers or more 4% 9% 9%

2.3 Average Number of Permanent Transfer Tiers 2.0 2.4 2.2 (of companies with tiers/levels)

Localization (international) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 42% No tiers or levels/single policy 50% 26% 51% 21% Two tiers 11% 33% 16% 19% Three tiers 33% 24% 11% 10% Four tiers 6% 5% 14% 8% Five tiers or more 0% 12% 8%

2.2 Average Number of Localization Tiers 1.9 2.4 2.1 (of companies with tiers/levels)

Intra-regional assignments (international) Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% No tiers or levels/single policy 31% 18% 47% 34% Two tiers 44% 44% 24% 20% Three tiers 25% 28% 13% 9% Four tiers 0% 8% 13% 3% Five tiers or more 0% 3% 4%

2.1 Average Number of Intra-Regional Assignments 1.9 2.3 2.0 Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels)

70


42h. 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 42g) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 47% Job or Grade Level (i.e., staff, management, 25% 45% 59% professional, etc.) 44% Position/Job Title 43% 48% 42% 35% Length of Assignment 20% 34% 42% 34% Homeowner/Renter Status 20% 34% 39% 29% New Hire/Current Employee Status 18% 22% 39% 27% Assignment Location/Region 20% 33% 27% 27% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 20% 28% 30% 24% Assignment Objectives (i.e., developmental, etc.) 20% 22% 28% 1% Other 0% 2% 1%

42i. 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 6% No difference between international and 10% 5% 4%

domestic relocation policies 46% Rental housing allowance 44% 43% 50% 42% Additional tax considerations 27% 32% 57% 41% Additional leave time that includes at least 35% 35% 49% one visit back to the employee’s home country 37% Higher relocation allowances 31% 39% 38% 35% Intercultural and language training 23% 32% 45% 33% Allowances for children to attend certain schools 23% 32% 40% 33% International transportation allowance 15% 30% 45% (i.e., rental car, commuting costs, etc.) 33% Additional leave time 31% 35% 32% 32% Financial services assistance (i.e., bank account 25% 29% 37% setup, specialized compensation arrangements) 29% Allowances for permanent storage 27% 29% 30% 24% Security support program 12% 27% 27% 21% Extended per diem charges 12% 22% 25% 16% Stronger data privacy protocols/protection 13% 15% 18% rules for service provider(s) 12% Allowances for elder care 8% 14% 12% 1% Other 2% 1% 1%

42j. Which of the following international services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm in 2019?

Of those who answered "Yes" Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 10% Did not use a relocation service, HRO or brokerage 15% 11% 6%

firm for international relocation services in 2019 37% Counseling about the planning and details 21% 41% 43% of relocating internationally 36% Counseling about company policy concerning 25% 38% 41% international relocation 35% Visa and immigration services 25% 32% 43% 32% Coordination and monitoring of international 15% 28% 44% shipment 32% Destination services/orientation tours in 10% 32% 43% host country 31% Securing rental property in host country 21% 28% 39% 31% Contract of household goods carrier 19% 25% 41% for international shipping 29% Management of international relocation program 6% 33% 39% 29% Arrangement of family’s temporary 17% 23% 40% accommodations 28% Expense management/tracking/reimbursement 8% 29% 37% services

(Question 42j results continued on next page) 71


25% Repatriation services 8% 25% 34% 25% Compensation services (i.e., payroll 17% 24% 29% arrangements, tax compliance, etc.) 24% Arrangement of family’s international 12% 24% 31% transportation 24% Intercultural and language training 12% 15% 37% 21% International real estate (sales/marketing 21% 16% 24% and/or purchases) 19% Property management of home at origin 12% 23% 19% 17% Management of service provider(s) GDPR/data 8% 20% 19% privacy law compliance 1% Other 2% 0% 1%

42k. 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 33% 15% 24% 29% Pay for outplacement/career 17% 33% 32% services from an outside firm 27% Provide networking assistance 27% 27% 27% 24% Pay for work visa in new location 15% 23% 28% 23% Provide resume preparation assistance 23% 23% 22% 22% Provide interviewing skills training 21% 16% 27% 22% Find employment outside company 12% 24% 25% 18% Find employment within company 17% 22% 17% 18% Reimburse for career transition expenses 13% 19% 18% (i.e., interview trips, certifications, etc.) 3% Other 2% 4% 2%

42l. In 2019, 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 12% No international relocations declined or failed 12% 5% 17% 41% Family issues/ties 44% 43% 38% 29% Personal reason (non-disclosed) 31% 28% 30% 27% Lack of adaptability by the spouse/partner 25% 30% 26% 23% Financial issues/concerns 21% 29% 19% 18% Lack of spousal/partner assistance 8% 24% 19% 17% Lack of adaptability by employee 17% 20% 15% 15% Host country infrastructure inadequacies 15% 14% 15% 13% Job performance issues 10% 18% 12% 12% Host country prohibits spouse/partner 13% 8% 16% accompaniment 12% Safety concerns (i.e., war/terrorism/ 10% 13% 13% political unrest/etc.) 10% Illness 12% 10% 9% 9% Don't know 2% 9% 13% 2% Other 0% 0% 4%

H. CORPORATE/RESPONDENT PROFILE43. Which one of the following most accurately describes your company’s

business classification? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% Service (Profit) (includes educational services, 37% 42% 28%

healthcare, high-tech, etc.) 24% Manufacturing/Processing 22% 21% 27% 12% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8% 13% 14% 10% Wholesale/Retail 9% 9% 13%

(Question 42j results continued)

72


9% Government/Military/Public Administration 11% 6% 10% 7% Service (Non-profit) (includes religious 11% 7% 3% institutions, charities, etc.) 3% Other 2% 2% 5%

44. What were your company’s annual sales for 2019?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 9% Less than $25 million 24% 2% 0% 8% $26 - $50 million 16% 6% 1% 11% $51 - $99 million 19% 11% 1% 10% $100 - $249 million 15% 14% 1% 8% $250 - $499 million 8% 10% 6% 8% $500 - $749 million 6% 12% 8% 11% $750 million - $1 billion 4% 22% 8% 36% Over $1 billion 9% 22% 75%

*excludes blank responses

45. What is your department’s function? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 45% Human Resources/Personnel - 64% 42% 30%

General/Administration 17% Human Resources/Personnel - 14% 15% 23% Compensation and Benefits 16% Relocation/Mobility Services 5% 18% 25% 15% Human Resources/Personnel - 11% 21% 14% Talent Management 3% Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing 2% 2% 3% 1% Finance/Accounting 2% 1% 1% 2% Other 2% 1% 3%

46. What is your position within the company? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 3% President 5% 2% 3% 10% Vice President 11% 13% 8% 26% Director 30% 28% 21% 35% Manager 35% 35% 35% 7% Relocation Administrator 3% 8% 10% 5% Supervisor 1% 7% 7% 4% Coordinator 4% 2% 5% 3% Recruiter 4% 2% 2% 3% HR Assistant 2% 1% 7% 3% Other 4% 4% 2%

47. 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 14% None 14% 15% 12% 36% HR Magazine 47% 30% 31% 30% HR News 31% 33% 25% 27% Human Resource Executive 30% 31% 21% 21% Mobility 13% 15% 34% 20% Employee Benefits News 21% 20% 20% 18% Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) Today 15% 21% 17% 17% Workforce 18% 14% 17% 12% The Relocation Report 5% 17% 14% 10% National Relocation and Real Estate 9% 17% 6% 8% Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 7% 11% 7% 2% Other(s) 1% 3% 3%

73


48. 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 24% None 27% 23% 22% 36% Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) 43% 39% 28% 29% Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee Relocation 18% 28% 40% Council - ERC) 25% Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) 24% 30% 23% 17% Regional or local relocation council 5% 18% 27% 11% Canadian Employee Relocation Council 8% 15% 10%

(CERC – Canada) 8% National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) 6% 11% 6% 6% Forum for Expatriate Management (FEM) 2% 10% 7% 1% Other(s) 1% 2% 1%

74


75


TM & © 2020 AWGI LLC Atlas Van Lines, Inc. 1212 St. George Rd., Evansville, IN 47711 Form No. CC012083

To see survey results from prior years – including charts and graphs for every question, visit:

www.atlasvanlines.com/Corporate-Relocation/Surveyor contact: Lauren Crays • 800-638-9797 email: [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 54th Annual Atlas Survey, sign up at:

AtlasVanLines.com/TakeSurvey

THE 53RD ANNUAL ATLAS® CORPORATE RELOCATION SURVEY

The Industry’s Longest Running Survey

Every year since 1968, 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 or contact us at 800-852-6683

atlas world group industry’s longest running surveyhighlightssu rve y atlas ® is pleased to bring...

Documents