47th Annual. Atlas Corporate Relocation Survey. Results

Transcription

1 Results

2 HIGHLIGHTS 47th Annual Results PAGE 2 HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 18 QUESTION RESPONSES The Industry s Longest Running Survey Every year since 1966, Atlas has collected input from corporate decision makers, analyzed it, and reported our findings. We illuminate the finer points of relocation to bring the bigger picture into focus. Who Responded? Atlas sent invitations by , and 353 professionals completed online questionnaires between January 22 and March 8. Each respondent has responsibility for relocation and is employed by a company that has either relocated employees during the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year. Nearly all (9) work in human resources/ personnel or relocation/mobility services departments for firms in: -Service (44%) -Manufacturing/processing (27%) -Financial () -Wholesale/retail (9%) -Government/military (3%) -Other (3%) For analysis, firms are categorized by size: - Small: Fewer than 500 salaried employees (44%) - Mid-Size: 500-4,999 salaried employees (29%) -Large: 5,000+ salaried employees (27%) Roughly half (48%) are international firms. For complete results, interactive graphs, and historical insights, see % Service Small Fewer than 500 salaried employees 27% Manufacuring /processing Financial Mid-size 500-4,900 salaried employees 9% 3% 3% Wholesale /retail Government /military Other Large 5,000+ salaried employees

3 Results HIGHLIGHTS HIGHLIGHTS Relocation Volumes & Budgets Overall & International Recovery Stabilizing, Volume Expectations Positive, Budgets Increase at Slower Pace The past year brought continued normalization for the industry, solidifying the recovery that began in Fortyone percent of firms saw relocation volumes increase; over a fourth saw budgets increase as well. Mid-size and large firms experienced the greatest gains overall, with nearly half seeing more relocations and more than a third seeing budget increases. Internationally, the story is similar; thirty-seven percent of firms saw international relocation volumes increase. Large firms lead the surge; around half experienced growth in international volumes. Few saw any decreases in volumes or budgets. Expectations for 2014 are positive and similar to Most companies expect volumes and budgets to stay at 2013 levels; a fourth or more expect further increases in volumes overall and internationally. Compared to 2004 and 2005, expectations overall remain muted (similar to 2006 through 2008), while expectations for international volumes are similar to previous growth years. Mid-size and large firms are more optimistic generally, but large firms are slightly more optimistic internationally. Across company size, around a fifth of firms expect budget increases in 2014, while the majority expects budgets to remain the same. This follows a trend that emerged last year and suggests the creative budgeting of the Great Recession has become the new normal. Over the last two years, relocation volumes have risen at a greater rate than budgets. The median numbers of relocations by large firms ( ) and mid-size firms (20-49) remain in normal territory after falling substantially ( and 10-19, respectively) during the economic downturn. The greatest growth in volume occurred for national and international firms. Around half of them reported increases, and roughly a third saw budgets grow as well. Just under a fourth of regional firms saw increases in volumes, and only a sixth saw budgets increase. Over a fourth of international firms and roughly a third of national firms expect further increases in volume for 2014; however, slightly fewer of these firms expect corresponding budgetary increases (23% and 26%, respectively). For-profit service firms are the most optimistic internationally; more than a third expect overseas volumes in 2014 to rise. Question 7: Relocation Budget Expectation Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that your relocation budget for [this year] will % 29% 32% Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. Question 44b: International Relocation Volume 17% 52% 31% Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during [this year] will % 13% 11% 32% 51% 35% 17% 48% 13% % 24% 13% 27% 26% 66% 12% 65% 22% Decrease Stay the same Increase Question 6: Overall Relocation Volume Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during [this year] will % 58% 51% 51% 52% 56% 18% 56% 52% 26% 13% 58% 12% 61% 59% 59% 65% 27% 3 29% 18% Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. 56% 29% 29% Decrease Stay the same Increase 13% % 33% 29% 25% % 3 26% 27% 25% Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. Decrease Stay the same Increase 2 3

4 Results HIGHLIGHTS Question 13: Select External Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year]? 58% 47% 52% 52% 5 51% 51% 49% 49% 48% 48% 44% 44% 35% 25% 32% 36% 3 31% 3 29% 25% 25% 24% 24% 23% 22% 22% 21% 17% 24% 18% 17% Lack of Qualified People Locally Economic Conditions Real Estate Market Note: results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable. Question 14: Select Internal Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year]? 8 64% 63% 1 13% 64% 58% 59% 47% 47% 47% 33% 31% 29% 25% 24% 22% 22% 22% 21% 18% 13% 13% 12% 13% 1 9% Note: results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable. Company Growth Budget Constraints Question 11a: Select Reasons Relocations Declined: What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? % 26% 83% 52% 23% 76% 49% 25% 81% 32% Housing/Mortgage Concerns 84% 49% 3 62% 5 48% 7 Family Issues/Ties 77% 51% 43% 69% 41% 71% 64% 65% 61% Spouse s/partner s Employment 12% 64% 52% Factors Affecting Relocation External & Internal Need for Talent and Company Growth Drive Relocations, Impacts of Economic Conditions and Real Estate Market Continue to Diminish While company growth remains the top internal condition influencing volumes for the fourth straight year, it remains similar to previous recessionary levels despite maintaining last year s substantial increase over 2009 ( vs. 24%). For the first time in seven years, this factor inches ahead as the top reason for relocations overall. Lack of local talent is the top external factor, similar in weight to company growth (44% vs. ). Economic conditions (3) and the real estate market (23%) decline slightly, falling within historical ranges for economic recoveries. Only small firms weigh local talent shortfalls more than company growth (43% vs. 35%). Generally, external pressures seem to be lessening. Company growth as a driver remains muted and is markedly below levels seen in previous periods of strong economic growth across company size, but most substantially among small firms. The impact of external factors still varies by company size. At mid-size firms, need for talent outstripped economic conditions and real estate concerns nearly 2-to-1 (48% vs. 25%). Small firms viewed local talent (43%) and economic conditions (3) as much more important than real estate (). Among large firms, the three factors remain more closely weighted (, 36%, 31%). Employees Declining Relocation Impact of Housing/Mortgage Concerns Drops Dramatically, Overall Reluctance Remains Slightly Elevated An unprecedented housing crisis exerted much of the pressure on relocation policies during the Great Recession. As a factor in declined relocations, housing/mortgage concerns fell dramatically for the first time in five years. However, it remains somewhat above pre-recession levels. Family issues/ties retook the top spot among firms of all sizes, with spouse/partner employment in second place. Even with a slight decline in the importance of available talent, it stands markedly above the level recorded in 2009 (31%) and far above much lower levels recorded before Regardless of company size, talent shortfalls remain one of the most forceful drivers of relocation volumes overall. For both small and large firms, the impact of real estate is at its lowest point since measurement began in Only mid-size firms continue to report a slightly higher impact over the 2007 value (25% vs. 18%). Financial firms felt the greatest impact of local talent shortfalls (58%), while nearly half of wholesale/retail (48%) and manufacturing/processing firms (44%) also viewed it as a key issue. Company growth is the top internal factor, regardless of company size. Mid-size and large firms felt it more strongly than they did all other factors (+ vs. roughly a third or less). Among small firms, it was nearly equal in weight to promotions/resignations (35% vs. 32%). The percentage of firms citing budget constraints remains within non-recessionary ranges. National and international firms report the highest levels of company growth: around half say it had an impact on relocation, compared to just 31% of regional firms. Almost half (44%) of regional firms said promotions/resignations affected relocation volumes. Around half of firms saw employees decline relocation, but few saw an increase in reluctance over Employee reluctance (13%) remains far below the peaks of 2008 () and 2009 (29%), and slightly above pre-recession levels (7% to 9%, 2002 to 2006). 4 5

5 Results HIGHLIGHTS Your Company U.S. Economy U.S. Real Estate Market Economic Outlook Continued Optimism & Improving Real Estate Expectation The outlook is positive for Expectations for improvement in the U.S. real estate market match last year s high. Optimism extends to company performance and the U.S. economy. These markers remain at pre-recession/recovery levels and offer hope for continued normalization of the industry this year. Across company size, two-thirds or more of firms anticipate better performances in Half or more expect improvements in emerging economies, in developed economies, and in the U.S. economy and real estate market. Mid-size and large firms are the most optimistic internationally. Optimism is likely fueled by the experiences of 2013: two-thirds of companies performed better last year, while roughly half or more sensed improvement in global and domestic economies and in the U.S. real estate market. Question 16: Anticipated Performance Compared to [last year], please indicate what you anticipate for [this year] : % 76% % 36% % 7% % 23% 74% 9% 32% 59% 27% 5% 32% 63% % 5% 23% 72% 4% 5% % 29% 12% 13% 8% 52% 65% 25% 1 5% Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding. 12% 32% 1 35% 6% 5% 36% 29% 67% 48% 44% 3% 23% 72% 7% 9% 3% 7 5% 41% Worse Same Better Relocation Policy & Practice Flexibility Built-in During Recession Provides Key Tools; Reliance Lessening as Pressures Ease The industry is still healing from the housing crash and Great Recession. Answering new economic challenges has yielded tools in policy and practice that allow greater flexibility to adapt. As pressures ease, firms are still using these new tools but are less dependent on them. Incentives While most firms still offer incentives to relocate, use in 2013 has dropped significantly from 2011 to 2012, especially among large firms. Perhaps the reduction in housing/ mortgage concerns is offsetting the need. However, a variety of economic and social factors still constrict Question 10a: Additional Incentives Offered: employee willingness. The most popular incentive is extended temporary housing benefits, offered by twothirds or more of companies. Relocation bonuses (), cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) (), extended duplicate housing benefits (31%), and loss-on-sale protection (29%) round out the top five incentives. Around half or more of firms across size offered relocation bonuses or COLAs. Large firms were more likely than mid-size and small firms to offer loss-on-sale protection (5 vs. 31% and 13%) or extended duplicate housing benefits (47% vs. 25% and 26%). Did your company offer additional incentives to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Overall By Company Size % 66% 67% 73% 3 65% Question 10a: % 63% 61% 67% 73% 69% 8 78% 76% 69% % 61% 74% 64% Question 10b: Additional Incentives Offered (Top 5) 2013 Extended temporary housing benefits Relocation bonuses COLAs in salary at new location Extended duplicate housing benefits 31% 72% , ,999 Less than 500 Which of the following additional incentives did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Loss-on-sale protection 29% 6 7 Question 10b:

6 Results HIGHLIGHTS Overall By Company Size Relocation Policy & Practice Continued Question 21: Cost Containment Methods Used Respondents were given a list of possible cost containment measures; the answers received indicate that % Question 21: 61% % 78% 44% 64% 81% 69% 8 58% 63% 65% 76% , ,999 Less than 500 Cost Containment The majority of firms employed cost-containment measures last year, but overall use trends lower compared to its recessionary peak. Markedly fewer small and large firms are taking such measures. Yet mid-size and large firms continue to be the heaviest users of a variety of methods. More than a fourth of firms, regardless of size, capped relocation benefit amounts; this was the most frequently used method for small and mid-size firms. Large firms relied most on reviewing/renegotiating supplier contracts. Core/Flex Policy Nearly three-fourths of firms incorporate core/flex elements in their policies, similar to last year s findings. These are most popular with mid-size companies (83%), followed by large (77%) and small firms (). The most popular aspect is coverage for core components, either across all employee levels/categories or depending Question 19a: Core/Flex Policy Does your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy? No 29% on employee level/category. This is true regardless of company size. Alternative Assignments Firms continue to use the flexibility of alternative assignments, with of firms indicating so overall. This includes roughly two-thirds of large firms, of midsize firms, and 19% of small firms. Similar to the last two years, the reason for their use cited most often is to meet strategic business goals. About two-fifths of firms also use alternative assignments to develop internal talent, to accommodate employee needs, to maximize budgets/ corporate resources, or along with long-term assignments. Less than a fourth typically use them as replacements for long-term or traditional short-term assignments. Regardless of company size, the top three key factors in the decision to use an alternative assignment are assignment purpose, cost, and job function. Yes 71% Question 21: Cost Containment Measures (Top 5) 2013 Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year? Question 19b: Use of Core/Flex Policy in Relocation Which of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy does your relocation policy incorporate? No additional cost containment measures Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) dependent on employee levels/categories 48% Cap relocation benefit amounts 3 Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) across all employee levels/categories Limit misc allowance benefits 21% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 18% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for benefits Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (all employees) Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category) Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category) Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (all employees) 1 12% 12% Question 21: Other 2%

7 Results Relocation Policy & Practice Continued Question 27: Alternative Assignment Use Is your company utilizing alternative assignments (i.e. extended business travel, cross-border commuting, localization, permanent international transfers, rotators, etc.)? No & No plans to do so 63% Yes & plan to do so Question 27a: Alternative Assignment Use In Employee Mobility Policy How are these alternative assignment arrangements incorporated into your organization s overall employee mobility strategy? Used to meet strategic business goals Used to develop internal talent, Question 41: Outsourcing Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services; the answers received indicate that % % 63% 58% Question 44g: International Outsourcing 61% 66% Outsourced Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced international relocation services; the answers received indicate that % 62% 66% 63% 26% 74% 62% 72% 23% 77% 72% 33% 67% 63% Did Not Outsource 72% 41% 59% Used to accommodate employee needs Used to maximize budget/corporate resources Used in addition to long-term assignments Used in addition to traditional short-term assignments Used in place of long-term assignments Used in place of traditional short-term assignments Other 5% 1 23% 22% 3 36% 5 Outsourcing Nearly six out of ten companies outsourced relocation services in 2013, similar to 2012 and well below the peak of Overall, outsourcing falls in the historical mid-range. A slight decline from 2012 owes itself to a near-historic low among small firms with only slight upticks by large and mid-size firms. The vast majorities of large and mid-size firms practice outsourcing and typically require a greater variety of services than do small firms Outsourced Did Not Outsource sales/marketing (56%), household goods carrier contracts (58%), real estate purchase (5), expense tracking/reimbursement services (44%), relocation planning & details counseling (43%), and property management (26%). The rest fall well below historic highs. Among small firms, most outsourcing services are close to historic lows. The exceptions are household goods carrier contracts (23%), real estate purchases (), and family transportation and accommodation arrangements (), which fall in historic mid-ranges on average. International Outsourcing remained at levels similar to 2012 across every service Question 27b: Alternative Assignment Use Determining Factors Interestingly, far more firms outsourced internationally last year than did overall (72% vs. category, with two exceptions. Orientation tours at new location (24%) 59%). Nearly three-fourths outsourced relocation, up slightly from 2012 (67%) and similar What are the key factors that determine if an alternative assignment method will be used? and audit and/or payment of invoices () fell significantly (from 31% to the historic high (77%) in Overall, outsourcing falls in the high range historically. and, respectively). Only the outsourcing of real estate purchases It reflects heavy international outsourcing by vast majorities of mid-size and large firms, Assignment purpose 66% () remains similar to the historic high of the past decade (44%). which typically access a greater variety of services than do small firms. Overall, outsourcing trends within the historical mid-range for most International outsourcing increased for almost every service category, with levels near or Cost service categories. above historic highs. The exceptions are: visa & immigration services () and international Shifts by Company Size real estate (19%), which trend lower; and counseling about company international relocation Job function policy (31%), which falls in the historic mid-range. The drop in visa/immigration services Among large firms, outsourcing across categories is nearly the same reflects a marked decrease in activity among small firms; the drop in international real estate or up slightly from last year, with a few exceptions. Expense tracking/ Employee requests 31% is due to fewer large firms outsourcing it. Outsourcing of company policy counseling remains reimbursement services rose from 5 to 61%, approaching a historic fairly static compared to high (65%). Audit and/or payment of invoices fell from 5 to, close Career development 3 Overall, international outsourcing across most categories trends higher and near historic to the lower historic range on average. Five services remain near historic highs for mid-size and large firms. For small firms, it trends lower, generally, with two high levels: household goods carrier contracts (), real estate purchases Other 5% exceptions: outsourcing of international relocation program management (25%) and of (66%), expense tracking/reimbursement services (61%), relocation planning international real estate (17%) are at their highest levels to date. & details counseling (56%), tax gross-up assistance (), and company Among companies that outsourced relocation services domestically, the percentage policy counseling (51%). The rest fall well below historic highs. that also outsourced internationally surpassed the historic high (89% vs. 88%). Large For mid-size firms, outsourcing across categories is nearly the same or firms remain more likely to outsource internationally than mid-size firms. However, both down slightly from 2012, except for tax gross-up assistance, which fell groups show similar propensities to outsource across individual categories. from to 33%. Six services remain near historic highs: real estate 10 11

8 Results HIGHLIGHTS Relocation Reimbursement/Payment Full Reimbursement Tapers Slightly, Multiple Methods Still Favored 75% % % The percentage of firms using full reimbursement, the most popular method overall, is similar to levels reported over the past eight years (59%). Use of lump sum payments by roughly half of companies is consistent with findings since Use of partial reimbursement continues to decline, falling from nearly half of companies in 2011 to ; yet it remains similar to levels reported in all other years since Small firms are less likely than mid-size and large firms to offer transferees full reimbursement (48% vs. 7 and 63%). However, roughly half of firms, regardless of size, offer lump sums. Mid-size firms show a strong preference for full reimbursement (7) compared to lump sums (51%); small and large firms report similar preferences for both methods. For new hires, full reimbursement and lump sum payments are nearly tied in popularity for the second straight year (51% and 5 in 2014 vs. and 51% in 2013). Roughly half of firms have used lump sum payments for new hires since The percentage of firms using partial reimbursement continues to decline from 2011 (51%) to the lowest level in more than a decade (). Among all firms, full reimbursement and lump sum are the top two choices. However, mid-size firms report the strongest preference for full reimbursement (64%) compared to lump sums (48%), while preferences for the two methods vary less at small and large firms. Lump Sum Application The consistent use of lump sums by roughly half or more firms continues to prompt deeper investigation. For the third year, the survey asked which costs are covered and to whom lump sums are applied. The biggest shifts: fewer firms use lump sums to cover the entire relocation cost ( vs. 51%) and miscellaneous expenses ( vs. 63%), although these are two of the most popular expense categories. As they did last year, 47% of firms used lump sums to reimburse travel expenses, compared to 41% in The percentages of firms offering other lump-sum types have remained fairly consistent over the last three years. Question 32: Transferee/New Hire Reimbursement To what extent does your company reimburse: Transferees? New Hires? Transferee: 22% 24% 69% 25% 22% New Hire: 58% 32% 33% 32% 3 63% 44% 63% 59% 44% 41% 49% 47% % 47% 63% 48% 36% 59% 49% Partial Reimbursement Lump Sum Full Reimbursement Use of lump sums differs by company size. Large firms () are nearly twice as likely as small or mid-size firms (33%) to use lump sums for temporary housing. On the other hand, small firms are nearly twice as likely as mid-size or large firms to use them for household goods shipping/ storage ( vs. 25% and 21%). Regardless of size, nearly two-fifths of firms use lump sums to reimburse the entire relocation cost, and around half or more of firms apply them for miscellaneous allowances. Around half or more of small and large firms use lump sums for travel expenses, compared to about a third (36%) of mid-size firms. In 2011, about half or more of firms said most employee types, except for homeowners, commonly received lump sum payments. In 2012, gaps widened between the types of employees receiving them. As in 2013, new hires this year are more likely to receive a lump sum than are transferees (59% vs. ), and renters are more likely than homeowners ( vs. ). Similar to last year as well, employee level is less a factor than new hire status. Renters are much more likely to receive lump sum payments at mid-size and large firms than at small firms ( and 51% vs. ), and transferees are more likely to receive them at large firms than small ( vs. ). However, firms of all sizes show Median Amounts Real Estate Assistance/ Transactions Household Goods Shipping/Storage Less than 500 Less than $1,000 a similar likelihood for offering lump sums to new hires (56%+). Similar to previous years, large firms more commonly offer lump sums to entry-level employees than to experienced professionals or executives (61% vs. and ). However, mid-size firms show less discrimination by level compared to previous years. Small firms continue to do the opposite of large firms and are more likely to offer lump sums to experienced professionals than to entry-level employees (58% vs. 29%). A new question last year probed the ranges offered for various lump sum categories. This year the median offer differed by company size for real estate assistance/ transactions, rental assistance/transactions, temporary housing, and miscellaneous allowances, with larger firms appearing to be more generous. However, median amounts offered fell within similar ranges across company size for household goods shipping/storage ($1,000-$4,999), the entire relocation cost ($5,000-$9,999), and travel expenses ($1,000-$2,499). Compared to last year, median-amount ranges remained about the same overall for household goods shipping/storage and the entire relocation cost. However, amounts grew slightly more generous on average for rental assistance/transactions, travel expenses, temporary housing, and miscellaneous allowances. Question 33c: Lump Sum Ranges For the applicable cost types below, what are the typical ranges of lump sums offered? Median amounts shown: 500-4,999 5,000 or more Grand Total No lump sum offered $1,000-$4,999 No lump sum offered $1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4, % 3 59% 36% 24% 56% 35% Full Reimbursement 47% 43% 32% 41% 48% 31% 43% 49% 51% 49% Lump Sum 49% 51% 5 51% 47% Partial Reimbursement 51% 5 Entire Relocation Cost Rental Assistance/ Transactions Travel Expenses Temporary Housing Misc. Allowances $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 Less than $1,000 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $5,000-$7,499 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,

9 Results HIGHLIGHTS Lump Sum Continued Question 33b: Types of Employees Receiving Lump Sum Payments What types of relocating employees most commonly receive lump sum payments? New Hires Experienced Professionals Entry Level Employees Transferees Executives Renters Homeowners Question 33a: Lump Sum Payment Application to Relocation Costs For what types of relocation costs are lump sum payments typically offered to relocating employees? Misc. Allowances Travel Expenses Entire Relocation Cost Temporary Housing Household Goods Shipping/Storage Rental Assistance/Transactions Real Estate Assistance/Transactions Other 5% 6% 4% 11% 21% 3 32% 33% 3 41% 43% 41% 41% 43% 47% 47% 5 51% 59% 63% Cost Coverage Similar to last year, around eight out of ten firms reimburse or pay a portion of relocation costs for transferees or new hires. Over the previous ten years, nine out of ten firms typically covered some costs. This change reflects a continuing preference among small firms to either not cover costs or offer lump sums instead. Although large and mid-size firms appear far less affected, a slight shift away from cost coverage of specific items occurs as well. Specialized Assistance for Homeowners/Renters Most firms continue to offer specialized relocation assistance for homeowners; however, small firms remain less likely than mid-size or large firms. The percentage of firms that do remains similar to last year and slightly lower overall compared to This change is largely driven by small firms (58% in 2013, 2014 vs. 76% in 2012), which are opting to either not offer it or offer lump sums instead. Too, the percentages of large and mid-size firms offering this assistance trend lower than historic highs. The percentages of firms offering individual homeownerassistance items fall to historic lows for nearly all items and significantly below past highs for each. However, while trending lower at mid-size and large firms, the percentages remain similar to most previous years for most items, even if well below historic peaks. Additionally, roughly half or more of large firms still offer each type of assistance with few exceptions. Among small firms, however, the percentages for most items fall significantly below most prior years. Most firms continue to offer specialized relocation assistance for renters; small firms remain least likely. Similar to 2013, the percentage of firms doing so is lower than it was during the previous decade. This continues to reflect fewer small firms offering it (62% in 2013, 2014 vs. 82% in 2012) or offering lumps sums instead. Overall, percentages of firms offering each type of renter-specific assistance drop slightly from last year, with the most substantial declines noted for reimbursement/payment of lease cancellation ( vs. ) and apartment search or finder s fees (27% vs. ). While large and mid-size firms remain more likely to reimburse/pay for lease cancellation, they also showed the greatest drop in such assistance (79% vs. 86%, 61% vs. 68%). Large firms are also most likely to reimburse/pay for apartment search or finder s fees but they also show the largest decline in this assistance (52% vs 62%). Although pressures in the housing market have eased, the Great Recession has brought a shift toward renting instead of owning. For the second year, more than of firms allow homeowners who decide to rent in the new location an option to use home sale/purchase assistance later ( in 2014 vs. 47% in 2013). However, most firms require the benefit be used within the first year. Mid-size and large firms continue to be more likely to have specific rules on this benefit spelled out in policy (8 and 94%), although most small firms do so as well (63%) Questions 29 & 30: Homeowner/Renter Assistance (Top 5) Question 28: Cost Coverage (Top 8) For relocating employees (transferees OR new hires), does your company reimburse/pay to Pack all items Move an automobile Move a second automobile Move exercise equipment Unpack all items Partial/custom unpacking of items 33% 7 48% 83% 64% 77% 81% 21% 25% 26% 31% 43% 5 44% 47% 9 Offer temporary housing allowance Offer homefinding trips Reimburse/pay home sale costs Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Offer storage Reimburse/pay home purchase costs Reimburse/pay apartment search/finder s fees 27% 49% 43% 59% Buying Not Renting When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a homeowner who will be buying (not renting), does your company Renting Not Buying When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) will be renting (not buying), does your company Move recreation and lawn equipment 31% 23% 41% 35% Move unlimited weight 3 17% Total Less than ,999 5,

10 Results Question 39: Spouse Employment Impact How frequently is an employee s relocation affected by the employment status of that employee s spouse/partner? 10 Spousal Assistance Forty-two percent of all firms offer employment assistance to the spouse or partner, similar to levels charted over the past decade, except for the high (5) in 2009 and low (33%) in Among mid-size firms, 41% offer assistance, similar to every year in the past decade except the low (18%) in Similar to most of the past decade, around six out of ten large firms offer assistance (58%). This is significantly above the low () in 2007 and close to the highs (+) charted in 2003, 2009, and The percentage of small firms is the same as last year () and similar to the past ten years (32%+), except for the 2009 high (48%). Mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms are to offer outplacement/career services from an outside firm (51% and 61% vs. 13%). Small firms offer networking assistance (64%) far more than do mid-size () or large firms (36%). There is some common ground, however; among all firms, roughly a fourth or more offer résumé preparation assistance. Around a fifth of small and mid-size firms offer employment within the company. And around a fifth of small and large firms offer interviewing skill training. Impact on Relocation Overall, the percentage of firms where spouse/partner employment almost always or frequently affects an employee s relocation is similar to 2013 (48% vs. ). Last year, regardless of size, nearly half of firms reported employment status had an impact almost always or frequently. This year, however, small and mid-size firms are much more likely than large firms are to cite impacts ( vs. 32%). Although the impact remains similar to levels recorded over most of the past decade, it has increased significantly compared to 2008, 2010, and 2012 (+), and it trends near the high (52%) of The increase this year is associated with more mid-size ( vs. 43%) and small firms ( vs. 5). However, the impact declined significantly at large firms (32% vs. ). International Forty-four percent of companies offer to help find jobs for spouses or partners relocating internationally, similar to levels from 2007 to 2013 ( to ). From 2003 to 2005, far fewer firms offered this assistance compared to the domestic arena. However, this dramatically changed in 2006 and Over the past seven years, levels of spousal assistance for international and domestic moves have become nearly identical. While the percentages among small and large firms are similar to most of the past eight years, the percentage of mid-size firms jumped substantially over the past two years (5 vs. 32%+). Overall, mid-size and large firms are more likely to offer spousal assistance (5) than are small firms (25%). Questions 40a & 44h: Spouse/Partner Employment Assistance Percentages of firms offering this assistance: International Assignments Duration Overall, the traditional long-term assignment accounts for around half of all international relocations. However, among small firms, the average falls lower ( vs. 52%+). Permanent transfers seem to have gained favor over short-term/temporary assignments in firms of all sizes. The most popular duration is one to three years (59%) overall. Small firms are using longer durations (3+ years) as the standard with more similar frequency to 1-3 year assignments ( vs. 44%) than larger firms (29%+ vs. 63%+). Destination Similar to 2012, international relocations originating in the United States last year most often went to Asia (32%) followed by Western Europe (24%) and the United Kingdom (22%). Intra-regional transfers occurred at similar levels in Asia, Western Europe, and the United States. Asia was the most popular destination for interregional transfers of expatriates living abroad (36%). Policy 5 Most firms (79%) report differences Respondents were given a list of international relocation types; 44% 44% 41% 41% 41% 44% between domestic and international the answers received indicate that policies, although the number 5 35% 33% 33% remains near the low of the past 27% decade and significantly below 25% 24% 22% 3 56% 2004 (88%). Overall, percentages 51% 52% for individual policy considerations 24% 26% 23% are similar to last year with one 1 22% 13% 11% Overall Internationally exception: markedly more firms 5% 7% 1 2% 4% 2% 4% 3% now offer allowances for children to Total Less than ,999 5,000+ Traditional long-term assignments Short-term temporary assignments Permanent transfers attend certain schools ( vs. 44%). Lump sum only Other Nearly twice as many small firms % % 56% 44% 43% 48% 52% 61% % 24% 22% 21% Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region 58% 61% 52% 48% Seldom/Never Almost Always/Frequently (31% vs. ) offer allowances, as do significantly more mid-size firms ( vs. ). This year maintained increases seen last year in financial services assistance and security support programs. Compared to 2012, nearly twice as many mid-size (29% vs. ) and large firms ( vs. 23%) continue to offer such assistance. While the percentage of large firms offering security support to expatriates dipped slightly from last year (32% vs. 41%), it remained significantly above 2012 (). Additionally, twice as many midsize firms now offer it (19% vs. 8%) than last year. Question 12b: Most Frequent Destinations What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer? 11% 27% 22% 11% Within Single Foreign Country/Region 18% 36% 21% 1 Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions Asia Europe (Western) United Kingdom Canada United States Question 44d: Average Percentage of International Relocations 24%

11 QUESTION RESPONSES QUESTION RESPONSES The following information is based upon the findings of Atlas World Group s 47th Annual Survey of Corporate Relocation Policies conducted from January 22 through March 8, 2014 via the Internet. This year, 353 online questionnaires were completed. Unless otherwise noted, all data refers to domestic relocations occurring in Multiple choice questions add to 10 (+/ 1%) due to rounding, unless otherwise noted. Other questions totaling above 10 are due to multiple responses. Complete findings are as follows: (For further details and graphical representations of all the data contained in this report, please go to A. RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS 1. How many employees did your company relocate in 2013? 4% None 9% 1% % 24% 5% 12% % 18% 5% 9% % 17% 8% 9% % 13% 9% % 17% 7% % 3% 12% 400 or more 1% 7% Median Do you ever relocate employees between countries? % of companies answering Yes 23% 51% 74% 3. Is your company... 23% Regional 35% 18% 7% 29% National 36% 29% 19% 48% International 74% 4. Compared to 2012, did the number of employees you relocated in % Increase 47% 48% Stay About the Same 58% 44% 1 Decrease 8% 11% 5. Compared to 2012, did your 2013 relocation budget... 29% Increase 19% 62% Stay About the Same 74% 52% 8% Decrease 6% 9% 11% 6. Compared to 2013, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2014 will 25% Increase 21% 31% 59% Stay About the Same 61% 64% Decrease 19% 8% 7. Compared to 2013, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2014 will 22% Increase 18% 24% 65% Stay About the Same 7 62% 12% Decrease 12% 12% 8. Did any employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2013?* 52% % of companies answering Yes 51% 84% 9. Does declining the opportunity to relocate usually hinder an employee s career? % of companies answering Yes 24% 19% 10a. Did your company offer additional incentives to encourage employee relocations over the past year? 65% % of companies indicating Yes 61% 74% 64% 10b. Which of the following additional incentives did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Of those who offered incentives: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 10a) 72% Extended temporary housing benefits 72% 77% 66% Relocation bonuses 49% Cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) in salary at new location 44% 31% Extended duplicate housing benefits 26% 25% 47% 29% Loss-on-sale protection 13% 31% 5 Telecommuting option (one or two days 23% each week) to curtail commuting costs 12% 24% 11% Guarantee of employment contract (for specified length of time) if relocation accepted 1 13% 11% 5% Mortgage payoffs/loans (if property sale 3% 5% 8% won t cover employee mortgage debt) 8% Other 4% 9% 11% 10c. How often did offering the above incentives prove successful in convincing an employee to relocate?* Of those who offered incentives: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 10a) 32% Almost always 3 25% Frequently 48% 66% 11% Seldom 1 7% 2% Never 1% 2% 2% *excludes not applicable/don t know responses 11. Did the number of employees declining relocation in * 13% Increase from the 2012 level 7% 75% Remain about the same as the 2012 level 74% 72% 82% 11% Decrease from the 2012 level 11% 12% 11% 18 19

12 Results QUESTION RESPONSES 11a. What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? Of those who answered Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried Yes to Question 8: 64% Family issues/ties 68% 76% 52% 52% Spouse s/partner s employment 58% 5 48% Housing/mortgage concerns 43% No desire to relocate 52% 47% 24% Personal reasons (non-disclosed) 29% 41% 35% Cost of living in new location 24% 6% Job security concerns 4% 13% 6% Other 2% 5% 9% 12a. How many employees did your company relocate in 2013 in each of the following: Within the U.S. Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 2% None 3% 2% 41% % 3 6% 12% % 6% 9% % 11% 9% % 12% 26% 100 or more 3% 23% 62% 1% Don t know 1% 2% Between the U.S. and Canada Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 67% None 92% 63% 35% 23% 1-9 8% 41% 3% % 5% 1% % 1% % 1% 100 or more 1% 1% 4% Don t know 4% 1 Between the U.S. and Another Country Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) None 79% 49% 26% 26% % 26% 4% % 9% 4% % 2% % 5% 4% 100 or more 2% 1 5% Don t know 1% 6% 9% Within a Single Foreign Country Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 73% None 95% 72% 41% 9% 1-9 3% 11% 1% % 1% 3% % 7% 1% % 3% 1% 100 or more 1% 3% 12% Don t know 2% 1 Between Two Foreign Countries Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 71% None 96% 7 35% 8% 1-9 1% 11% 13% 4% % 11% 2% % 4% 3% % 8% 3% 100 or more 2% 7% 1 Don t know 3% 11% 21% 12b. What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer Within the U.S.* Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 35% Midwest 31% 3 South 24% 31% Northeast 32% 36% 24% West 19% 26% 29% 17% Southwest 12% 23% 1 Central 4% 13% *excludes N/A responses Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) 32% Asia 23% 3 24% Europe (Western) 23% 22% United Kingdom 1 22% 21% Canada 23% 18% 21% 12% Australia/Pacific Rim 7% 12% 12% Europe (Eastern) 17% 12% 1 11% United States 7% 12% 11% 8% Middle East 3% 8% 1 6% South America 5% 1 6% Central America/Caribbean 3% 3% 9% 2% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 2% 4% 2% Russia 5% 2% Africa (North) 3% 1% 5% Other 1 3% 4% *excludes N/A responses Within a Single Foreign Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: 500 4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Employees 27% Asia 21% 33% 22% Europe (Western) 25% 21% 18% United States 18% 21% Canada 11% Europe (Eastern) 7% 12% 11% Australia/Pacific Rim 7% 11% United Kingdom 11% 5% Middle East 7% 5% 4% South America 7% 3% Central America/Caribbean 5% 3% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 4% 2% Africa (North) 4% 2% Russia 4% 3% Other 4% 4% *excludes N/A responses/less than 500 Salaried Employees not reportable due to low base size of responses Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions* Of those relocating employees: 500 4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Employees 36% Asia 24% United States 29% 21% Europe (Western) 33% 20 (question 12b results continued on next page) 21

13 Results QUESTION RESPONSES (question 12b results continued) Emerging global market economies United Kingdom 17% 17% Australia/Pacific Rim 13% 17% 11% Europe (Eastern) 13% 1 1 Canada 3% 7% South America 7% 8% 6% Middle East 3% 8% 6% Central America/Caribbean 3% 8% 5% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 8% 3% Africa (North) 3% 3% 2% Russia 3% 2% Other 3% *excludes N/A responses/less than 500 Salaried Employees not reportable due to low base size of responses B. FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONS 13. What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2013? 25% External conditions had no impact 27% 27% 22% 44% Lack of qualified people locally 43% 48% 3 Economic conditions 3 25% 36% 23% Real estate market 25% 31% 9% Growth of domestic competition 7% 13% 9% 8% Growth of international competition 1% 13% 3% Political/regulatory environment- 3% 2% 4% (i.e. employment legislation/policies) 2% Affordable Care Act/U.S. health care legislation requirements/implementation 1% 3% 3% 1% Natural/man-made disasters - 1% 1% domestic or international (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, system failures (oil/nuclear/other), etc.) 4% Other 6% 4% 2% 14. What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2013? 7% Internal conditions had no impact 1% 4% Growth of company 35% 33% Promotions/resignations 32% 31% 29% Knowledge/skills transfers 22% 31% 24% Corporate reorganization/restructuring 23% 24% 27% 22% Expansion into new territories 17% 21% 31% 17% Acquisitions/mergers 8% 18% 3 12% International expansion 3% 17% 23% 12% Expansion of facility 1 12% Budget constraints 7% 1 Increased production 7% 12% 11% 9% Closing of facility 4% 13% 13% 8% Technology deployment/integration 7% 9% 9% 8% Use of short-term assignments 4% 12% 11% 4% Use of frequent business travel/telecommuting 3% 4% 4% 3% Other 3% 2% 2% 15. Compared to 2012, from your company s perspective, please rate the following in 2013: Your company s overall financial performance 67% Better than % 7 73% 23% Same as in % 19% 1 Worse than % 12% 8% 52% Better than % 59% 43% Same as in % 36% 5% Worse than % 9% 5% Developed global market economies 51% Better than % 44% Same as in % Worse than % 9% 3% The U.S. economy 61% Better than % 66% 33% Same as in % 6% Worse than % 8% 2% The U.S. real estate market 67% Better than % 7 77% 29% Same as in % 26% 23% 4% Worse than % 4% 16. Compared to 2013, please indicate what you anticipate for 2014: Your company s overall financial performance 7 Better than % 66% Same as in % 26% 31% 3% Worse than % 2% 2% Emerging global market economies Better than % 66% Same as in % 35% 33% 3% Worse than % 4% 2% Developed global market economies Better than % 43% Same as in % 44% 3% Worse than % 2% The U.S. economy Better than % 52% 41% Same as in % 43% 5% Worse than % 3% 5% 22 (question 16 results continued on next page) 23

14 Results QUESTION RESPONSES (question 16 results continued) The U.S. real estate market 20a. Does your company have a centralized relocation department? 69% % of companies indicating Yes 5 74% 94% Better than % 64% 58% Same as in % Worse than % 1% 3% C. POLICY ADMINISTRATION 17. Does your company have a formal relocation policy? 77% % of companies answering Yes 94% 96% 18a. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its relocation policy? 3 No tiers or levels/single policy 47% 22% 18% 22% Two tiers 18% 12% 22% Three tiers 29% 23% 13% Four tiers 2% 22% 17% 13% Five tiers or more 2% Average Number of Tiers (of companies with tiers/levels) 18b. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with tiers/levels: Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 18a) 7 Job or Grade Level 59% 67% 8 (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) Homeowner/Renter Status 24% 36% 49% Position/Job Title 49% 21% 31% New Hire/Current Employee Status 31% 13% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 9% 5% Other 2% 5% 8% 19a. Does your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy? 71% % of companies indicating Yes 83% 77% 19b. Which of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy does your relocation policy incorporate? Of those using core coverage/flex policy Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried elements: (see Question 19a) 48% Relocation benefit coverage of specific 43% 49% items (i.e. core components) dependent on employee levels/categories Relocation benefit coverage of specific 49% items (i.e. core components) across all employee levels/categories Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (all employees) 12% 12% Flexible use of a portion of relocation 12% 13% 12% benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category) 12% Flexible use of full relocation benefit 1 12% coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category) 1 Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (all employees) 5% 1 2% Other 1% 1% 4% 20b. Does your company s centralized relocation department?* Of those with a centralized relocation Less than ,999 5,000+ Salaried department: (see Question 20a) 74% Manage domestic relocation programs 56% 79% 86% 71% Develop relocation policy % Control household goods carrier selection 64% 66% 52% Control additional relocation services provider(s) selection 59% 67% Manage international relocation programs 8% 47% 68% 33% Impact talent management/ recruitment decisions/processes 31% Control freight carrier selection (air, land, sea or rail) 22% 31% 31% Handle air travel via commercial airlines 21% 25% Handle office relocations 23% 5% 21. Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year? No cost containment measures 58% 35% beyond typical relocation policy or program utilized 3 Cap relocation benefit amounts 29% 35% 26% 21% Limit miscellaneous allowance benefits 17% (coverage items, amounts) 26% 23% 18% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 8% 24% 3 Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for 5% 25% 24% certain benefits (i.e. add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement core/flex, etc.) 12% Offer pre-decision counseling 3% 13% 24% 11% Offer short-term/extended travel/ commuter arrangements rather than 6% relocate employees 5% Modify COLA offering policy 5% 2% 9% 5% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 1% 8% 9% 4% Incentivize renting rather than home purchase at destination 1% 4% 8% 1% Other 3% 22. How many salaried (non-hourly) people are employed by your company? 10 44% 29% 27% 23. In 2013, what approximate percentage of your company s relocating employees were (at origin):* 43% Transferees 35% 59% New Hires 65% 58% 41% Homeowners 52% 51% Renters 33% 36% 43% 11% N/A (Neither Homeowners/Renters) 13% 11% 6% 24 25