In this issue:

2810

Defending against government inroads: Awareness and engagement are key to preserving the integrity of franchising

Midterm election overview: Coming into the homestretch, Republicans hold advantage in play for Senate control

Trademark protection in China: Preserving IHG intellectual property

Safeguarding the franchise model:Updates on issues impacting our business pg. 2

AUTUMN 2014

Safeguarding the franchise business modelAwareness is key to protecting our way of doing business

PublicAffairs at IHG®2

O n September 30, 2014, proponents of franchising across the country breathed a sigh of relief as California

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 610, a piece of legislation which would have

“created unnecessary and unclear new regulations on franchisees across the state and would have also led to an excess of unnecessary and costly litigation in California,” according to a statement from the International Franchise Association (IFA), which led the opposition to the bill.

The proposed California legislation represents one of a number of misnamed

“fair franchising” bills that have been introduced at the state level over the past several years targeting the heart of the

existing, successful franchising business model in the United States through new and burdensome restrictions on the structure of the franchisee/franchisor relationship.

This legislation itself is just one of many organized efforts under way attempting to rewrite the laws and regulations governing the complex and already highly regulated franchise business model. This movement is playing out on both the legislative and regulatory fronts, at the federal and local levels, placing the livelihood of small business owners in the hotel industry and a host of others in the crosshairs.

“The majority of IHG franchisees are one- and two-property owners—small businesspeople whose investment in

their franchise is central to supporting and securing their families’ future. So it’s vital that our owners clearly understand the issues, stay informed about state and federal government actions that could have a negative impact on their business, and importantly, step up and speak out against such actions,” says Paul Snyder, Vice President, Corporate Responsibility.

These government actions put the franchise business model at risk by imposing unreasonable and costly new regulatory requirements on franchised small businesses. Such regulations also can both diminish margins and lessen the appeal of franchising to potential new investors, curtailing development, economic growth and job creation.

continued ...

One of the most effective ways owners can educate our

regulators and politicians on the importance of the hotel industry to the economy is by contributing to INN-PAC, the Political Action Committee of the IHG Owners Association. INN-PAC amplifies IHG owners’ political voice, educates and mobilizes members to engage with their public officials and supports candidates who promote public policies and regulations that create a fair business environment, so the lodging industry can continue to create jobs and grow the economy.

This issue of Public Affairs at IHG includes information and an envelope for your contributions.

Donate today!

3

continued from page 3...

“Legislation such as that proposed in California would shrink the flow of new buyers and investment dollars into the affected markets to a trickle,” says Kerry Ranson, Chairman-elect of the IHG Owners Association, which stands with IHG in opposing onerous government interference in the franchise business. “It would completely change the buyer and seller ratios. Potential investors would begin to question whether putting their money into a hotel franchise would give them the return on investment they are seeking, or even afford the possibility of a long-term play. Allowing government at any level to tinker with the franchise model would create significant issues for the future viability of our industry.”

This article discusses a number of activities that are afoot in three key areas that could potentially impact the franchise business model: state franchise-related legislation, a landmark announcement by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with major implications for franchising,

and the spread of recent state and local campaigns to pass legislation to increase the minimum wage.

Heading off harmful franchising legislation As part of the franchise industry’s efforts to defeat the California bill, IHG Owners Association Chairman Buggsi Patel published an op-ed piece in a leading online industry publication, voicing his opposition. His message pointed out that the “fair franchising” legislation would

“make it considerably more difficult for a franchisor to remove a ‘bad actor’ or substandard operator from the franchise network, and could therefore damage brand reputation, consistency, and severely affect a hotel’s bottom line.”

Patel’s article went on to note that the proposed measure would introduce ambiguity into the enforcement of franchise agreements, jeopardize the fundamentals of the franchisor-franchisee relationship and set an undesirable

precedent for other states considering similar legislation. (Read the full text of Patel’s letter on Page 7.)

In issuing his ultimate veto of Senate Bill 610, Gov. Brown stated that the legislation would fundamentally alter the relationship between franchisors and franchisees by changing the current, common and well-understood standard required to terminate a franchise agreement to one that would be new and untested. “I am open to reforming the California Franchise Relations Act to give more protections to franchisees if there are indeed unacceptable or predatory practices by franchisors,” the governor’s memorandum to the senate read. “I need, however, a better explanation of the scope of the problem so I am certain that the solution crafted will fix those problems and not create new ones.”

While Gov. Brown vetoed the bill, he left the door open to revisit similar legislation in the future. “The veto of the California bill was a critical victory for the franchising

In an op-ed published in a leading online

industry publication, IHG Owners Association

Chairman Buggsi Patel spoke out against

California’s misnamed “fair franchising” bill,

which would have negatively impacted the

franchisor-franchisee relationship.

California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed recent legislation that would have made it significantly more

difficult for a franchisor to terminate franchise agreements.

PublicAffairs at IHG®4

industry, but the fact that the legislation made it all the way to the governor’s desk should be a wake-up call, particularly for us in the hotel industry,” says Snyder.

A collection of special interest groups supported and promoted the bill, led by the Service Employees International Union.Similar legislation revising the relationship between franchisors and franchisees has been proposed over the past two years in four other states: Pennsylvania (a state that currently does not have a franchise law), Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The Maine bill died for lack of funding and the other three are at various points in the committee process and not expected to move forward.

While the franchise industry considered the California bill’s defeat an important blow against the move to undermine the franchise business model, Gov. Brown did sign into law a separate, statewide mandatory sick leave law, which small business interests also strongly opposed. The new law takes effect in 2015 and requires almost all public- and private-sector employers to give almost all workers in California at least three paid sick days per year. California is the second state in the country, after Connecticut, to require paid days off for employees who are ill, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Implications of the National Labor Relations Board announcement Across the country from California, franchise owners from the fast food, hotel and other industries descended on Washington, D.C., in mid-September to oppose a joint-employer announcement by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board that has the potential to upend the franchising model in the United States.

The NLRB is an independent agency of the U.S. government charged with conducting elections for labor union representatives and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. In July, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel announced it will issue complaints relating to numerous unfair labor practices alleged by workers at McDonald’s franchised restaurants, in which it will name the franchisor as a “joint employer.”

Historically, franchisors have not been named as defendants in such complaints; the NLRB General Counsel’s decision to pursue McDonald’s as a joint employer goes against decades of legal precedent. If the NLRB ultimately determines that McDonald’s is a joint employer and the courts subsequently uphold this decision, the dynamics of the franchisor-franchisee relationship will be fundamentally altered. Franchisees will see increased activity by unions to organize individual franchisees through the franchisor. More broadly, the cost of doing business may increase for both franchisors and franchisees. Franchisors may see increased costs resulting from more exposure to liability in labor disputes, other employment litigation, and potentially vicarious liability claims. Likewise, franchisees could see higher costs both to comply with increased regulation and in franchise fees as franchisors absorb their greater liability.

Concerned about the potential for setting damaging precedent by the NLRB and/or the courts, the franchising industry, under the leadership of the IFA, has taken its case to Capitol Hill. More than 350 franchisees and franchisors participated in the September IFA-organized “fly-in” to Washington, aimed at educating lawmakers on the potential impact and urging them to oppose the NLRB’s attempt to redefine what constitutes a joint employer in the context of

franchising. While Congress does not have a direct role in the dispute between McDonald’s and the NLRB, Congressional oversight of the Board is critical, and legislative action ultimately may be required, depending on the outcome of the complaints against McDonald’s.

Minimum wage increases

Coordinated campaigns to raise the minimum wage have continued to spread across more states and municipalities in 2014. Thirty-eight states introduced minimum wage bills during the 2014 session, and 34 states considered increases to the state minimum wage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures; 10 states have enacted increases this year.

In early October, the Los Angeles City Council approved a measure increasing the minimum wage to $15.37 solely for hotel workers employed at non-union hotels. The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA) responded swiftly, announcing plans to fight the proposed ordinance. In a statement released in conjunction with the City Council’s final vote on the measure, AH&LA President and CEO Katherine Lugar said, “Despite numerous economic analyses which underscore that this measure is unwise and will lead to significant job losses, the City Council today rushed full steam ahead on its controversial wage proposal. It’s clear that the City Council was determined to pass this discriminatory law, regardless of hard data.”

Voters in four states—Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota—will also weigh in on ballot measures to increase their minimum wages in November. The minimum wage in three of these states is at or slightly above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, with the Arkansas state minimum wage a dollar below. Polls in all these states indicate the measures will likely pass.

continued ...

5

Other municipalities have also adopted or are pursuing initiatives for minimum wage increases. Earlier this year Seattle approved an increase to $15 an hour, making it the highest minimum wage in the country. While the city’s plan will phase in the higher minimum wage over three to seven years, depending on the size of the business, it treats franchised small businesses as large employers, requiring them to comply with the faster phase-in period. The IFA has filed a lawsuit challenging the ordinance on the grounds that it discriminates against franchisees. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has signed onto an amicus brief in support of the IFA’s lawsuit, which states that “by saddling franchisees with increased labor costs that non-franchised small businesses are not required to bear, the Ordinance will make it difficult—if not impracticable—for franchisees to compete...Not only does it impose the largest minimum wage increase in the history of the United States, but it does so by targeting franchisees for disparate treatment because of their affiliation with out-of-state franchisors and fellow franchisees.”

Other cities contemplating minimum wage increases include San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago and Providence, Rhode Island.

At the federal level, only a stalling effort by Republicans prevented an attempt by Democratic Senators to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Democrats have said they intend to bring up the bill again when they have the Republican support needed to break a filibuster. No action is expected until after midterm elections in November.

In February, President Obama signed an executive order increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for federal contract workers and further endorsed a federal mandate to raise the minimum wage on a broader basis.

Polls indicate the majority of Americans believe the minimum wage should be increased. However, the majority of the small business community—in particular those businesses dependent on entry-level workers, such as the hotel industry—point out that higher labor expenses resulting from such an increase might ultimately lead to a decrease in jobs for the very people the minimum wage hike is meant to support.

Leading hospitality industry associations continue to express concern about the potential increases in the minimum wage, from the standpoint of both economic impact and job creation. The American Hotel & Lodging Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association and the International Franchise Association jointly point to the important role that hotel operators play in providing jobs to working-class Americans, and in particular, in offering entry-level opportunities to young workers. Increases in the cost of labor, they state, would necessarily result in a reduction in demand for such labor, meaning employers would be forced to reduce the size of their workforces, delay hiring or possibly even close their businesses.

A call to action The overall message, industry leaders concur, is clear: action is needed to educate policymakers on the value of the franchise business model and the recent attempts to undermine it. IHG and the IHG Owners Association will implement a three-part strategy to increase the level of awareness among our owner stakeholders focusing on:

• Educating owners on how the franchise business model works to strengthen the hotel industry and how the challenge to the franchise model is unfolding.

• Engaging key partners and policymakers.

• Empowering IHG owners to stand up and be heard in the political and regulatory process.

“We know what is happening within the franchise arena, and we know what to do about it, but making a difference will take a commitment to act,” Snyder says. “IHG Public Affairs provides information, tools, and guidance to our owners in building relationships with legislators and industry associations. IHG will continue to be engaged as a major franchisor, but we all know that the industry and policymakers will look to our franchisees to take up the charge and be outspoken about how these issues impact our business. As always, our owners are the most effective advocates for our industry.”

Ranson agrees with the importance of owner involvement. “My eyes were opened when I attended the AH&LA Legislative Action Summit for the first time this year,” he says. “Of course it’s important for IHG and its owners to have an effective lobbying effort in Washington, and our representatives do an excellent job for us. That said, there is no substitute for owners working side-by-side with our lobbyists and meeting face-to-face with our Congressional representatives. Explaining, with passion, the day-to-day reality of operating our franchises and the importance of our businesses to our families makes a huge difference in how they listen to our concerns.”

(Opposite page) IHG Owners Association Chairman Buggsi Patel published a letter in the industry publication HotelNewsNow on September 12, 2014, registering the Association’s opposition to the California state bill that would have severely damaged the existing, effective franchising model. The owners and IHG participated in an industrywide awareness campaign that resulted in a veto of the legislation by Gov. Jerry Brown.

continued from page 5...

PublicAffairs at IHG®6

As a small business owner of hotels throughout the northwestern U.S. and Chairman of the IHG Owners Association

– the organization that advocates for thousands of owners and franchisees of InterContinental Hotels Group® (IHG) hotels such as Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express and Crowne Plaza around the world – we are concerned about legislation that is currently in the Governor’s Office. With California Senate Bill 610, the California Legislature has attacked the heart of our fair franchising business model – the franchise agreement – and could potentially affect small business across the State of California.

“Fair Franchising,” as the bill has been classified, is not sensible and not fair franchising at all. Rather, the legislation – which has already passed the California Legislature, and if signed by the Governor

– will make it considerably more difficult for a franchisor to remove a “bad actor” or substandard operator from the franchisee network, and could therefore damage brand reputation, consistency, and severely affect a hotel’s bottom line.

In addition, the measure will introduce ambiguity into the enforcement of franchise contracts and could jeopardize the basic fundamentals of the all-important franchisor-franchisee relationship for honest and frequent communication to work together. It will be detrimental to consumers, franchisees

and the State of California, not to mention the signal it will send to other states considering similar legislation.

Franchising today works, and here’s why:

The fair franchising model works well. Fair franchising is at the heart of everything we do and since its inception, the existing franchise model has proven to be balanced and fair, builds good faith and strong relationships, and is a steady job creator. Our franchise agreements reflect that philosophy, and there are strong provisions in the licensing agreement for mediation between owners and the franchisor. Additionally, the IHG Owners Association is one of several organizations that assist in mediating disagreements or concerns that owners may have with their franchisors.

For example, a few years ago, Holiday Inn Express owners wanted IHG to offer 20-year license agreements for that brand. The IHG Owners Association negotiated on behalf of the owners, and we now have longer agreements.

The fair franchising model strengthens the system.Many of our members built their hotels from the ground up, then chose and purchased the reputation of the brands they represent. When IHG brands’ bottom line does better, our properties see rate and occupancy rise. Conversely, hotels with

low guest satisfaction scores negatively impact guest preference, reflecting poorly on the entire system and diminishing our business investment. This legislation could prevent IHG from removing consistently low performing properties from the system.

Additionally, there is more than 30 years of case law and legal precedent that codify the business relationship of our shared business model, which places great value on the franchise relationship and our current practice of fair franchising.

The fair franchising model strengthens the franchisor-franchisee relationship.

Most of our members maintain a hands-on approach with their properties. We personally ensure guest care and satisfaction in all our investments. Our hotels’ success is directly dependent on our existing fair franchising model.

Conversely, the bill in California and similar legislation in other states are being pushed by those who may not have our best interests at heart.

The IHG Owners Association does not support California SB-610, which could reduce economic growth and bring increased regulation to an already heavily regulated industry. We encourage the State of California, a state dependent on tourism, to pursue more positive policies that expand job creation and support continued investment.

Special to HotelNewsNow

Fair Franchising Needs Self-Regulation, Not More GovernmentBy Bakulesh ‘Buggsi’ Patel Chairman, IHG Owners Association

With a long and distinguished career in the hospitality industry, Bakulesh “Buggsi” Patel is Chairman of the IHG Owners Association and the first Asian American to lead the Association. He has held leadership roles in numerous lodging associations including the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA), Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), Washington Lodging Association and Oregon Lodging Association (OLA). He is President of Oregon-based BHG Hotels.

7

Midterm election overviewComing into the homestretch, Republicans hold advantage in play for Senate control

I t’s been described as arguably the most important midterm election in decades. On November 4, 2014, a relatively small percentage of

Americans will go to the polls to vote in congressional races across the country.

The stakes are high: Democrats are fighting to retain control of the U.S. Senate for the remainder of President Obama’s term, and Republicans are battling equally hard to capture the Senate and so secure GOP control of both Houses. The results in November will shape policies on issues critical to the hotel industry, such as healthcare, immigration reform and the minimum wage.

All 435 seats of the U.S. House of Representatives are also up for election in November. Despite the turmoil surrounding the primary elections in some states, including the surprise defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) by Tea Party challenger David Brat, control of the House is not at issue this season.

The Republicans’ 17-seat majority puts retaking the House essentially out of reach for the Democrats.

So, with the focus on the Senate, the following is a summary of the status and projections for the election outcomes:

Senate competition by the numbersControl of the Senate is, of course, all about gains and losses of seats by the two major parties. Here are the key stats to bear in mind:

• The current (pre-election) breakdown of the Senate is 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans, 2 Independents (who currently caucus with the Democrats). The Republicans, therefore, need a net gain of six seats to achieve a majority.

• 36 Senate seats will be decided in November—in 33 regular elections (for a full six-year term) and three special elections, to fill seats vacated during the 113th U.S. Congress.

• 21 of these seats are currently held by Democrats; 15 by Republicans.

• Pollsters generally concur that there are anywhere from eight to 12 “battleground races”—toss-ups, where a clear or likely winner has not yet emerged.

Critical considerationsA few historical factors may account for the advantage given to Republicans in recent polls:

• Turnout in midterm elections tends to favor Republicans; turnout in Presidential elections favors Democrats.

• Midterm elections also tend to favor the minority party; that is, the Republicans have the edge because a Democratic President is in the White House. The President’s party generally loses seats in midterm elections.

• The dip in popularity of President Obama continues to be a liability for the Democrats.

Republican safe, leaning or likely

Democrat safe, leaning or likely

Outcome undecided

Not contested November 2014

PublicAffairs at IHG®8

Handicapping key Senate racesWhile the list of battleground states varies by day and by poll, we have selected eight that will likely be among the deciders:

• Arkansas—Polls show Republican Rep. Tom Cotton continuing to lead incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, though by low single-digits. Republicans consider historically red Arkansas a likely pick-up state; Democrats note that incumbents are difficult to unseat.

• Colorado—Republican Cory Gardner barely edged ahead of incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall in late September, keeping this blue state in the toss-up category.

• Georgia—As of late September, Republican David Perdue was running slightly ahead of Democrat Michelle Nunn in the race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Neither candidate has previously held elective office.

• Iowa—This tight race between Republican candidate Joni Ernst and Democratic Congressman Bruce Braley continues to be a nail-biter, as the two vie for retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin’s seat.

• Kansas—This race remains a head-to-head contest between incumbent Republican Sen. Pat Roberts and Independent Greg Orman, following a ruling by a Kansas district court that Democrats do not have to field a candidate. The underfunded Democratic nominee, Chad Taylor, withdrew from the race in September. Polls in early October show Orman narrowly ahead of Roberts with no Democratic candidate on the ballot.

• Louisiana is one of three states that use the “open primary” concept, in which all candidates for the same elected office, regardless of political party, run against each other at once. As of early October, incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu was polling 42 percent of the vote. The two Republican contenders trailed, with Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Baton Rouge) at 34 percent, and Tea Party-backed candidate Rob Maness at 12 percent. If no candidate receives a majority November 4th, the top two vote-getters will meet in a runoff in December. Polling over the past few months has shown Cassidy with a slight lead in one-on-one matches.

• New Hampshire—Incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen had a very slight edge over Republican Scott Brown as of early October, and most projections were giving

the race to Shaheen. Brown is a former Massachusetts senator who moved to New Hampshire seeking a more friendly political environment.

• North Carolina—Embattled incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan opened up a 46-to-41 percent lead over Republican challenger Thom Tillis in late September. Tillis is currently the state’s House speaker. North Carolina has long been on the Republican radar as a target for ousting Senate Democrats from power.

Governor’s racesThough they’re not receiving the high-profile coverage of the Senate races, 36 states are holding gubernatorial elections this year. Currently Republicans hold 29 governorships to the Democrats’ 21. Of the 36 seats up for election, Democrats are defending only 13 to the Republicans’ 23, giving Democrats somewhat of an edge, though in the face of the unfavorable midterm election climate, the Democrats aren’t expected to make big gains.

IHG Public Affairs urges owners and employees to use their voices and cast a ballot for their candidates of choice on November 4th.

“Personally, I give the GOP a 60 percent chance of taking the majority, while others put it a little higher or lower. At least a half-dozen very close races will be determined by just a point or two, and those can turn on events that may have yet to occur, making the battle for the majority very volatile. So far, the political season has been wild enough.”

— Charlie Cook The Cook Political Report

“...the most likely outcome involves the Republicans winning about the six seats they need to take over the Senate, give or take a couple.”

— Nate Silver FiveThirtyEight poll aggregator Special Correspondent, ABC News

“Off-year elections are about intensity, which becomes a question of which set of voters cares most. In the opening lap of the general election, the GOP is winning.”

— Peter Hart Democratic pollster Reported by NBC News

The pundits weigh in Pollsters, poll aggregators and political analysts have shifted into overdrive as the November 4th elections approach. Most forecasts currently give the GOP a slight lead. Here’s a sample of the commentary:

9

Crowne Plaza Bejing International Airport

Preserving IHG intellectual

property

Trademark protection in China

PublicAffairs at IHG®10

The UK-China Intellectual Property

Symposium featured presentations and

discussions on topics that included the

economics of IP, government services related

to IP, patents and designs, trademarks and

IP enforcement.

I n his relatively new role as Senior Director of Public Affairs, Greater China, Jason Wang represented IHG at the second annual UK-

China Intellectual Property Symposium in Beijing in early September 2014.

While continuing to establish visibility for IHG at this key gathering was in and of itself important, Wang’s attendance was only the latest of many public-facing components in IHG’s ongoing efforts to protect the company’s intellectual property (IP) rights in China.

The one-day symposium, which kicked off a week of IP-related activities across eight Chinese cities and Hong Kong, was developed as a joint initiative of the UK and Chinese governments to strengthen the bilateral exchange of information and enhance cooperation on IP protection. Co-hosted by Dame Lucy Neville-Rolfe, the UK’s new Minister for Intellectual Property, and Mr. Shen Changyu, Minister of the China State Intellectual Property Office, the event was attended by representatives of a number of British and Chinese government agencies and associations, as well as about 150 representatives from UK-based international corporations doing business in China.

“We stay in communication with the British Embassy in Beijing on IP issues,” explains Wang, who joined IHG in January of this year. “In preparation for the symposium, we shared a document the IHG Greater China legal team had prepared outlining our primary ongoing IP concerns, as input for Dame Lucy’s dialogue with her counterparts in the Chinese government. She was looking to us for real-world business examples.”

Enforcement gapsKeeping those IP concerns in the spotlight is key to IHG’s strategy for navigating the complicated systems and protocols of trademark, copyright and patent regulation in China. According to Wang, one of many challenges is translation of non-Chinese corporation and brand names into Chinese characters.

“Sometimes the translations of Western logos and company names can look very similar to common Chinese terms,” Wang says. “Unfortunately, some entities unrelated to IHG try to take advantage of this by creating names or logos that would imply a business relationship with IHG when no such relationship exists. When this happens, it’s confusing to travelers, who may think they are booking and staying in an IHG hotel, and it represents an infringement of our trademarks.”

Remaining vigilantAnother area of concern Wang points to had a direct impact on IHG when the company began to register its marks in China. Government intellectual property regulations do not recognize duplicative company names as trademark infringement. When IHG attempted to

register the Chinese translation of “IHG” as a legal entity in China, the company found the Chinese characters had already been registered to another entity, ultimately forcing IHG to use a very different Chinese legal name under which to operate.

“Programs like the UK-China Intellectual Property Symposium provide a very good, high-level and official platform where we can raise both industry and IHG issues with the Chinese government,” Wang says. “We continue to explore additional channels, such as relevant Chinese industry associations, the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China and the American Chamber of Commerce to further expand the scope of our communication and lobbying regarding intellectual property rights and protection.

“It’s critical to develop and sustain relationships with relevant stakeholder groups to ensure our voice is heard and to leverage support and resources as specific issues come up. We want to show clearly that the leadership of IHG is involved in the IP arena and won’t stand for infringement of our marks in any form.”

11

IHG Public Affairs MissionIHG Public Affairs advocates for public policies that help our hotels and maintains a vigilant watch for those that might hinder them. We track and respond to the issues that most deeply affect our business and continually scan the globe to make sure we are focusing on the most critical issues we can impact.

Public Affairs Portal The IHG Public Affairs portal (https://me2.ihgmerlin.com/web/political-action-portal/home) is your complete resource for information on government and public policy issues impacting IHG, our employees and our owners. The portal includes the latest updates on the company’s Public Affairs initiatives as well as suggested guidelines for taking action through your state and federal legislators.

Public Affairs Contacts

• Travel & Tourism – investment in inbound tourism (especially to the U.S. and U.K.); visa issues.

• Our People – labor relations; human rights.

• Small Business – access to credit; taxation; franchise law.

• Carbon & Sustainability – protecting our hotels from disadvantageous environmental laws; positioning IHG as the leader in sustainable travel.

• Intellectual Property – trademark protection in China; assessing the impact of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) such as “.hotel.”

• Data Privacy – focusing on data security and use of data for marketing purposes.

• Tax – particularly tax reform in the U.S. and those countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

IHG Global Public Affairs PrioritiesFollowing are the areas of focus for IHG’s Public Affairs efforts worldwide:

Americas Carole Angel Director, Corporate Responsibility, Public Affairs +1-770-604-5092 carole.angel@ihg.com

Europe Lauren Knott Director, Global Public Affairs +44-1895-512598 lauren.knott@ihg.com

Greater China Jason Wang Sr. Director, Public Affairs +86 10 6481 8757 jasonjian.wang@ihg.com

Katherine Zhao Manager, Public Affairs +86-21-28933245 katherine.zhao@ihg.com

AMEA Jean Tan Head of Communications +65-6395-6109 jean.tan@ihg.com

Public Affairs Go-To-Guide