Management Summary & Results Charts

Transcription

1 Results Year Management Summary & Results Charts The Industry s Longest Running Survey

2 Table of Contents Section Slide Number Foreword 3 Situational Analysis 3 Methodology 3 Management Summary Relocation Volumes & Budgets 4-9 Factors Impacting Relocations Policy Administration Relocation Costs Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Supplier Management International Corporate/Respondent Profile Survey Graphs Relocation Volumes & Budgets Factors Impacting Relocations Policy Administration Relocation Costs Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Supplier Management International Corporate/Respondent Profile Contact Information

3 Foreword Situational Analysis Atlas World Group conducts corporate relocation issues research on an annual basis. This is the sixteenth year the study has been conducted via the Internet. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to mailing lists of selected relocation-related associations and human resource/relocation decision-maker contacts. In order to qualify for the survey, a respondent must: 1) have relocation responsibility and 2) work for a company that has either relocated employees within the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year. For the 51 st Annual Corporate Relocation Survey, Atlas World Group utilized Qualtrics software for building and conducting survey research on the Internet. Methodology In 2018, 435 surveys were completed by qualifying participants online from January 10 through March 6. Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/- 1%) due to rounding. Other questions totaling above 100% are due to multiple responses. Company Size (By ) Total % of Sample Less than 500 Small % Mid-Size % Large % Total % 3

4 Management Summary Relocation Volumes & Budgets Companies surveyed report a median range of employee relocations in 2017 (small companies report 1-9, mid-size companies 20-49, and large companies ). The median number of relocations by large firms remains at normative levels established after spending far lower ( ) and small firms remain at historical norms after rising higher in 2014 (10-19). The median relocation level for mid-size firms remains at historical norms (20-49) for the second year after trending higher during (50-99). By Company Size () Number of Employees Relocated in 2016 Total Less than Median Range Roughly half (45%) of the companies surveyed indicate employee relocation volumes increased in More than 40% saw volumes remain the same and twelve percent saw them decrease. Company size continues to impact relocation volumes: slightly more mid-size (51%) and large (48%) report volumes increased than small firms (35%) in By Company Size () 2017 Relocation Volumes Compared to 2016 Total Less than Increase Significantly 13% 13% 13% 12% Increase Somewhat 32% 23% 38% 35% Stay About the Same 43% 53% 37% 39% Decrease Somewhat 10% 8% 10% 12% Decrease Significantly 2% 3% 3% 1% 4

5 Management Summary Relocation Volumes & Budgets (cont.) As volumes increased in the years after the Great Recession, budgets did not initially keep pace. However, for the past four years ( ) nearly half of companies indicate relocation budgets increased, and 44% believe their budgets will increase again in Mid-size firms were the most likely to report increases in budget last year (53%), followed by large firms (46%); notably fewer small firms had budget increases (31%)). This is a marked retraction for small firms from 2016 when roughly half saw increases to both categories, indicating a pullback is occurring among small firms, even if the tilt is towards stability rather than decreased activity as a whole. Overall, the vast majority of firms across size saw stability or increases in budgets last year; among the few who saw decreases, more were likely to be large firms (14%) than mid-size (7%) or small (6%). It is worth noting the past four years have seen volume and budget increases reported in agreement since the last economic retraction. The first few years of recovery from the Great Recession saw volumes increase although budgets did not rise at the same level; this has shifted with the most recent four years indicating expansion efforts in relocation are now being met with more commiserate levels of budget allocation. By Company Size () 2017 Relocation Budgets Compared to 2016 Total Less than Increase Significantly 11% 10% 12% 12% Increase Somewhat 32% 20% 40% 34% Stay About the Same 48% 63% 40% 39% Decrease Somewhat 8% 5% 4% 14% Decrease Significantly 1% 1% 3% 0% 5

6 Management Summary Relocation Volumes & Budgets (cont.) Projections for 2018 are essentially in line with last year s experiences across company size: most firms expect volumes and budgets to either increase or stay level with 2017; very few expect decreases. However, expectations for budget increases trend slightly higher than expectations for volume increases (44% vs. 39%), and volume expectations, muted slightly compared to last year (39% vs. 47%), are overwhelmingly positive, historically speaking. Expectations for increased budgets in 2018 among mid-size and large firms outpace expectations for volume increases (52% & 50% vs. 45% & 43%) and are more likely than small firms to expect increases in volumes and budgets (28% & 29%). With changes needed to adapt to tax reform and increasing costs across the industry, it appears the firms juggling greater numbers of relocations are projecting budgetary adjustments for the coming year. By Company Size () 2018 Expectations: Relocation Volumes Total Less than Increase Significantly 11% 9% 13% 12% Increase Somewhat 27% 19% 32% 30% Stay About the Same 48% 53% 46% 44% Decrease Somewhat 11% 14% 7% 12% Decrease Significantly 3% 5% 2% 1% 2018 Expectations: Relocation Budgets Total Less than Increase Significantly 13% 8% 17% 14% Increase Somewhat 31% 22% 35% 36% Stay About the Same 44% 56% 39% 37% Decrease Somewhat 11% 13% 8% 13% Decrease Significantly 1% 2% 1% 1% 6

7 Relocation Volumes & Budgets (cont.) Management Summary Most (72%) respondents state that declining the opportunity to relocate does not hinder an employee s career. Nearly six out of ten (59%) indicate they had employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2017; however, only 39% of respondents from small companies indicate this was the case, while 62% of mid-size and 78% of large firms indicate they had employees decline relocation. Two-thirds or more of respondents state that the number of employees who declined relocation did not change substantially between 2016 and 2017 across company size. Also, the percentage of firms that saw an increase over the previous year falls just within post-recession levels (18% vs. 11%-18% ) after trending higher the previous three years (2014: 28%; 2015: 22%; & 2016: 20%), notably below the highs of (28%+). Additionally, more than a tenth of firms across sizes state reluctance to relocate decreased last year. By Company Size () Reasons for Declining Relocation* (Top 6) Total Less than Family Issues/Ties 64% 53% 63% 71% Spouse s/partner s Employment 55% 53% 56% 54% Personal Reasons (non-disclosed) 44% 29% 40% 55% Destination Location 36% 27% 40% 38% Cost of Living in New Location 34% 29% 31% 40% No Desire to Relocate 30% 37% 26% 30% Housing/Mortgage Concerns 20% 14% 28% 16% *of companies with declined relocations (Q8) Only 20% of companies who had employees decline relocation last year state that housing/mortgage concerns was a reason cited, decreasing for a fifth year after spiking (65%+), and at the lowest level in more than 15 years. Family issues/ties remains in the top spot with spouse/partner employment in second place across firms of all sizes for the fifth consecutive year as well. Spouse/partner employment as an reason remains elevated and near the highest levels since the turn of the century. Among firms of all sizes these two factors outstripped housing/mortgage concerns by a wide margin. 7

8 Management Summary Relocation Volumes & Budgets (cont.) Most (86%) respondents indicate their firms offered additional incentives or exceptions to policy to encourage employee relocations in 2017, remaining at the highest levels yet after use dropped significantly in 2013 from (65% vs. 73%+) after progressively increasing from 60% in With housing/mortgage pressures lessening, far fewer firms offered extending temporary housing benefits the past four years (56%-61% vs. 72%), although it remains one of the top three incentives/exceptions offered. Relocation bonuses and COLAs round out the top three methods used last year across company size. Although half or more of firms across company size offered extended temporary housing benefits and more than half of firms across size offered relocation bonuses, large firms were the most likely to offer extended temporary housing benefits or COLAs compared to mid-size or small firms. Small firms were the least likely to indicate they used COLAs as incentives. By Company Size () Additional Incentives/Exceptions Offered in 2017* (Top 3) Total Less than Extended Temporary Housing Benefits 56% 50% 52% 64% Relocation Bonuses 53% 51% 57% 51% Cost-of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs) 47% 37% 46% 56% *of those who offered incentives or exceptions (Q10a) Never 1% Overall, about 9 out of 10 firms said offering extra incentives or exceptions to policy were almost always or frequently successful in convincing an employee to relocate. Almost always 28% Total Seldom 12% * excludes not applicable/don t know responses Q.10c Frequency of Incentive/Exception Success* Frequently 58% 8

9 Management Summary Relocation Volumes & Budgets (cont.) Of those who relocated employees in the United States, the most frequent U.S. region destination was the Northeast (38%), followed by the Midwest (30%), West (27%) and South (26%). The Northeast was the first place destination of firms across size (38% small, 36% mid-size, & 41% large). The Midwest was a close second at mid-size firms (32%) followed by the West (29%), while for small firms the Midwest (27%) and South (26%) nearly tied for second place. At large firms, three regions nearly tied for second: West (32%), Midwest (31%) and South (30%). Among firms relocating employees between the U.S. and another country/region, the most frequent destinations of transfer in 2017 were western European (27%), United States (27%), United Kingdom (25%), Asian (25%), Canadian (22%), and eastern European (14%) locations. Intra-country/region transfers occurred most often in the United States (33%), followed by western European (21%), Asian (18%), and United Kingdom (18%) territories. Continuing expatriate relocations typically occurred between the following countries/regions: western Europe (35%), United States (35%), Asia (31%), and the United Kingdom (18%). Asia Europe (Western) United Kingdom Canada Europe (Eastern) United States 33% 35% 35% 31% 25% 27% 25% 27% 22% 21% 18% 18% 18% 14% 14% 12% 13% 15% Between U.S. & Another Country/Region Within Single Foreign Country/Region Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions 9

10 Factors Impacting Relocations Management Summary A key issue emerged in December 2017: passage of the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new law eliminates the moving-expenses deduction for the next eight years. We queried the law s impacts for both 2018 and regarding five key aspects of relocation: Cost: Around half expect relocation costs increases both in 2018 and over the next seven years. Far more mid-size and large firms (53% & 68%) feel this way for 2018 compared to small (31%), but half or more firms across size expect increased costs over Policy Changes: Roughly four out of ten firms, both for 2018 and over the next seven years, expect increased changes to relocation policy. Over the course of 2018, more mid-size and large firms than small feel this will occur (42% & 52% vs. 28%). However, expectations are more similar across size. Administration Complexity: Around four out of ten firms expect administrative complexity to increase both in 2018 and beyond, both overall and across firm size. Recruiting Difficulty: Around half of firms expect the law to make recruitment neither more nor less difficult in However, more than a fourth across company size expect added difficulty, both in 2018 and beyond. Relocation Numbers: Nearly equal percentages overall expect the law to increase (22%) or decrease (19%) relocations in 2018, with some variances across size. Looking toward , around a third of firms across sizes project increases, compared to roughly one out of ten projecting a decreasing effect. Increase: 2018 Increase: Relocation costs Relocation policy changes Complexity of relocation administration Difficulty recruiting employees to relocate Number of relocations performed Q17: Tax Reform Impact 41% 36% 28% 29% 39% 37% 22% 36% 51% 55% The majority of organizations plan to make policy changes in response to tax reform, although midsize and large firms are most likely to do so (78% & 87% vs. 58%). The most popular tweak planned across organization size is to gross-up taxable relocation benefits (71% large, 55% midsize, & 45% small). Around a third of firms across size plan to expand the use of lump-sums. Roughly a third or more of mid-size and large firms plan to streamline relocation processes to reduce costs and/or to restructure relocation policy, compared to roughly a fourth of small firms. Small firms are the most likely to plan to withhold taxes on relocation benefits (36%). 10

11 Management Summary Factors Impacting Relocations (cont.) The vast majority (83%) of respondents indicate at least one external factor had a significant impact on the number of employee relocations performed in The lack of qualified local talent remains near previous non-recessionary ranges (44% vs. 47%+) with talent needs outpacing real estate issues by a significant margin for the seventh year in a row. Just 21 percent of firms reported economic conditions as a factor; this is the first time in a decade this percentage has fallen into this range and is the lowest level in roughly 30 years. After progressively declining as an issue over the last eight years the real estate market falls to a historic low since measurement began in As in previous years, the impact of different external factors varies by company size. Across firm size, talent needs clearly outstripped economic conditions as an impacting factor in relocation last year. However, at both mid-size and large firms competition (domestic or international) came in as a close second (40% vs. 31%, 43% vs. 30%, respectively). The growth of competition (domestic or international) was cited roughly twice as often as a factor in compared to the previous six years, and it remains elevated for 2017 comparatively (25% vs. 9%-18%). While economic conditions trends lower, it was cited a bit more often at mid-size and large firms. Also, small firms were roughly twice as likely as large firms to cite the real estate market as an issue last year (15% vs. 7%). However, talent issues remain at higher levels post-recession and the lower impact of both economic conditions and the real estate market are the overarching trends across firms of all sizes, with the percentages of firms citing talent shortfalls standing out as one of the largest drivers of relocation volumes overall last year. By Company Size () External Conditions Having Significant Impact (Select 4) Total Less than Lack of Qualified People Locally 44% 49% 40% 43% Competition (Domestic or International) 25% 13% 31% 30% Economic Conditions 21% 14% 26% 22% Real Estate Market 11% 15% 11% 7% 11

12 Management Summary Factors Impacting Relocations (cont.) While company growth remains in the top spot among individually listed internal conditions for the eighth straight year, the percentage of firms citing company growth remains similar to previous recessionary levels despite maintaining a substantial increase over 2009 (37% vs. 24%). However, when all types of expansion are considered (facility, new territories, or international), 34% of firms indicate some form of expansion impacted their relocation volumes last year, essentially equal to company growth, making this a top factor impacting relocations overall. Company growth and combined expansion efforts were some of the key internal factors impacting relocations in 2017 regardless of company size. Among large firms, expansion efforts (48%), corporate structure changes (44%) and knowledge/skills transfers (42%) surpassed company growth (39%). Large firms were more likely than mid-size or small to indicate expansion efforts (48% vs. 33% & 22%), corporate structure changes (44% vs. 29% & 20%), or knowledge/ skills transfers (42% vs. 24% & 26%) impacted relocation volumes last year, while company growth impact was similar across firms of all sizes. Around a tenth of small (10%) and mid-size (12%) firms cite budget constraints as a major factor in relocations last year vs. 18% of large firms. Roughly a fourth or more of firms across size cited promotions/resignations as a key factor in relocation volumes last year. Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact (Select 6) By Company Size () Total Less than Company Growth 37% 35% 38% 39% Expansion (Facility, New Territories, or International) 34% 22% 33% 48% Knowledge/Skills Transfers 31% 26% 24% 42% Corporate Structure Changes (Acquisition/Mergers or Corporate Reorganization/Restructuring) 31% 20% 29% 44% Promotions/Resignations 28% 24% 28% 32% Budget Constraints 13% 10% 12% 18% 12

13 Factors Impacting Relocations (cont.) Management Summary The majority of responding firms (68%) anticipate their overall financial performances will be better in 2018, up significantly from 2008 (59%) and 2009 (27%) and similar to (63%+), although remaining slightly below expectations (74%+). Additionally, 55% expect the U.S. economy to improve as well, markedly above to 2007, 2010, 2012 & 2016 (41%+), significantly above (10%+), and similar to 2006, 2011, , & 2017 (51%+). Expectations for improved performances of individual firms and the overall U.S. economy are at levels far above recessionary lows and on par with previous stronger economic growth years. Additionally, roughly half of firms expect global markets (both emerging and developed) to improve this year as well. By Company Size () 2018 Expectations: Company s Overall Financial Performance Total Less than Better than % 64% 68% 72% 2018 Expectations: Emerging Global Markets Total Less than Better than % 49% 62% 56% 2018 Expectations: Developed Global Economies Total Less than Better than % 50% 54% 53% 2018 Expectations: U.S. Economy Total Less than Better than % 57% 54% 55% 2018 Expectations: U.S. Real Estate Market Total Less than Better than % 43% 48% 43% For the ninth year in a row, most firms, regardless of size, expect their overall financial performances to improve. Around half or more of firms, regardless of size, expect improvement in global markets (emerging & developed) and the U.S. economy. Overall expectations are largely for improvement or stability; very few expect worsening conditions. Mid-size firms are the most optimistic for global emerging markets, optimism across developed market types is similar across size. Expectations for improvements in the U.S. real estate market dip notably (45% vs. 55% in 2017), similar to 2016 (43%) but below (52%+). Rising interest rates may be a factor; most expect stability/improvement across size. 13

14 Management Summary Policy Administration Eighty-four percent of the companies surveyed have a formal global mobility strategy; 79% have a formal domestic relocation policy. Companies with 500-4,999 and 5,000 or more employees are more likely to have either than small firms (87% large, 86% mid-size vs. 75% small: global mobility strategy; 90% large, 85% midsize vs. 62% small: domestic relocation policy). Corporate professionals find themselves responsible for far more formal policy types than in the past; more than half (53%) have short-term/temporary assignment policies, nearly half (46%) have extended business travel policies, and 34% have long-distance commuter policies. Large firms are the most likely to have a shortterm/temporary assignments policy (72%), and large and mid-size firms are most likely to manage EBT policies (54% & 48%) and long-distance commuter policies (39% & 38%). 79% 85% 90% 62% Relocation Policies Total Less than % 53% 55% 46% 48% 54% 32% 36% 34% 38% 39% 23% Domestic Relocations Short-Term/Temporary Assignments Extended Business Travel Long-Distance Commuter Essentially half of participating companies are international (47%), similar to 2017 (48%). Large companies continue to be more likely to operate internationally, as nearly three times as many large companies (72%) are international than small companies (25%; 74% vs. 24% in 2017). The percentage of mid-size firms indicating they are international is similar to nearly all of the past twelve years (44% vs. 46%+), remaining markedly below the highest reported in 2004 (64%). 14

15 Management Summary Policy Administration (cont.) Thirty-three percent of the companies involved in this study employ fewer than 500 salaried workers, 34% employ 500-4,999 salaried employees, and 33% employ 5,000 or more salaried employees. Around nine out of ten mid-size (88%) and large (90%) companies surveyed have a centralized department/team that handles relocation, far more than 59% of small companies. The top five responsibilities of centralized relocation departments are: development/maintenance of relocation policy (59%), managing domestic relocation programs (55%), controlling household goods carrier selection (37%), managing international relocation programs (37%), and controlling the selection of additional relocation services provider(s) (33%). By Company Size () Cost Containment Measures Used in 2017 (Top 7) Total Less than Use Lump Sum Payments for Relocations 33% 28% 34% 37% Cap Relocation Benefit Amounts 27% 24% 29% 30% Limit Miscellaneous Expense Allowance Benefits (coverage items, amounts) 22% 19% 18% 28% Review/Renegotiate Supplier Contracts 20% 10% 21% 30% Restructure Policy Tiers/Eligibility for Certain Benefits 16% 8% 16% 24% Offer Short-Term/Extended Travel/Commuter Arrangements (instead of relocation) 16% 6% 14% 27% Offer Pre-Decision Counseling 13% 8% 12% 18% The vast majority of firms worked to contain costs in relocation policy/practice over the past year, and overall use trends higher (77%) than the recessionary peak (2011: 70%). Around a fourth or more of firms, regardless of size, used lump sum payments or capped relocation benefits amounts. Large firms limited miscellaneous allowances, reviewed/renegotiated supplier contracts, restructured policy tiers/eligibility, and offered alternate arrangement types far more often than mid-size or small firms as methods of cost containment last year. 15

16 Management Summary Policy Administration (cont.) The vast majority of large and mid-size companies have different tiers, or levels, in their relocation policies compared to roughly half of small firms (84% & 72% vs. 47%, respectively). Most firm tier/level policies across company size appear to be based on job/grade level or position/job title, however, at large firms job/grade level far outweighs any other factor. Large firms are more likely to indicate homeowner/renter status as key policy criteria compared to smaller firms (40% vs. 15% and 24%). On average, employee status as a new hire/current employee is only taken into consideration by around one-fourth of firms with tiers/levels across size. Top 6 Criteria By Company Size () Bases for Different Tiers (or Levels) in Domestic Relocation Policy* Total Less than Job/Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) 57% 50% 51% 65% Position/Job Title 49% 53% 48% 47% Homeowner/Renter Status 29% 15% 24% 40% New Hire/Current Employee Status 24% 23% 25% 25% Length of Assignment 23% 20% 22% 26% Assignment Location/Region 19% 23% 20% 15% Average Number of Tiers *of those companies with tiers/levels (Q21a-1) Companies vary on the amount of time they allow employees to decide on whether to accept a relocation offer. Around half (58%) of the companies surveyed allow two weeks or less to accept or decline an offer, 29% allow up to 3 weeks or 1 month, and 13% allow up to 2 months or more to decide. Once a relocation is accepted more than half of firms across size allow one month or less for an employee to report to work at the new location: 31% firms overall indicate relocating employees have three weeks or less to make this transition. From start to finish, the majority of firms only allow a maximum of seven to eight weeks from job offer to the expectation of an employee starting work at the new location. 16

17 Policy Administration (cont.) Management Summary Sixty-one percent of all firms report using alternative assignments, with mid-size (64%) and large (78%) the greatest users. The percentage of large firms using such arrangements is at the highest level measured (78%), on par with this year (72%-74%) after progressively increasing (60%, 62%, 66%). Usage among mid-size firms remains almost twice that of 2014 (64% vs. 37%) and similar to (68%-75%). Usage among small firms tumbles compared to last year s historical high (40% vs. 59%) after progressively increasing (48%, 54% & 59%); however, it remains essentially double that reported in 2014 (19%). While the top reason for use in the past was to meet strategic business goals, in recent years no overarching driver of alternative assignments inside mobility policy stands out dramatically from the rest; most potential uses are indicated by roughly a fourth or more of firms, regardless of company size. Q.30 Alternative Assignments Used: Q.30a Alternative Assignment Reasons*: Used to Meet Strategic Business Goals 35% No & No plans to do so 39% Yes & plan to do so 61% Used in Place of Long-Term Assignments Used in Addition to Long-Term Assignments Used to Accommodate Employee Needs Used to Develop Internal Talent Used to Maximize Budget/Corporate Resources Used in Place of Traditional Short-Term Assignments Used in Addition to Traditional Short-Term Assignments 19% 35% 35% 30% 28% 27% 26% Other 3% *of those using alternative assignments (Q30) Almost two-thirds of firms cite business need as the top consideration for alternative assignments; more often by large (76%) and small firms (60%) than mid-size (44%). Notably, the weight given to assignment purpose, cost, or job function has declined substantially compared to previous highs overall, and even last year. However, while at large and small firms, business need is the clear top consideration by a wide margin, at mid-size firms, the top two factors, business need and assignment purpose, are more equal in weight (44% & 46%). 17

18 Policy Administration (cont.) Management Summary Employees are allowed on average 4.1 expense-paid house-hunting days. Spouses/partners of relocating employees are allowed an average of 1.8 expense-paid house-hunting trips. Overall relocating employee composition was close to evenly split between transferees and new hires, but tilted in favor of new hires overall. Small and mid-size firms indicate they are more likely to have relocated new hires last year, while large firms are more likely to have relocated transferees. Nearly half of relocated employees were homeowners across company size. For the third time, we asked about the composition of relocations the percentages of executive/top level, midlevel, and entry level positions. We found that around half of relocations in 2017 were mid-level jobs, roughly a third were executive/top level positions, and close to a fifth were entry level jobs, regardless of company size. Q.26 Approximate Percentage of Relocating Employees in 2017: 46% 34% 44% 59% 47% 46% 47% 49% 33% 35% 36% 30% 54% 66% 56% 41% 38% 38% 36% 41% 15% 17% 16% 11% 48% 50% 45% 49% 19% 16% 20% 21% Total Less than 500 New Hires Transferees Total Less than Neither Renters Homeowners Total Less than Entry Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level Ninety-six percent of decision makers say that the Internet/technology was used for relocation-related matters in The top use was to communicate via with relocating employees (83%). Roughly half or more of large companies also used the Internet/technology to complete online forms for employee relocation, initiate/execute employee relocation services, research relocation-related matters, and access relocation company website(s) for reporting/other services. 18

19 Policy Administration (cont.) Management Summary In , nearly three-fourths of firms incorporated fixed/flex elements in their policy; in more than 8 out of 10 (82%+) did so. Fixed/flex usage ran similar across company size from , but returns to much more likely at mid-size and large firms than at small ones in 2018, similar to previous historical norms. Q.22a Percentage of Companies Using Fixed/Flex Benefits Policy Elements: 82% 65% 92% 90% *% of those indicating Yes Coverage for fixed components, either across all employee levels/categories or dependent on employee level/category, continues to be the most popular choice among all firms. However, there is a shift away from coverage for all employee levels/categories to criteria-dependent coverage. Large firms more heavily favor criteria-dependent coverage for specific or fixed items over coverage for all employees (53% vs. 39%) while fixed aspects as universally available or criteria-dependent are essentially evenly split at mid-size and small firms. Overall, the top relocation costs viewed as fixed are travel expenses-final move (52%), household goods shipping (51%), and temporary housing (50%). By Company Size () Fixed/Flex Benefits Policy Elements* Total Less than Relocation Benefit Coverage of Specific Items (i.e. fixed components) (employee level/category dependent) 47% 41% 44% 53% Relocation Benefit Coverage of Specific Items (i.e. fixed components) (all employees) 41% 43% 41% 39% Flexible Use of Full Relocation Benefit Coverage Amount (all employees) 23% 25% 20% 24% Flexible Use of Full Relocation Benefit Coverage Amount (employee level/category dependent) 17% 12% 20% 17% Flexible Use of a Portion of Relocation Benefit Coverage (employee level/category dependent) 13% 13% 8% 17% Flexible Use of a Portion of Relocation Benefit Coverage (all employees) 11% 9% 13% 11% *of those using fixed/flex elements in policy (Q22a) Total Less than

20 Relocation Costs Management Summary Following are the methods of reimbursement of relocation expenses for TRANSFEREES and NEW HIRES: Transferees 62% 65% 66% 55% 59% 63% 65% 69% 57% 59% 63% 63% 55% 58% 49% 55% 42% 48% 49% 48% 48% 49% 48% 47% 47% 44% 45% 44% 38% 40% 34% 36% 40% 41% 40% 37% 32% 30% 32% 33% 25% 18% 22% 13% 16% 9% 6% 5% 3% 7% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 7% Full reimbursement Lump sum payments Partial reimbursement No reimbursement New Hires 58% 53% 53% 57% 51% 55% 51% 54% 56% 42% 42% 45% 51% 50% 49% 51% 50% 47% 48% 45% 49% 45% 48% 51% 49% 42% 43% 36% 38% 38% 41% 40% 46% 41% 43% 47% 34% 37% 31% 32% 35% 28% 19% 19% 20% 11% 7% 6% 5% 7% 8% 9% 5% 8% 9% 9% For transferees, the percentage of firms using full reimbursement, the most popular method overall, remains near historically higher levels of nearly two-thirds or more of firms providing this type of reimbursement. Use of lump sum payments by roughly half of firms is consistent with findings since Use of partial reimbursement remains at the highest level recorded for a second year. It is worth noting that the percentage of firms indicating they sometimes offer no reimbursement reaches the highest level historically (18%). Full reimbursement of expenses for new hires (42%) remains near the lowest levels historically (36-38% ), out of favor in comparison to lump sum payments (58%). While roughly half of firms have used lump sum payments for new hires since 2008 it reaches the highest level recorded. The percentage of firms using partial reimbursement remains near historically higher levels from (46%-51%) for a second year. Nineteen percent indicate occasionally offering no reimbursement, the second highest incidence ever measured. 20

21 Relocation Costs (cont.) Management Summary When asked about their overall relocation compositions, large and mid-size firms indicate roughly half (55% and 48%) of their relocations were fully reimbursed, compared to only 34% of small firms. Small firms indicate a higher average of relocations were lump sum only (33%) than mid-size or large firms (18% and 19%) in Across company size, firms indicate around a fourth of their relocations were partially reimbursed. Across size, companies estimate around three-fourths of their domestic moves last year were traditional/ permanent relocations rather than other arrangements. However, it is worth noting that essentially 1 out of 4 relocations across firm size fell outside this traditional mold. Among companies using lump sums, roughly half indicate lump sums were offered for travel expenses, temporary housing, miscellaneous expense allowances, or the entire relocation cost. However, large firms are more likely to use lump sums for miscellaneous allowances or temporary housing compared to smaller firms. Small firms show a greater likelihood than large firms to apply lump sums to the entire relocation cost, shipping/storage of household goods, or real estate assistance/transactions. More than a fourth of firms across size indicate using it for rental assistance/transactions. By Company Size () Lump Sum Payment Application* Total Less than Travel Expenses 50% 44% 56% 49% Miscellaneous Expense Allowances 47% 37% 42% 63% Temporary Housing 47% 43% 43% 54% Entire Relocation Cost 46% 52% 46% 41% Household Goods Shipping/Storage 34% 39% 35% 29% Rental Assistance/Transactions 28% 27% 31% 26% Real Estate Assistance/Transactions 28% 33% 28% 22% *of those companies offering lump sum payments (Q34) 21

22 Relocation Costs (cont.) Management Summary Around half of companies using lump sums indicate they are used across employee types (executives, experienced professionals, and entry level employees). However, this varies across firm size. Small firms use these far more often for executives and experienced professionals than entry level employees (57% & 55% vs. 31%); usage across levels is far more similar at mid-size and large firms. Renters are more likely to receive lump sums than homeowners from mid-size or large firms (34% vs. 21%, 41% vs. 27%). Large and mid-size firms offer transferees and new hires lump sums around half the time or more; while at small firms this occurs only for new hires (55%) transferees receive them far less often (35%). Companies using lump sums indicate domestic relocations overwhelmingly as the most frequent application, true for the vast majority of firms of all sizes. More than a fourth overall use lump sums for short-term/temporary assignments or international long-term assignments. Only around one-seventh of all firms use lump sums for alternative assignments. Large and mid-size firms are more likely than small firms to use lump sums for international long-term assignments (34% & 37% vs. 23%); use for short-term/temporary assignments is more similar across firm size but usage trends higher among larger firms (30% vs. 20%). Nearly all companies track lump sum spending/allocation per employee. Over half (55%) of firms say a Human Resources staff member performs this function, and roughly half (45%) say expense report submissions are the method used for tracking. But many other responsible personnel (Relocation, Finance, employee) and methods (Excel, online reports, in-house software) are also used by nearly a fourth or more of firms as well. Lump Sum Use: Relocation Types 80% 80% 77% 84% Total Less than % 30% 30% 31% 37% 34% 20% 23% 14% 10% 20% 13% Domestic Relocations Short-Term/Temporary Assignments International Long-Term Assignments Alternative Assignment Types *of those companies offering lump sum payments (Q34) 22

23 Management Summary Relocation Costs (cont.) By Company Size () Median Lump Sum Amounts Offered* Total Less than Real Estate Assistance/Transactions $1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 $1,000-$4,999 Household Goods Shipping/Storage $5,000-$9,999 $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 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 Travel Expenses $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 Temporary Housing $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 Miscellaneous Expenses Allowances $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 *of those companies offering lump sum payments (Q34) A question added in 2013 probed the typical ranges offered for the variety of lump sum categories. Compared to the past five years, most offerings are more frequent and generous than in 2013 and on par with 2014, despite some dips below ranges reached in The overall median ranges are the highest in five years for: household goods shipping/storage, entire relocation cost, temporary housing, and miscellaneous expense allowance. However, offerings for real estate assistance/transactions, rental assistance/transactions and travel expenses fall one range lower. The median amounts offered by large and small firms were the same for real estate assistance/transactions ($1,000-$4,999), rental assistance/transactions ($1,000-$2,499), and travel expenses ($2,500-$4,999); midsize firms were slightly more generous for real estate and rental costs, while less generous for travel. Median amounts offered by mid-size and large firms were the same for temporary housing ($2,500-$4,999); small firms were slightly less generous. The median amount offered for miscellaneous expense allowances was the same for small and mid-size firms ($1,000-$2,499); large firms were slightly more generous. Median amounts across company size were the same for the following categories: entire relocation cost ($10,000-$14,999) and household goods shipping/storage ($5,000-$9,999). 23

24 Relocation Costs (cont.) Management Summary For TRANSFEREES or NEW HIRES, reimbursement/payment for relocation services depends on employee level with mid-level and executive/top level employees having a far greater chance of receiving coverage for specific items. Nearly half or more firms overall offer the following coverage for executive/top level moves: 64% 56% 58% 63% 44% 39% Q31: Cost Coverage (Top 8) Entry Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level 53% 49% 47% 34% 37% 39% 44% 43% 29% 31% 20% 20% 27% 33% 35% 43% 25% 26% Pack all items Move an automobile Move a second automobile Unpack all items Move exercise equipment Move collections of highly valuable objects Move unlimited weight Partial/custom unpacking of items For TRANSFEREES or NEW HIRES who are homeowners buying a new home, whether or not they are offered assistance specific to their status as homeowners depends on employee level as well with mid-level and executive/top level employees receiving support more often than entry level employees. Nearly half of firms overall offer the following assistance for executive/top level moves: Q32: Homeowner Assistance (Top 5) Entry Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level 55% 56% 53% 55% 46% 52% 46% 34% 34% 34% 36% 36% 45% 20% 17% Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance Offer storage Reimburse/pay for home sale costs Reimburse/pay for home purchase costs 24

25 Relocation Costs (cont.) Management Summary For TRANSFEREES or NEW HIRES who will be renting in the new location, whether or not they are offered assistance specific to their status as renters depends on employee level as well with mid-level and executive/ top level employees receiving help more often than entry level employees. Roughly half of firms overall offer the following assistance for mid-level and executive/top level moves: Q33: Renter Assistance (Top 4) Entry Level Mid-Level Executive/Top Level 53% 59% 50% 54% 39% 42% 39% 46% 52% 46% 48% 35% Offer homefinding trips Offer temporary housing allowance Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation Offer storage The majority of companies reimburse or pay for some relocation costs for transferees or new hires regardless of employee level, however around a fourth of firms on average are opting to either not cover costs or offer lump sums instead. The majority of firms offer specialized relocation assistance for either homeowners or renters as well, but overall around a fourth or more on average indicate they are opting to not offer assistance or offer lump sums instead for both situations. The biggest adopters of no assistance or lump sums are small firms, using this option roughly twice as often as mid-size or large firms across employee levels. The biggest trends overall are that for relocation services costs, entry level employee coverage levels generally vary marginally across company size, while at the mid-level coverage trends more generous among large firms than small across more than half of individual cost coverage items. At the executive/top level, coverage trends more generous at both mid-size and large firms compared to small across more than half of the items listed. For homeowner and renter assistance, levels of assistance offered for entry level relocations trend higher at mid-size and large firms for more than half the assistance items listed. For mid-level and executive/top level relocations, mid-size and large firms are markedly more willing to provide assistance across nearly all categories, with large firms typically providing the highest levels of assistance across multiple categories. 25

26 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Management Summary The following is the makeup of those employees relocated in 2017: Fifty-seven percent of companies surveyed indicate that the age range of their most frequently relocated employee is 30 to 40 years of age, and 84% of the companies surveyed indicate some percentage of the employees they relocated last year were women. Eighty percent of companies indicate some percentage of their relocations involved a trailing spouse who was a wife or female partner; an equal percentage (80%) of companies indicate that some percentage of their relocations had accompanying husbands/male partners as well. Eighty-six percent of companies indicate some percentage of their relocations involved employees with children. Nearly half (44%) of companies surveyed provide some type of elder care assistance to the relocating employee. Larger firms in the past were more likely to offer this assistance; this year more mid-size firms indicate doing so than small or large firms (55% vs. 37% & 40%). Overall, for the fourth year this is far more than has been offered historically (44% vs. 15%-26%) and remains at elevated levels across company size. Fifty-nine percent of companies surveyed provide some type of childcare assistance to the relocating employee. After two years where provision of this benefit was similar across company size, it returns to the historical norm of larger firms more likely to offer this assistance. Overall, for the fourth year, this is far more than has been offered historically (59% vs. 31%-43%) and remains at elevated levels across company size. The most popular assistance methods are to provide lists of childcare options. Provide list of local schools/educational options (28%) Provide list of childcare providers/services and/or agencies (27%) Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars for outside care (24%) Provide paid personal leave days (22%) From , around half of firms reported performing assessments on candidates prior to relocation. Since 2015, far more state this is policy (65%+). The most popular method is to conduct assessments for all relocations (38%), similar to 2017 (40%) but down compared to (46%+) and nearly double previous levels (21%, ). However, the number of large firms performing assessments overall is falls notably (54% vs. 68%+) while usage held steady at mid-size firms (74%) compared to recent years (74%-84%) and only slightly dipped among small (67% vs. 73%-78%). A marked decrease among large firms performing assessments universally remains in place for a second year compared to (29% vs. 42%+). 26

27 Management Summary Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues (cont.) The majority (86%) of companies surveyed allow the hiring of spouses of employees. Fifty-nine percent of companies indicate the spouse s/partner s employment almost always or frequently affects an employees relocation, similar to the last three years (62%+) and remaining elevated compared to the previous twelve years (59% vs. roughly half or less). Around a third indicate an employee s willingness to relocate is seldom affected by his/her spouse s/partner s employment status, and only seven percent of respondents state this never affects an employee s relocation. Roughly six out of ten (59%) of companies surveyed assist an employee s spouse/partner in finding employment in the new location. Spousal/partner employment assistance levels remain higher compared historically both overall and across company size. However, after two years of being offered at similar levels across company size, it returns being offered more often by mid-size and large firms (historical norm). At firms offering this assistance, around a third (30%) of relocated employees with spouses/partners utilized this assistance in 2017, similar to 2011 & , up from around a fourth in , Across firms of all sizes, the most popular form of employment assistance is networking assistance. Around a third offer assistance with résumé preparation and around a fourth provide interview skills training or employment within the company. By Company Size () Spouse/Partner Employment Assistance* (Top 5) Total Less than Provide Networking Assistance 48% 51% 53% 40% Provide Resume Preparation Assistance 30% 26% 29% 34% Pay for Outplacement/Career Services 26% 19% 23% 33% Find Employment Within Company 25% 25% 27% 23% Provide Interviewing Skills Training 24% 21% 26% 24% *of those companies offering assistance (Q42a) 27

28 Supplier Management Management Summary At 34% of the companies surveyed, the company is the sole selector of the household goods carrier for the employee s relocation. Forty-seven percent of the companies surveyed allow the employee some say in the household goods carrier selection, but employees of small and mid-size firms are more likely to have this option than those of large firms (69% and 50% vs. 21%, respectively). Almost a third (30%) of large companies hand off selection to a relocation firm, more often than mid-size (16%) and small firms (8%). By Company Size () Who Selects Carrier for Employee Relocations Total Less than The Company 34% 22% 32% 47% The Company & Employee Together 23% 31% 28% 10% The Employee 24% 39% 22% 11% A Relocation Firm 18% 8% 16% 30% The majority of firms report that carrier transportation expenses are paid directly by the company ; however, around four out of ten of small and mid-size firms indicate costs are employee paid and then reimbursed. Mid-size and small firms typically have the Human Resources department perform carrier selection (62% & 49%), whereas large firms utilize the Relocation department for this decision a bit more often than HR (47% vs. 36%). Small and mid-size firms involve Executive Management more often than large firms (16% & 15% vs. 4%). 73% 65% Q.44 Carrier Transportation Expenses 40% 37% 23% Transferees New Hires 23% Paid Directly by the Company Paid by the Employee then Reimbursed Paid by the Employee 28

29 Supplier Management (cont.) Management Summary Seventy percent of all companies outsourced relocation services in However, only 49% of small companies outsourced, while 74% of mid-size and 86% of large companies outsourced relocation services. Q.43 Percentage of Companies Outsourcing in 2017: 70% 49% 74% 86% Total Less than For small and mid-size firms, the department most often involved in selecting the relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm is Human Resources (81% & 69%), while at large firms, Relocation is most often involved in selection (62%). Procurement is more likely to be involved in the discussion at large firms than small or midsize (25% vs. 12% & 16%), Executive Management is far more likely to be part of the decision-making process at mid-size and small (23% & 26% vs. 11%). More than a fifth of companies responding outsourced the following in 2017: Real estate sales/marketing (30%) Contract of household goods carrier (27%) Counseling about the planning & details of relocation (25%) Real estate purchase (25%) Counseling about company policy (24%) Management of full relocation program (24%) Expense management/tracking/reimbursement services (23%) Orientation tours at new location (22%) Coordination and monitoring of shipment (21%) 29

30 Management Summary International Fifty-two percent of companies surveyed relocate employees internationally: 29% of small companies, 47% of mid-size companies, and 79% of large companies. Forty-one percent of these companies indicate their international relocation volumes increased in 2017, with more than a third of small and large firms and nearly half (47%) of mid-size firms experiencing increases. While the overwhelming majority of firms relocating internationally saw volumes remain level or increase last year across company size, it is worth noting nearly a fifth of small and mid-size and nearly a fourth of large firms saw decreases. Thirty-eight percent of firms overall expect increases in international relocation volumes in There is a bit of variance by company size: nearly half (47%) of mid-size firms expect increases in international relocations, while only around a third of small and large firms expect increases. The vast majority of firms regardless of size expect either further improvement or stability in international relocation volumes in the coming year, however, roughly a fifth overall expect decreases. While projected increases generally outpace decreases roughly two-toone, the mixed picture reflects a bit of instability. Given the geopolitical landscape, this is perhaps not unexpected. By Company Size () 2018 Expectations: International Relocation Volumes* Total Less than Increase Significantly 9% 10% 9% 8% Increase Somewhat 30% 20% 38% 28% Stay About the Same 41% 45% 34% 45% Decrease Somewhat 14% 10% 15% 16% Decrease Significantly 6% 15% 4% 4% *of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 30

31 International (cont.) Management Summary Overall, the traditional long-term assignment comprises the greatest amount of international relocations: over half of all relocations fall into this category. However, both short-term/temporary assignments and permanent transfers were also used: shorter assignments comprise around a seventh of international relocations, permanent transfers roughly one-fourth. When asked about reimbursement for international relocations, it is worth noting that on average, firms estimate over a third of their international relocations were fully reimbursed last year across company size, and 10% or less were lump sum payment only. There are some marked differences by company size regarding the typical international assignment length. Far more small and mid-size firms indicate the typical international assignment duration is less than 12 months compared to large firms (48% and 40% vs. 11%), while large and mid-size firms favor traditional assignment lengths of 1-3 years comparatively (57% and 44% vs. 23%). It is worth noting that while around a third of small and large firms also indicate longer-term assignments are the norm, standard usage among mid-size firms of longer assignment types is roughly half comparatively (16% vs. 30% & 32%). Q.46c Typical International Assignment Duration* 27% 30% 16% 32% 47% 23% 44% 57% 48% 40% 27% 11% Total Less than months or less > 12 months, < 3 years 3 years or more *of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 31

32 International (cont.) Management Summary Most firms of all sizes expect their usage level of short-term/temporary assignments to increase or remain level. Few expect decreases overall. However, small firms are the most likely to expect decreases (25%) compared to larger firms (13% & 11%), while over a third of mid-size and large firms expect increases (34% & 39%) compared to 25% of small firms Expectations: Short-Term Intl Assignment Use* Total Less than Increase Significantly 10% 15% 4% 12% Increase Somewhat 25% 10% 29% 27% Stay About the Same 51% 50% 53% 50% Decrease Somewhat 8% 10% 6% 9% Decrease Significantly 6% 15% 7% 2% *of those who relocate internationally (Q2) The vast majority of firms relocating employees internationally have a formal international relocation assignments policy (77%); mid-size and large firms are most likely to have this in place (81% & 87%). Most also have formal policies for permanent transfers (62%), localization (57%) and intra-regional assignments (50%); the presence of additional policy types also trend more likely at mid-size or large firms compared to small. International Relocation Policies Total Less than % 81% 87% 62% 62% 70% 57% 57% 63% 40% 40% 50% 50% 57% 38% 33% International Relocation Assignments *of those who relocate internationally (Q2) Permanent Transfers Localization Intra-Regional Assignments 32

33 International (cont.) Management Summary Roughly half or more firms relocating employees internationally have different tiers, or levels, in their international relocation policies across company size. Tier/level policies appear to be based on job/grade level, position/job title, and assignment length most commonly overall. Assignment length (38%) and objectives (26%) carry much more weight internationally than domestically (23% and 14%), while the relative weights of other factors are more similar between international and domestic status. By Company Size () Bases for Different Tiers (or Levels) in International Relocation Policy* (Top 6) Total Less than Job/Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) 54% 47% 46% 60% Position/Job Title 43% 47% 41% 43% Length of Assignment 38% 40% 43% 35% New Hire/Current Employee Status 27% 7% 32% 29% Assignment Objectives (i.e. developmental, etc.) 26% 27% 30% 23% Assignment Location/Region 25% 47% 27% 18% Average Number of Tiers *of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with tiers/levels (Q46g-1) The vast majority (85%) indicate there are differences between their domestic and international relocation policies, near the highest percentage historically. However, those offering specific policy allowances fall roughly at or below last year s levels, with most offerings falling to historic lows. We note these exceptions: financial services assistance is near historical highs (31% vs. 39%); additional leave time is similar to the last three years (30% vs. 28%-33%) and above lows (16%-18%); and extended per diem charges falls in the historical midrange (18% vs. 11%-28%) of the last 15 years.. The percentages of firms offering certain benefits also remain similar to the past three years, albeit far lower than four years ago: i.e., additional tax considerations (41% vs. 42%-46% & 61%) and allowances for children to attend certain schools (35% vs. 39%-42% & 54%). Among internationally relocating firms, more than a third offer: additional tax considerations (41%), additional leave time with a visit back to home country (36%), and allowances for children to attend certain schools (35%). 33

34 Management Summary International (cont.) Eighty percent of companies who relocate employees internationally indicate they outsourced an international relocation service in 2017, similar to 2016 (84%) and remaining near the highest levels measured historically ( : 85%). Of those companies who outsourced relocation services domestically, the percentage that also outsourced internationally is matches the highest historically (2014: 98%), above 2016 (95%) and surpassing 2011 & 2013 (88%+) and significantly above all previous levels measured in 2003, , 2012 (81%+) and (70%+). After seeing increases in 2016, international outsourcing saw marked decreases last year across most service categories, with levels falling in the mid to lower ranges historically. Five areas saw the greatest decreases: contract of household goods carrier (30% vs. 44%), relocation planning & details counseling (29% vs. 44%), destination services/orientation tours (30% vs. 43%), family s temporary accommodations arrangements (29% vs. 42%), and coordination/monitoring of international shipment (29% vs. 41%). Similar to domestic trends, outsourcing across categories for small and large firms decreased from The pullbacks were often more dramatic internationally, especially among small firms. Mid-size firms saw either declines or stability across categories, but were far less likely to have reduced outsourcing across most categories compared to small or large firms last year. While mid-size and large firms are a more likely to outsource internationally than small firms in general, large firms outsource a greater variety of services than small or mid-size firms do. Q.46j Outsourced Internationally in 2017*: 80% 57% 82% 86% Outsourced Did Not Outsource 20% 43% 18% 14% Total Less than **of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 34

35 International (cont.) Management Summary Sixty-one percent of companies that relocate employees internationally indicate they offer assistance to internationally transferred employees spouses/partners in finding employment in the new location. Although lower than (67%-77%) it continues to far exceed (38% to 46%), and is significantly above (27%, 22%, & 24%). After three years of similarity across size, it returns to the historical norm of being offered more often at mid-size and large firms than small (60% & 64% vs. 52%) Overall, around an eighth of companies that relocate employees internationally report no international relocations were declined or failed in The issue that presented the greatest challenges for international relocations was family issues/ties across company size. Non-disclosed personal reasons were the second largest reason given across firm size (tying for first place at small firms). Lack of adaptability by the spouse/partner and financial issues/concerns rounded out the top four reasons given by firms across size. Reasons Cited for Declined/Failed Intl Relocation in 2017* Total Less than No International Relocations Declined or Failed 13% 25% 13% 8% Family Issues/Ties 46% 30% 47% 51% Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 31% 30% 29% 32% Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner 22% 18% 19% 25% Financial Issues/Concerns 22% 13% 24% 25% Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 18% 13% 16% 21% Lack of Adaptability by Employee 14% 10% 12% 18% Safety Concerns (i.e. war/terrorism/political unrest/etc.) 14% 5% 16% 15% Host Country Infrastructure Inadequacies 11% 3% 15% 11% Job Performance Issues 9% 10% 9% 10% Illness 6% 5% 12% 4% *of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 35

36 Corporate/Respondent Profile Management Summary Similar to last year, Service (45%) and Manufacturing/Processing (21%) firms are the most highly represented business classifications in this study (45% and 24% in 2017). Business Classification Total Service 45% Manufacturing/Processing 21% Financial 12% Wholesale/Retail 10% Government/Military 6% Other 6% The median annual sales range for all companies involved in this study is $250 million-$749 million. The median annual sales range for companies with less then 500 employees is $51-$249 million, while for companies with 500-4,999 employees it is $250 million-$749 million, and for companies with more than 5,000 employees it is over $1 billion. Most respondents (93%) work in Human Resources/Personnel or Relocation/Mobility Services departments. At small and mid-size firms the vast majority of respondents are from Human Resources (89% and 74%). At large firms more respondents work in Human Resources than Relocation/Mobility Services (59% and 34%), but over a third of participants work in relocation-specific departments compared to 16% or less at smaller firms. Half of respondents indicate their department reports to Executive Management; 40% to a Human Resources department area. However, small firm respondents are more likely to report to Executive Management than at mid-size or large firms (76% vs. 43% vs. 30%), 57% at large firms report to a HR department area. There are a variety of different positions held among those who completed this survey managers (31%), directors (28%), vice-presidents (10%), and relocation administrators (9%), as well as supervisors, coordinators, assistants and others. 36

37 Management Summary Corporate/Respondent Profile (cont.) An overwhelming majority of respondents regularly read trade publications (84%); the most popular publications were*: HR Magazine (43%) Human Resource Executive (30%) HR News (28%) Employee Benefits News (23%) Mobility (21%) Workforce (19%) Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) Today (16%) Seventy-four percent of all employees interviewed belong to a relocation-related association, and 81% of responding employees at large companies belong to one of these associations*: 74% Q.53 Association Membership: 67% 74% 81% Total Less than * Note: the responses to these questions may have been influenced by the respondent lists used to gather data for this survey. 37

38 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.1 Number of Employees Relocated in 2017 By Company Size () Total Less than None 2% 4% 1% 0% % 63% 18% 3% % 13% 13% 7% % 8% 18% 10% % 6% 21% 7% % 2% 13% 16% % 3% 9% 18% 400 or more 15% 1% 8% 39% Median

39 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.2 Companies that Relocate Employees Between Countries* By Company Size () 79% 52% 47% 29% Total Less than * % of companies answering Yes 39

40 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.3 Is Your Company 42% 25% Less than 500 Regional 24% International 47% 33% 21% Total 44% National 29% 19% 9% 36% %

41 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.4 Compared to 2016, Did the Number of Employees You Relocated in 2017 Increase Significantly 13% Decrease Significantly 2% Decrease Somewhat 10% 13% 8% Less than 500 3% 23% 53% 13% 10% Increase Somewhat 32% Total Stay About The Same 43% 12% 1% 12% 38% 3% 37% % 39%

42 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.5 Compared to 2016, Did Your 2017 Relocation Budget Decrease Significantly 1% Increase Decrease Significantly Somewhat 11% 8% 20% 5% 10% Less than 500 1% 63% 12% 4% Increase Somewhat 32% Total Stay About The Same 48% 12% 0% 14% 40% 3% 40% % 39%

43 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.6 Compared to 2017, Do You Anticipate that the Number of Employees Your Company Will Relocate During 2018 Will Decrease Significantly 3% 19% 9% Less than % 5% Increase Significantly 11% Decrease Somewhat 11% 53% 13% 7% Increase Somewhat 27% Total Stay About The Same 48% 12% 12% 1% 32% 2% 46% % 44%

44 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.7 Compared to 2017, Do You Anticipate that Your Relocation Budget in 2018 Will Decrease Significantly 1% 22% 8% 13% Less than 500 2% Increase Significantly 13% Decrease Somewhat 11% 56% 17% 8% Increase Somewhat 31% Total Stay About The Same 44% 14% 1% 13% 35% 1% 39% % 37%

45 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.8 Companies that had Employees Decline the Opportunity to Relocate in 2017* By Company Size () 78% 59% 62% 39% Total Less than * % of companies answering Yes / excludes those who don t know 45

46 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.9 Companies Indicating Declining Relocation Usually Hinders an Employee s Career* By Company Size () 28% 31% 29% 25% Total Less than * % of companies answering Yes 46

47 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.10a Companies Indicating They Offered Non-Standard Additional Incentives or Exceptions to Encourage Employee Relocations in 2017* 86% By Company Size () 81% 88% 90% * % of companies indicating Yes Total Less than

48 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.10b Additional Non-Standard Incentives or Exceptions Offered By Companies to Encourage Employee Relocations in 2017* Total Extended Temporary Housing Benefits Relocation Bonuses Cost-of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs) in Salary at New Location Telecommuting Option (1-2 days/week) to Curtail Commuting Costs Guarantee of Employment Contract (for specified length of time) Extended Duplicate Housing Benefits Guaranteed Buyout Option (origin home) Buyer Value Option (origin home) Loss-on-Sale Protection Mortgage Payoffs/Loans (if property sale won't cover employee mortgage debt) 27% 23% 20% 18% 17% 16% 10% 47% 56% 53% * of those who offered incentives or exceptions (Q10a) Other 4% 48

49 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.10b Additional Non-Standard Incentives or Exceptions Offered By Companies to Encourage Employee Relocations in 2017* By Company Size () Additional Incentives or Exceptions Offered Total Less than Extended Temporary Housing Benefits 56% 50% 52% 64% Relocation Bonuses 53% 51% 57% 51% Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) in Salary at New Location 47% 37% 46% 56% Telecommuting Option (1-2 days/week) to Curtail Commuting Costs 27% 21% 23% 35% Guarantee of Employment Contract (for specified length of time) 23% 23% 35% 12% Extended Duplicate Housing Benefits 20% 15% 19% 27% Guaranteed Buyout Option (origin home) 18% 13% 12% 29% Buyer Value Option (origin home) 17% 7% 13% 29% Loss-on-Sale Protection 16% 9% 12% 27% Mortgage Payoffs/Loans (if property sale won t cover employee mortgage debt) 10% 9% 11% 10% Other 4% 6% 2% 5% * of those who offered incentives or exceptions (Q10a) 49

50 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.10c Frequency of Incentives or Exceptions Proving Successful in Convincing an Employee to Relocate* Never 1% 34% 2% 13% Less than 500 Almost always 28% Seldom 12% 51% 25% 11% Total 3% Frequently 58% 27% 0% 11% 61% * of those who offered incentives or exceptions (Q10a) / excludes not applicable/don t know responses 62%

51 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.11 Did the Number of Employees Declining Relocation in 2017 * 13% 14% Less than 500 Increase from % 74% 20% Decrease from % Total Remain About the Same as % 19% 13% 67% % * excludes those who don t know 69%

52 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.11a Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation* Total Family Issues/Ties Spouse's/Partner's Employment 55% 64% Personal Reasons (non-disclosed) Destination Location Cost of Living in New Location No Desire to Relocate 44% 36% 34% 30% Housing/Mortgage Concerns Job Security Concerns 13% 20% Other 3% * of companies who had declined relocations in 2017 (Q8) 52

53 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.11a Reasons Employees Gave for Declining Relocation* By Company Size () Reasons for Declined Relocation Total Less than Family Issues/Ties 64% 53% 63% 71% Spouse s/partner s Employment 55% 53% 56% 54% Personal Reasons (non-disclosed) 44% 29% 40% 55% Destination Location 36% 27% 40% 38% Cost of Living in New Location 34% 29% 31% 40% No Desire to Relocate 30% 37% 26% 30% Housing/Mortgage Concerns 20% 14% 28% 16% Job Security Concerns 13% 10% 17% 11% Other 3% 6% 0% 5% * of companies who had declined relocations in 2017 (Q8) 53

54 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12a Number of Employees Relocated in 2017: Within the U.S.* None 6% Don't know 2% 8% 6% 1% 5% 4% Less than % 64% 12% 5% 0% Total % 23% 21% % % % 3% 6% 6% 8% 10% 16% 15% 18% % * of those who relocated employees (Q1) 61%

55 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12a Number of Employees Relocated in 2017: Between the U.S. and Canada* Less than 500 2% 2% 0% 3% 10% 1% % 81% 21% % % % % Don't know 6% Total * of those who relocated employees (Q1) None 59% 29% 7% 7% 3% 5% 14% 36% 7% 5% 3% 3% 1% %

56 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12a Number of Employees Relocated in 2017: Between the U.S. and Another Country* % 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 14% Less than % % % 100+ Don't 8% know 5% Total None 51% 8% 17% 78% 23% 10% 19% 5% 3% 6% 4% 52% % 10% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) 13% 19%

57 % % % % Don't know 11% Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12a Number of Employees Relocated in 2017: Within a Single Foreign Country* % Total None 64% 2% 0% 1% 6% 5% 14% 1% 85% Less than % 3% 3% 1% 3% 5% 68% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) 8% 7% 3% 3% 24% 39%

58 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12a Number of Employees Relocated in 2017: Between Two Foreign Countries* 2% 1% 6% 4% Less than % % % Don t know 9% % % Total None 64% 13% 5% 6% 0% 0% 86% 38% 10% 5% 5% 3% 5% 5% 68% % 14% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) 19%

59 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12b Most Frequent Destinations of Transfer in 2017: Within the U.S.* 27% 8% 12% Less than 500 Midwest 30% Total Central 13% Southwest 14% West 27% 38% 26% 19% 32% 15% 19% Northeast 38% South 26% 31% 15% 11% 32% 36% 22% 29% % * of those who relocated employees (Q1) / excludes N/A responses 30%

60 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12b Most Frequent Destinations of Transfer in 2017: Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region* Total Europe (Western) United States United Kingdom Asia Canada Europe (Eastern) Middle East Australia/Pacific Rim Central America/Caribbean South America Africa (North) Africa (Sub-Saharan) Russia Other 14% 10% 8% 8% 8% 4% 2% 1% 5% 27% 27% 25% 25% 22% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) / excludes N/A responses 60

61 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12b Most Frequent Destinations of Transfer in 2017: Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region* * of those who relocated employees (Q1) / excludes N/A responses By Company Size () Most Frequent International Destination Total Less than Europe (Western) 27% 14% 17% 39% United States 27% 27% 34% 22% United Kingdom 25% 16% 28% 27% Asia 25% 19% 20% 30% Canada 22% 27% 26% 17% Europe (Eastern) 14% 8% 14% 15% Middle East 10% 5% 11% 12% Australia/Pacific Rim 8% 3% 7% 11% Central America/Caribbean 8% 8% 9% 7% South America 8% 8% 8% 8% Africa (North) 4% 8% 7% 0% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 2% 3% 4% 0% Russia 1% 3% 0% 1% Other 5% 11% 0% 6% 61

62 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12b Most Frequent Destinations of Transfer in 2017: Within a Single Foreign Country/Region* Total United States Europe (Western) Asia United Kingdom Canada Europe (Eastern) Central America/Caribbean Middle East Australia/Pacific Rim South America Russia Africa (North) Africa (Sub-Saharan) Other 7% 7% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 2% 21% 18% 18% 14% 12% 33% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) / excludes N/A responses 62

63 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12b Most Frequent Destinations of Transfer in 2017: Within a Single Foreign Country/Region* By Company Size () Most Frequent Intraregional Destination Total Less than United States 33% 29% 43% 28% Europe (Western) 21% 0% 17% 30% Asia 18% 6% 17% 22% United Kingdom 18% 18% 26% 13% Canada 14% 12% 17% 13% Europe (Eastern) 12% 6% 19% 9% Central America/Caribbean 7% 12% 7% 6% Middle East 7% 12% 5% 7% Australia/Pacific Rim 6% 12% 2% 6% South America 6% 12% 5% 4% Russia 3% 6% 7% 0% Africa (North) 2% 0% 7% 0% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 2% 0% 2% 1% Other 2% 0% 0% 4% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) / excludes N/A responses 63

64 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12b Most Frequent Destinations of Transfer in 2017: Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions* Total Europe (Western) United States Asia United Kingdom Europe (Eastern) Middle East Canada South America Australia/Pacific Rim Central America/Caribbean Africa (North) Africa (Sub-Saharan) Russia Other 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 18% 15% 14% 13% 11% 31% 35% 35% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) / excludes N/A responses 64

65 Relocation Volumes & Budgets Q.12b Most Frequent Destinations of Transfer in 2017: Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions* By Company Size () Most Frequent Interregional Destination Total Less than Europe (Western) 35% 13% 24% 47% United States 35% 38% 40% 32% Asia 31% 25% 24% 37% United Kingdom 18% 13% 24% 16% Europe (Eastern) 15% 0% 14% 19% Middle East 14% 19% 10% 15% Canada 13% 0% 21% 11% South America 11% 25% 10% 10% Australia/Pacific Rim 7% 6% 5% 8% Central America/Caribbean 5% 13% 10% 1% Africa (North) 4% 0% 5% 4% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 4% 0% 10% 1% Russia 4% 6% 5% 3% Other 4% 0% 5% 4% * of those who relocated employees (Q1) / excludes N/A responses 65

66 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.13 External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2017 Total External Conditions Had No Impact 17% Lack of Qualified People Locally 44% Economic Conditions Growth of Domestic Competition Growth of International Competition Political/Regulatory Environment-Domestic or International Real Estate Market U.S. Tax Reform Legislation/Tax Compliance Challenges Natural/Man-Made Disasters-Domestic or International Other 21% 17% 13% 13% 11% 9% 7% 5% 66

67 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.13 External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2017 By Company Size () External Factors Impacting Relocations Total Less than External Conditions Had No Impact 17% 17% 13% 21% Lack of Qualified People Locally 44% 49% 40% 43% Economic Conditions 21% 14% 26% 22% Growth of Domestic Competition 17% 13% 22% 16% Growth of International Competition 13% 3% 14% 21% Political/Regulatory Environment Domestic or International (i.e. visa/immigration restrictions, Brexit, etc.) 13% 11% 12% 15% Real Estate Market 11% 15% 11% 7% U.S. Tax Reform Legislation/Tax Compliance Challenges 9% 6% 11% 10% Natural/Man-Made Disasters Domestic or International (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, war/civil unrest, etc.) 7% 4% 8% 8% Other 5% 8% 5% 3% 67

68 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.14 Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2017 Total Internal Conditions Had No Impact Growth of Company Knowledge/Skills Transfers Promotions/Resignations Cooperate Reorganization/Restructuring Expansion into New Territories Acquisitions/Mergers Budget Constraints Expansion of Facility International Expansion Increased Production Closing of Facility Use of Short-term Assignments Technology Deployment/Integration Use of Frequent Business Travel/Telecommuting Employee Ineligibility to Relocate Other 2% 6% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 7% 22% 19% 14% 13% 13% 11% 28% 37% 31% 68

69 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.14 Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in By Company Size () Internal Conditions Impacting Relocations Total Less than Internal Conditions Had No Impact 6% 10% 6% 3% Growth of Company 37% 35% 38% 39% Knowledge/Skills Transfers 31% 26% 24% 42% Promotions/Resignations 28% 24% 28% 32% Corporate Reorganization/Restructuring 22% 17% 18% 31% Expansion into New Territories 19% 13% 16% 28% Acquisitions/Mergers 14% 6% 13% 23% Budget Constraints 13% 10% 12% 18% Expansion of Facility 13% 9% 14% 16% International Expansion 11% 6% 10% 18% Increased Production 11% 8% 10% 14% Closing of Facility 10% 6% 8% 16% Use of Short-Term Assignments 9% 7% 8% 14% Technology Deployment/Integration 9% 5% 10% 12% Use of Frequent Business Travel/Telecommuting 8% 5% 8% 11% Employee Ineligibility to Relocate 7% 4% 10% 6% Other 2% 2% 3% 1% 69

70 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.15 Rating of Company s Overall Financial Performance in % Less than 500 Same as in % 65% 9% 23% Better than % Total Worse than % 13% 12% 69% 8% %

71 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.15 Rating of Emerging Global Market Economies in % Less than 500 Better than % Total Same as in % Worse than % 58% 4% 30% 61% 30% 9% % 4%

72 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.15 Rating of Developed Global Market Economies in % 39% Less than 500 Better than % Total Same as in % Worse than % 12% 30% 57% 38% 5% % 4%

73 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.15 Rating of U.S. Economy in % Less than % Better than % Total Same as in % Worse than % 8% 21% 59% 31% 10% % 69%

74 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.15 Rating of U.S. Real Estate Market in % 40% Less than 500 Better than % Total Same as in % Worse than % 10% 29% 56% 32% 13% % 6%

75 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.16 Anticipated Overall Financial Performance of Company in % Less than 500 Same as in % 64% 5% Better than % Total Worse than % 68% 28% 4% 23% % 72%

76 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.16 Anticipated Emerging Global Market Economies in 2018 Less than % 43% Better than % Total Worse than % Same as in % 8% 39% 62% 32% 6% % 5%

77 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.16 Anticipated Developed Global Market Economies in 2018 Less than % 44% Better than % Total Same as in % 6% 54% 36% Worse than % 53% 42% 11% %

78 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.16 Anticipated U.S. Economy in % Less than 500 Better than % Total Same as in % 57% 10% 54% 34% Worse than % 35% 11% % 10%

79 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.16 Anticipated U.S. Real Estate Market in 2018 Less than % 49% Better than % Total Same as in % 9% 48% 38% Worse than % 43% 49% 14% %

80 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2018 Number of Relocations Performed Increase Significantly 7% Increase Somewhat 14% Unsure 12% Decrease Significantly 3% Total Decrease Somewhat 16% Stay About The Same 47% 7% 10% 6% 17% Less than % 4% 10% 10% 47% 3% 21% 11% 23% 10% 1% 14% 42% %

81 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2018 Complexity of Relocation Administration Unsure 12% Decrease Significantly Decrease 3% Somewhat 7% 3% 18% Less than 500 3% 10% 40% Increase Significantly 11% Increase Somewhat 29% Total Stay About The Same 39% 24% 8% 10% 11% 1% 9% 7% 10% 4% 31% 39% % 38%

82 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2018 Relocation Costs Increase Significantly 22% Unsure 11% Decrease Significantly Decrease 2% Somewhat 7% Total Stay About The Same 29% 7% 17% Less than 500 4% 7% 40% 24% 8% 10% 23% 2% 28% Increase Somewhat 29% 36% 9% 4% 19% 0% 30% %

83 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2018 Relocation Policy Changes Decrease Significantly 1% Decrease Somewhat 3% 8% 1% 3% 15% Less than 500 Increase Significantly 13% Unsure 11% Increase Somewhat 28% Total Stay About The Same 43% 21% 19% 8% 52% 1%2% 37% 10% 5% 12% 2% 29% 40% %

84 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2018 Difficulty Recruiting Employees to Relocate Decrease Significantly Decrease 2% Somewhat 6% 8% 2% 6% 15% Less than 500 Unsure 14% 19% 50% Increase Significantly 8% Increase Somewhat 20% Total Stay About The Same 50% 3% 12% 8% 1% 7% 24% 14% 4% 7% 44% % 57%

85 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Number of Relocations Performed Decrease Significantly 3% 20% 6% 8% Less than 500 Unsure 17% Decrease Somewhat 9% 9% 25% 33% 13% 7% Increase Significantly 10% Increase Somewhat 26% Total Stay About The Same 37% 17% 10% 11% 2% 10% 29% 1% 40% % 37%

86 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Complexity of Relocation Administration Decrease Significantly Decrease 3% Somewhat 6% 22% 2% 3% 34% Less than 500 Increase Significantly 11% Unsure 17% Increase Somewhat 26% Total Stay About The Same 37% 17% 22% 16% 5% 9% 8% 14% 7% 8% 3% 32% 37% % 39%

87 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Relocation Costs Decrease Significantly Decrease 1% Somewhat 5% 19% 1% 6% 24% Less than 500 Increase Significantly 17% Unsure 15% Total Stay About The Same 24% 15% 35% 12% 6% 13% 1% 27% Increase Somewhat 38% 3% 14% 1% 22% 22% 40% %

88 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Relocation Policy Changes Decrease Significantly Decrease 3% Somewhat 3% 21% 3% 4% Less than 500 Unsure 17% 11% 19% 41% 16% 3% Increase Significantly 10% Increase Somewhat 26% Total Stay About The Same 40% 14% 10% 3%2% 44% 8% 32% 3% 36% %

89 Factors Impacting Relocations Q.17 Projected Impact of U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Difficulty Recruiting Employees to Relocate Decrease Significantly 3% Decrease Somewhat 4% 22% 5% 3% Less than 500 Unsure 19% 9% 18% 44% 18% 7% Increase Significantly 10% Increase Somewhat 19% Total Stay About The Same 44% 18% 2%3% 10% 10% 25% 3% 38% % 51%

90 Policy Administration Q.18a Companies Anticipating Making Changes to Relocation Policy in 2018 in Response to the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act* By Company Size () 74% 78% 87% 58% * % of companies indicating Yes Total Less than

91 Policy Administration Q.18b Changes to Relocation Policy Anticipated in 2018 in Response to Tax Reform* Total Gross-Up on Taxable Relocation Benefits 59% Expand Use of Lump Sums 35% Streamline Relocation Processes to Reduce Costs 34% Restructure Relocation Policy/Policy Tiers 33% Withhold on Taxable Relocation Benefits 25% Other 4% * of companies anticipating changes (Q18a) 91

92 Policy Administration Q.18b Changes to Relocation Policy Anticipated in 2018 in Response to Tax Reform* By Company Size () Policy Changes Anticipated Total Less than Gross-Up on Taxable Relocation Benefits 59% 45% 55% 71% Expand Use of Lump Sums 35% 36% 32% 37% Streamline Relocation Processes to Reduce Costs Restructure Relocation Policy/ Policy Tiers Withhold on Taxable Relocation Benefits 34% 28% 37% 35% 33% 24% 32% 40% 25% 36% 25% 18% Other 4% 5% 4% 3% * of companies anticipating changes (Q18a) 92

93 Policy Administration Q.19 Does Your Company Have a Formal Global Mobility Strategy?* Total Yes, Basic Policies & Procedures 32% Yes, Extensive Policies & Procedures & Risk Mitigation 22% Yes, Extensive Policies & Procedures, Risk Mitigation, & Supporting Technology 22% No, & We Have No Plans to Create One 16% No, but We Plan to Develop In the Next Year 9% * excludes N/A responses 93

94 Policy Administration Q.19 Does Your Company Have a Formal Global Mobility Strategy?* By Company Size () Global Mobility Strategy Total Less than Yes, Basic Policies & Procedures 32% 34% 35% 30% Yes, Extensive Policies & Procedures & Risk Mitigation Yes, Extensive Policies & Procedures, Risk Mitigation, & Supporting Technology No, We Do Not Have a Formal Global Mobility Strategy & Have No Plans to Create One No, but We Plan to Develop a Formal Global Mobility Strategy In the Next Year 22% 20% 22% 22% 22% 9% 23% 27% 16% 25% 14% 13% 9% 12% 6% 9% * excludes N/A responses 94

95 Policy Administration Q.20 Companies with a Formal Policy for: Domestic Relocations* By Company Size () 79% 85% 90% 62% Total Less than * % of companies answering Yes 95

96 Policy Administration Q.20 Companies with a Formal Policy for: Short-Term/Temporary Assignments* By Company Size () 72% 53% 55% 32% Total Less than * % of companies answering Yes 96

97 Policy Administration Q.20 Companies with a Formal Policy for: Extended Business Travel* By Company Size () 46% 36% 48% 54% Total Less than * % of companies answering Yes 97

98 Policy Administration Q.20 Companies with a Formal Policy for: Long-Distance Commuter* By Company Size () 34% 23% 38% 39% Total Less than * % of companies answering Yes 98

99 Policy Administration Q.21a-1 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Domestic Relocation Policy? 2% 4% No Tiers/ Single Policy 32% Total Five or More 8% Four 12% 53% 16% 24% Less than % 8% 8% Two 21% Three 28% 12% 16% 14% 23% 25% 31% %

100 Policy Administration Q.21a-1 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within Domestic Relocation Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of companies with domestic tiers/levels (Q21a-1) 100

101 Policy Administration Q.21a-2 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Short- Term/Temporary Assignments (less than 12 months) Relocation Policy?* Five or more 3% 12% Less than 500 No Tiers/ Single Policy 54% Total Four 3% Three 15% Two 24% 60% 2% 0% 5% 3% 26% 15% 49% 1% 4% 18% 28% % 21% * of companies with short-term/temporary assignments relocation policy (Q20)

102 Policy Administration Q.21a-2 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within Short-Term/Temporary Assignments Relocation Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of companies with short-term/temporary assignments relocation policy tiers/levels (Q21a-2) 102

103 Policy Administration Q.21a-3 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Extended Business Travel Policy?* Five or more 3% Four 4% 2%2% 6% 17% Less than 500 Three 14% 72% 6% No Tiers/ Single Policy 62% Total Two 18% 4% 4% 15% 51% 2% 17% 25% % 12% * of companies with extended business travel policy (Q20)

104 Policy Administration Q.21a-3 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within Extended Business Travel Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of companies with extended business travel policy tiers/levels (Q21a-3) 104

105 Policy Administration Q.21a-4 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Long-Distance Commuter Policy?* Five or more 2% 3% 15% Less than 500 Four 6% Three 16% 58% 0% 24% 10% No Tiers/ Single Policy 53% Total Two 23% 4% 6% 15% 42% 2% 29% 17% * of companies with long-distance commuter policy (Q20) 59% 17%

106 Policy Administration Q.21a-4 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within Long-Distance Commuter Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of companies with long-distance commuter policy tiers/levels (Q21a-4) 106

107 Policy Administration Q.21b What Are Your Different Tiers (or Levels) Based On?* Total Job or Grade Level Position/Job Title 49% 57% Homeowner/Renter Status New Hire/Current Employee Status Length of Assignment Assignment Location/Region Company vs. Employee Initiated Assignment Objectives 29% 24% 23% 19% 15% 14% Other 2% * of companies with domestic tiers/levels (Q21a-1) 107

108 Policy Administration Q.21b What Are Your Different Tiers (or Levels) Based On?* By Company Size () Bases for Domestic Policy Tiers (or Levels) Total Less than Job or Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) 57% 50% 51% 65% Position/Job Title 49% 53% 48% 47% Homeowner/Renter Status 29% 15% 24% 40% New Hire/Current Employee Status 24% 23% 25% 25% Length of Assignment 23% 20% 22% 26% Assignment Location/Region 19% 23% 20% 15% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 15% 13% 13% 17% Assignment Objectives (i.e. developmental, etc.) 14% 13% 12% 16% Other 2% 2% 3% 1% * of companies with domestic tiers/levels (Q21a-1) 108

109 Policy Administration Q.22a Companies Whose Relocation Policy Incorporate Aspects of a Fixed Benefits/Flexible Benefits, List-Driven Policy* By Company Size () 82% 92% 90% 65% * % of companies indicating Yes Total Less than

110 Policy Administration Q.22b Aspects of a Fixed Benefits/Flexible Benefits, List-Driven Policy Incorporated into Relocation Policy* Total Relocation Benefit Coverage of Specific Items (i.e. fixed components) (dependent on employee level/category) Relocation Benefit Coverage of Specific Items (i.e. fixed components) (all employees) 41% 47% Flexible Use of Full Relocation Benefit Coverage (all employees) Flexible Use of Full Relocation Benefit Coverage (dependent on employee level/category) Flexible Use of a Portion of Relocation Benefit Coverage (dependent on employee level/category) Flexible Use of a Portion of Relocation Benefit Coverage (all employees) 23% 17% 13% 11% Other 1% * of those incorporating fixed/flex policy elements (Q22a) 110

111 Policy Administration Q.22b Aspects of a Fixed Benefits/Flexible Benefits, List-Driven Policy Incorporated into Relocation Policy* Fixed/Flex Policy Elements Total Less than Relocation Benefit Coverage of Specific Items (i.e. fixed components) (dependent on employee level/category) Relocation Benefit Coverage of Specific Items (i.e. fixed components) (all employees) Flexible Use of Full Relocation Benefit Coverage (all employees) Flexible Use of Full Relocation Benefit Coverage (dependent on employee level/category) By Company Size () Flexible Use of a Portion of Relocation Benefit Coverage (dependent on employee level/category) Flexible Use of a Portion of Relocation Benefit Coverage (all employees) 47% 41% 44% 53% 41% 43% 41% 39% 23% 25% 20% 24% 17% 12% 20% 17% 13% 13% 8% 17% 11% 9% 13% 11% Other 1% 1% 1% 2% * of those incorporating fixed/flex policy elements (Q22a) 111

112 Policy Administration Q. 22c Relocation Costs That Are Considered Fixed Benefits Within the Relocation Policy* Total Travel Expenses (final move) Household Goods Shipping Temporary Housing Travel Expenses (home finding trip(s)) Miscellaneous Expense Allowances Storage Real Estate Assistance/Transaction Costs (origin) Rental Assistance/Transaction Costs Real Estate Assistance/Transaction Costs (destination) 52% 51% 50% 44% 39% 38% 32% 30% 27% Other 5% None of the Above 15% * of those incorporating fixed/flex policy elements (Q22a) 112

113 Policy Administration Q.22c Relocation Costs That Are Considered Fixed Benefits Within the Relocation Policy* Fixed Benefits Policy Costs Total Less than Travel Expenses (final move) 52% 39% 57% 60% Household Goods Shipping 51% 40% 51% 63% Temporary Housing 50% 33% 53% 63% Travel Expenses (home finding trip(s)) 44% 37% 48% 48% Miscellaneous Expense Allowances 39% 24% 40% 53% Storage 38% 24% 46% 45% Real Estate Assistance/Transaction Costs (origin/selling) 32% 17% 36% 44% Rental Assistance/Transaction Costs 30% 19% 32% 38% Real Estate Assistance/Transaction Costs (destination/purchasing) By Company Size () 27% 11% 34% 36% Other 5% 2% 3% 9% None of the Above Are Considered Fixed Benefits 15% 27% 8% 10% * of those incorporating fixed/flex policy elements (Q22a) 113

114 Policy Administration Q.23a Companies Who Administer Employee Relocations from a Centralized Department/Team* By Company Size () 79% 88% 90% 59% Total Less than * % of companies indicating Yes 114

115 Policy Administration Q.23b - Does Your Company s Centralized Relocation/Mobility Department/Team * Total Development/Maintenance of Relocation Policy Manage Domestic Relocation Programs Control Household Goods Carrier Selection Manage International Relocation Programs Control Additional Relocation Services Provider(s) Manage Business Travel Programs Coordinate Visa Applications/Immigration Policy Impact Talent Management/Recruitment Control Freight Carrier Selection Coordinate Air Travel via Commercial Airlines Coordinate Office Relocations Develop/Maintain Mobility Risk Management & Mitigation 37% 37% 33% 28% 26% 26% 25% 23% 20% 19% 55% 59% * of those with a centralized relocation/mobility department (Q23a) / excludes those who don t know 115

116 Policy Administration Q.23b - Does Your Company s Centralized Relocation/Mobility Department/Team * By Company Size () Centralized Relocation/Mobility Dept/Team Duties Total Less than Development/Maintenance of Relocation Policy 59% 40% 56% 76% Manage Domestic Relocation Programs 55% 38% 51% 71% Control Household Goods Carrier Selection 37% 24% 34% 50% Manage International Relocation Programs 37% 14% 29% 60% Control Additional Relocation Services Provider(s) Selection 33% 20% 21% 54% Manage Business Travel Programs 28% 28% 29% 27% Coordinate Visa Applications/Immigration Policy 26% 22% 18% 37% Impact Talent Management/Recruitment Decisions/Processes 26% 26% 19% 31% Control Freight Carrier Selection (air, land, sea or rail) 25% 18% 20% 34% Coordinate Air Travel via Commercial Airlines 23% 27% 24% 20% Coordinate Office Relocations 20% 20% 26% 15% Develop/Maintain Mobility Risk Management & Mitigation 19% 8% 14% 31% * of those with a centralized relocation/mobility department (Q23a) / excludes those who don t know 116

117 Policy Administration Q.24 Respondents were given a list of cost containment measures that could have been used in relocation policy/practice in 2017 the answers received indicate that Total 0% Use Lump Sum Payments for Relocations Total Cost Containment Measures Used 33% Did Not Use Additional Measures 23% Used Additional Measures 77% Cap Relocation Benefit Amounts Limit Miscellaneous Expense Allowance Benefits (coverage items, amounts) Review/Renegotiate Supplier Contracts Restructure Policy Tiers/Eligibility for Certain Benefits Offer Short-Term/Extended Travel/ Commuter Arragements (no relocation) Offer Pre-Decision Counseling Modify COLA Offering Policy 27% 22% 20% 16% 16% 13% 12% Tighten Real Estate Assistance Requirements Other 1% 9% 117

118 Policy Administration Q.24 Cost Containment Measures in Relocation Policy/Practice Used in 2017 Cost Containment Measures Used Total Less than Use Lump Sum Payments for Relocations 33% 28% 34% 37% Cap Relocation Benefit Amounts 27% 24% 29% 30% Limit Miscellaneous Expense Allowance Benefits (coverage items, amounts) 22% 19% 18% 28% Review/Renegotiate Supplier Contracts 20% 10% 21% 30% Restructure Policy Tiers/Eligibility for Certain Benefits (i.e. add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement flexible policy, etc.) Offer Short-Term/Extended Travel/Commuter Arrangements Rather than Relocate Employees By Company Size () 16% 8% 16% 24% 16% 6% 14% 27% Offer Pre-Decision Counseling 13% 8% 12% 18% Modify COLA Offering Policy 12% 6% 10% 20% Tighten Real Estate Assistance Requirements 9% 4% 11% 12% Other 1% 1% 1% 1% No Cost Containment Measures Beyond Typical Relocation Policy or Program Utilized 23% 33% 18% 17% 118

119 Policy Administration Q.25 Number of Salaried (Non-Hourly) People Employed by Company By Company Size () Less than % % % 119

120 Policy Administration Q.26 In 2017, What Approximate Percentage of Your Company s Relocating Employees Were Classified (at Origin):* By Company Size () 46% 34% 44% 59% (Average Percent) Transferees 54% 66% 56% 41% New Hires * excludes those who don t know Total Less than

121 Policy Administration Q.26 In 2017, What Approximate Percentage of Your Company s Relocating Employees Were Classified (at Origin):* By Company Size () 47% 46% 47% 49% 38% 38% 36% 41% (Average Percent) Homeowners Renters Neither 15% 17% 16% 11% * excludes those who don t know Total Less than

122 Policy Administration Q.26 In 2017, What Approximate Percentage of Your Company s Relocating Employees Were Classified (at Origin):* By Company Size () 33% 35% 36% 30% (Average Percent) Executives/Top Level 48% 50% 45% 49% Mid-Level Entry Level 19% 16% 20% 21% Total Less than * excludes those who don t know 122

123 Policy Administration Q.27a Length of Time Employees Have to Accept a Relocation Offer* 1 week or less 21% Up to 2 weeks 37% More than 3 months 4% Total Up to 3 months 5% Up to 2 months 4% Up to 3 weeks 11% Up to 1 month 19% 19% 46% 30% 2%2% 6% 17% 8% 6% 8% 3% 16% Less than % 14% 4% 6% 4% 18% 22% * excludes those who don t know 33% 5%

124 Policy Administration Q.27b Length of Time Employees Have to Report to Work at the New Location* 1 week or less 5% 16% 7% 4% 14% Less than 500 Up to 3 weeks 12% Up to 2 weeks 14% More than 3 months 8% Up to 3 months 14% Total Up to 1 month 34% Up to 2 months 14% 8% 30% 14% 4% 11% 16% 20% 17% 17% 11% 6% 4% 38% 12% 12% * excludes those who don t know 32% 8%

125 Policy Administration Q.28 Average Number of Expense-Paid TRIPS with SPOUSE/PARTNER to Find Housing in New Location* By Company Size () Total Less than * excludes those who don t know 125

126 Policy Administration Q.28 Average Number of Expense-Paid DAYS EMPLOYEES are Allowed for House-Hunting Trips (Total Amount)* By Company Size () Total Less than * excludes those who don t know 126

127 Policy Administration Q.29 Respondents were given a list of possible relocation-related uses for the Internet/technology in 2017 the answers received indicate that Total Internet/Technology Uses Total Did Not Use 4% Communicate Via with Relocating Employees 83% Complete Online Forms for Employee Relocation 42% Initiate/Execute Employee Relocation Services 37% Research Relocation-Related Matters 36% Used Internet/ Technology 96% Access Relocation Company Website for Reporting/Other Services Communicate Via Text/Messaging with Relocating Employees Research Relocation Service Providers Audit/Verify Prices Quoted for Relocation Services Utilize Mobile Applications from Relocation Providers Utilize Social Media/Networking Tools 33% 31% 28% 24% 20% 12% Other 0% 127

128 Policy Administration Q.29 How the Internet/Technology Was Used for Relocation-Related Matters in 2017 By Company Size () Internet/Technology Use Total Less than Communicate via with Relocating Employees 83% 84% 80% 86% Complete Online Forms for Employee Relocation 42% 28% 36% 61% Initiate/Execute Employee Relocation Services 37% 22% 28% 62% Research Relocation-Related Matters (policy, benchmarking, etc.) 36% 24% 29% 54% Access Relocation Company Website for Reporting or Other Services 33% 16% 29% 53% Communicate via Text/Messaging with Relocating Employees 31% 32% 29% 32% Research Relocation Service Providers 28% 24% 25% 34% Audit/Verify Prices Quoted for Relocation Services 24% 17% 25% 30% Utilize Mobile Applications from Relocation Providers 20% 12% 18% 31% Utilize Social Media/Networking Tools (internal/external platforms) 12% 15% 8% 14% Other 0% 1% 0% 0% Did Not Use the Internet/Technology for Relocation-Related Matters in % 6% 3% 2% 128

129 Policy Administration Q.30 Is Your Company Utilizing Alternative Assignments? Total No, and We Do Not Plan to Use Them 39% Yes, Internationally (Limited Basis) Yes, Domestically (Limited Basis) 22% 21% Yes, Internationally (Frequently) Yes, Domestically (Frequently) No, but We Plan to Use Them in the Coming Year 12% 11% 9% Other 1% 129

130 Policy Administration Q.30 Is Your Company Utilizing Alternative Assignments? By Company Size () Alternative Assignments Use Total Less than No, and We Do Not Plan to Use Them 39% 60% 36% 22% Yes, Internationally (Limited Basis) 22% 13% 21% 32% Yes, Domestically (Limited Basis) 21% 14% 21% 28% Yes, Internationally (Frequently) 12% 6% 12% 19% Yes, Domestically (Frequently) 11% 3% 13% 16% No, but We Plan to Use Them in the Coming Year 9% 9% 8% 8% Other 1% 0% 1% 1% 130

131 Policy Administration Q.30a How Are These Alternative Assignment Arrangements Incorporated into Your Organization s Overall Employee Mobility Strategy?* Total Used to Meet Strategic Business Goals Used in Place of Long-Term Assignments Used in Addition to Long-Term Assignments Used to Accommodate Employee Needs Used to Develop Internal Talent Used to Maximize Budget/Corporate Resources Used in Place of Traditional Short-Term Assignments 35% 35% 35% 30% 28% 27% 26% Used in Addition to Traditional Short-Term Assignments 19% Other 3% * of those utilizing alternative assignments (Q30) 131

132 Policy Administration Q.30a How Are These Alternative Assignment Arrangements Incorporated into Your Organization s Overall Employee Mobility Strategy?* By Company Size () Alternative Assignment Incorporation Total Less than Used to Meet Strategic Business Goals 35% 31% 24% 47% Used in Place of Long-Term Assignments 35% 38% 31% 37% Used in Addition to Long-Term Assignments 35% 19% 34% 43% Used to Accommodate Employee Needs 30% 22% 25% 39% Used to Develop Internal Talent 28% 29% 24% 30% Used to Maximize Budget/Corporate Resources 27% 19% 23% 35% Used in Place of Traditional Short-Term Assignment Arrangements Used in Addition to Traditional Short-Term Assignment Arrangements 26% 24% 30% 23% 19% 14% 14% 27% Other 3% 0% 4% 3% * of those utilizing alternative assignments (Q30) 132

133 Policy Administration Q.30b Key Factors Determining Alternative Assignment Use* Total Business Need 61% Assignment Purpose Cost Job Function Career Development Employee Requests 41% 39% 38% 30% 28% Other 3% * of those utilizing alternative assignments (Q30) 133

134 Policy Administration Q.30b Key Factors Determining Alternative Assignment Use* By Company Size () Key Factors Determining Alternative Assignment Use Total Less than Business Need 61% 60% 44% 76% Assignment Purpose 41% 33% 46% 42% Cost 39% 43% 31% 44% Job Function 38% 48% 37% 35% Career Development 30% 33% 32% 27% Employee Requests 28% 22% 30% 28% Other 3% 0% 4% 4% * of those utilizing alternative assignments (Q30) 134

135 Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires)* 70% 70% Total 57% 54%52% 52% 50% 50% 49% 46% 46% 45% 45% 38% 31% 39% *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 135

136 Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires)* By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses Total Less than Move an Automobile 70% 54% 73% 83% Pack All Items 70% 48% 71% 89% Move a Second Automobile 57% 41% 60% 70% Unpack All Items 54% 36% 62% 64% Move Exercise Equipment 52% 40% 52% 65% Partial/Custom Unpacking of Items 52% 35% 55% 64% Move Unlimited Weight 50% 36% 52% 61% Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects 50% 38% 57% 54% Move via Containerized Shipment 49% 39% 56% 51% Carry Items Down from the Attic 46% 36% 51% 52% Move Recreation/Lawn Equipment 46% 38% 49% 51% Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some Possessions 45% 36% 46% 52% Move Pets 45% 36% 52% 46% Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence (summer home, relative s home, etc.) 38% 33% 44% 36% Move a Boat 31% 24% 37% 32% Company Does Not Pay OR Only Offers Lump Sum 39% 53% 40% 26% *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 136

137 Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires) 44% 39% Entry Level Total 31% 29%28% 28% 27% 26% 25% 30% 23% 20% 20% 17% 13% 9% 137

138 Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires) Entry Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses Entry Level Total Less than Pack All Items 44% 27% 43% 57% Move an Automobile 39% 31% 37% 47% Move Exercise Equipment 31% 24% 29% 38% Unpack All Items 29% 21% 34% 31% Move Pets 28% 22% 32% 29% Move Via Containerized Shipment 28% 21% 32% 29% Carry Items Down from the Attic 27% 21% 32% 28% Partial/Custom Unpacking of Items 26% 18% 30% 29% Move Unlimited Weight 25% 13% 26% 32% Move Recreation/Lawn Equipment 23% 19% 23% 26% Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects 20% 14% 23% 22% Move a Second Automobile 20% 14% 19% 25% Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some Possessions 17% 16% 17% 16% Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence (summer home, relative s home, etc.) 13% 16% 10% 14% Move a Boat 9% 8% 9% 10% Company Does Not Pay OR Only Offers Lump Sum 30% 45% 24% 23% 138

139 39% 37%35% 34% 34% 34% 33% 33% 33% Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires) 58% 56% Mid-Level Total 28% 27% 20% 24% 12% 139

140 Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires) Mid-Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses Mid-Level Total Less than Move an Automobile 58% 36% 61% 73% Pack All Items 56% 35% 54% 75% Move Exercise Equipment 39% 30% 35% 51% Unpack All Items 37% 24% 42% 43% Partial/Custom Unpacking of Items 35% 23% 39% 42% Move via Containerized Shipment 34% 26% 35% 39% Carry Items Down from the Attic 34% 25% 31% 43% Move a Second Automobile 34% 20% 35% 43% Move Pets 33% 24% 37% 38% Move Recreation/Lawn Equipment 33% 28% 32% 38% Move Unlimited Weight 33% 21% 31% 44% Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some Possessions 28% 25% 28% 30% Move Collection of Highly Valuable Objects 27% 20% 28% 30% Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence (summer home, relative s home, etc.) 20% 16% 22% 20% Move a Boat 12% 10% 11% 14% Company Does Not Pay OR Only Offers Lump Sum 24% 41% 22% 11% 140

141 Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires) 64% 63% Executive/Top Level Total 53% 49%47% 44% 43% 43% 40% 39% 39% 38% 38% 30% 25% 20% 141

142 Relocation Costs Q.31 Does Your Company Reimburse/Pay to (for Transferees OR New Hires) Executive/Top Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses Exec/Top Level Total Less than Pack All Items 64% 42% 64% 85% Move an Automobile 63% 45% 63% 80% Move a Second Automobile 53% 36% 53% 69% Unpack All Items 49% 33% 52% 62% Move Exercise Equipment 47% 34% 44% 61% Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects 44% 33% 48% 50% Partial/Custom Unpacking of Items 43% 28% 45% 55% Move Unlimited Weight 43% 30% 39% 58% Move via Containerized Shipment 40% 29% 48% 43% Carry Items Down from the Attic 39% 31% 37% 48% Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some Possessions 39% 29% 40% 46% Move Recreation/Lawn Equipment 38% 30% 36% 48% Move Pets 38% 28% 43% 44% Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence (summer home, relative s home, etc.) 30% 24% 36% 29% Move a Boat 25% 17% 30% 27% Company Does Not Pay OR Only Offers Lump Sum 20% 39% 17% 6% 142

143 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company * 63% 61% 58% Total 52% 51% 46% 39% 39% 38% 36% 34% 34% 33% 29% 41% *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 143

144 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company * By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Buying Total Less than Offer Homefinding Trips 63% 41% 67% 80% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 61% 36% 68% 77% Offer Storage 58% 33% 66% 73% Reimburse/Pay for Home Sale Costs 52% 23% 57% 74% Reimburse/Pay for Home Purchase Costs 51% 23% 58% 72% Offer Home Marketing Assistance 46% 21% 47% 69% Offer Qualified Home Sale Program 39% 19% 38% 59% Reimburse/Pay for Federal Tax Liability 39% 20% 40% 55% Reimburse/Pay for Loss-On-Sale 38% 21% 40% 53% Offer Buyer Value Option for Origin Home 36% 19% 37% 52% Offer Guaranteed Buyout/Appraised Value Option for Origin Home 34% 15% 37% 50% Offer Duplicate Housing Assistance 34% 18% 35% 48% Offer Bonuses/Incentives for Employee-Generated Home-Sale 33% 14% 40% 45% Offer Mortgage Subsidy or Allowance 29% 18% 32% 35% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 41% 59% 37% 28% *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 144

145 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company 34% 34% 34% Entry Level Total 38% 20% 20% 18% 17% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12% 9% 145

146 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company Entry Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Buying Entry Level Total Less than Offer Storage 34% 17% 44% 41% Offer Homefinding Trips 34% 19% 38% 43% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 34% 18% 33% 48% Reimburse/Pay for Home Sale Costs 20% 12% 19% 30% Offer Home Marketing Assistance 20% 10% 21% 30% Reimburse/Pay for Federal Tax Liability 18% 10% 18% 27% Reimburse/Pay for Home Purchase Costs 17% 9% 18% 25% Offer Qualified Home Sale Program 14% 9% 11% 21% Reimburse/Pay for Loss-on-Sale 13% 9% 14% 17% Offer Bonuses/Incentives for Employee-Generated Home-Sale 13% 4% 17% 17% Offer Mortgage Subsidy or Allowance 12% 7% 14% 15% Offer Buyer Value Option for Origin Home 12% 11% 11% 14% Offer Duplicate Housing Assistance 12% 7% 13% 15% Offer Guaranteed Buyout/Appraised Value Option for Origin Home 9% 4% 10% 11% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 38% 59% 32% 26% 146

147 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company 55% 53% 46% Mid-Level Total 36% 36% 36% 29% 27% 25% 24% 23% 23% 20% 16% 27% 147

148 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company Mid-Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Buying Mid-Level Total Less than Offer Homefinding Trips 55% 31% 60% 70% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 53% 29% 59% 69% Offer Storage 46% 27% 50% 59% Reimburse/Pay for Home Sale Costs 36% 13% 40% 54% Offer Home Marketing Assistance 36% 15% 36% 55% Reimburse/Pay for Home Purchase Costs 36% 10% 42% 53% Reimburse/Pay for Federal Tax Liability 29% 13% 29% 42% Offer Qualified Home Sale Program 27% 8% 26% 46% Offer Duplicate Housing Assistance 25% 13% 26% 34% Offer Bonuses/Incentives for Employee-Generated Home-Sale 24% 9% 26% 34% Reimburse/Pay for Loss-On-Sale 23% 11% 22% 34% Offer Buyer Value Option for Origin Home 23% 10% 21% 36% Offer Guaranteed Buyout/Appraised Value Option for Origin Home 20% 10% 23% 24% Offer Mortgage Subsidy or Allowance 16% 5% 21% 21% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 27% 49% 19% 15% 148

149 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company 56% 55% 52% Executive/Top Level Total 46% 45% 40% 35% 33% 32% 29% 28% 27% 27% 22% 24% 149

150 Relocation Costs Q.32 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) is a Homeowner Who Will Be Buying (Not Renting), Does Your Company Executive/Top Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Buying Exec/Top Level Total Less than Offer Homefinding Trips 56% 37% 55% 75% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 55% 31% 60% 73% Offer Storage 52% 28% 59% 68% Reimburse/Pay for Home Sale Costs 46% 18% 47% 69% Reimburse/Pay for Home Purchase Costs 45% 20% 47% 67% Offer Home Marketing Assistance 40% 17% 37% 64% Offer Qualified Home Sale Program 35% 15% 34% 56% Reimburse/Pay for Loss-on-Sale 33% 16% 34% 49% Reimburse/Pay for Federal Tax Liability 32% 17% 30% 49% Offer Guaranteed Buyout/Appraised Value Option for Origin Home 29% 12% 27% 48% Offer Duplicate Housing Assistance 28% 13% 29% 42% Offer Bonuses/Incentives for Employee-Generated Home-Sale 27% 13% 29% 39% Offer Buyer Value Option for Origin Home 27% 15% 26% 39% Offer Mortgage Subsidy or Allowance 22% 13% 22% 30% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 24% 42% 20% 11% 150

151 Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company * 64% 59% 59% 54% Total 41% 33% 31% 28% 25% 35% *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 151

152 Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company * By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Renting Total Less than Offer Homefinding Trips 64% 45% 69% 77% Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 59% 36% 64% 75% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 59% 38% 65% 72% Offer Storage 54% 35% 60% 67% Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder s Fees 41% 20% 47% 55% Reimburse/Pay for Security Deposits 33% 27% 40% 31% Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees 31% 23% 40% 29% Reimburse/Pay for Furniture Rental 28% 17% 37% 29% Offer Rental Subsidy or Allowance 25% 17% 30% 27% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 35% 52% 31% 23% *composite percentage shown of those offering benefit to employees at some level (top tier, middle or lower) 152

153 Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company 42% 39% 39% 35% Entry Level Total 29% 23% 16% 15% 12% 12% 153

154 Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company Entry Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Renting Entry Level Total Less than Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 42% 25% 42% 55% Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 39% 25% 40% 50% Offer Homefinding Trips 39% 30% 44% 42% Offer Storage 35% 23% 36% 43% Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder s Fees 23% 7% 26% 33% Reimburse/Pay for Security Deposits 16% 14% 18% 17% Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees 15% 14% 16% 15% Reimburse/Pay for Furniture Rental 12% 9% 13% 15% Offer Rental Subsidy or Allowance 12% 7% 12% 16% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 29% 47% 22% 20% 154

155 Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company 53% 50% 46% 46% Mid-Level Total 34% 21% 21% 18% 13% 25% 155

156 Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company Mid-Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Renting Mid-Level Total Less than Offer Homefinding Trips 53% 35% 56% 65% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 50% 30% 53% 64% Offer Storage 46% 28% 49% 59% Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 46% 27% 47% 61% Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder s Fees 34% 13% 38% 48% Reimburse/Pay for Security Deposits 21% 17% 27% 20% Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees 21% 13% 27% 21% Offer Rental Subsidy or Allowance 18% 10% 22% 22% Reimburse/Pay for Furniture Rental 13% 5% 17% 17% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 25% 42% 20% 16% 156

157 29% 25% 22% 59% Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company 54% 52% 48% Executive/Top Level Total 36% 20% 21% 157

158 Relocation Costs Q.33 When a Relocating Employee (Transferee OR New Hire) Will Be Renting (Not Buying), Does Your Company Executive/Top Level By Company Size () Covered Relocation Expenses: Employee Renting Executive/Top Level Total Less than Offer Homefinding Trips 59% 37% 63% 74% Offer Temporary Housing Allowance 54% 31% 60% 71% Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 52% 30% 54% 71% Offer Storage 48% 28% 49% 63% Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder s Fees 36% 17% 38% 52% Reimburse/Pay for Security Deposits 29% 23% 35% 29% Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees 25% 16% 32% 26% Reimburse/Pay for Furniture Rental 22% 11% 28% 27% Offer Rental Subsidy or Allowance 20% 14% 22% 24% Company Does Not Offer OR Only Offers Lump Sum 21% 41% 14% 9% 158

159 Relocation Costs Q.34 Extent Company Reimburses Relocation Expenses of Transferees/New Hires Total Full Reimbursement 42% 62% Lump Sum Payments 49% 58% Transferees New Hires Partial Reimbursement 48% 45% No Reimbursement 18% 19% 159

160 Relocation Costs Q.34 Extent Company Reimburses Relocation Expenses of Transferees/New Hires By Company Size () Extent Transferees are Reimbursed Total Less than Full Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 62% 44% 70% 69% Lump Sum Payments 49% 44% 45% 58% Partial Reimbursement Based on Salary, Position, Policy Tier, etc. 48% 45% 45% 53% No Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 18% 24% 17% 13% Extent New Hires are Reimbursed Total Less than Full Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 42% 31% 44% 52% Lump Sum Payments 58% 59% 55% 60% Partial Reimbursement Based on Salary, Position, Policy Tier, etc. 45% 39% 50% 45% No Reimbursement of Relocation Expenses 19% 18% 24% 16% 160

161 Relocation Costs Q.35 What Approximate Percentage of Your Relocations Were (Payment Type): By Company Size () 46% 34% 48% 24% 33% 18% 23% 21% 26% 55% 19% 22% (Average Percent) Fully Reimbursed Lump Sum Only Partially Reimbursed Not Reimbursed 8% 12% 9% 5% Total Less than

162 Relocation Costs Q.35 What Approximate Percentage of Your Relocations Were (Category- Domestic Only): By Company Size () (Average Percent) 75% 74% 73% 78% 11% 9% 13% 10% 8% 7% 8% 7% 10% 9% 7% 3% Traditional/Permanent Relocations Short-term Relocation Assignments Alternative Assignments Other Total Less than

163 Relocation Costs Q.35a For What Types of Relocation Costs are Lump Sum Payments Typically Offered to Relocating Employees (Transferees OR New Hires)?* Total Travel Expenses Miscellaneous Expense Allowances Temporary Housing Entire Relocation Cost 50% 47% 47% 46% Household Goods Shipping/Storage Rental Assistance/Transactions Real Estate Assistance/Transactions 28% 28% 34% Other 3% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 163

164 Relocation Costs Q.35a For What Types of Relocation Costs are Lump Sum Payments Typically Offered to Relocating Employees (Transferees OR New Hires)?* By Company Size () Expenses for Which Lump Sum Typically Offered Total Less than Travel Expenses (i.e. housing hunting trips, final move, etc.) 50% 44% 56% 49% Miscellaneous Expense Allowances 47% 37% 42% 63% Temporary Housing 47% 43% 43% 54% Entire Relocation Cost 46% 52% 46% 41% Household Goods Shipping/Storage 34% 39% 35% 29% Rental Assistance/Transactions 28% 27% 31% 26% Real Estate Assistance/Transactions 28% 33% 28% 22% Other 3% 5% 4% 1% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 164

165 Relocation Costs Q.35b-1 What Types of Relocating Employees Most Commonly Receive Lump Sum Payments?* Total New Hires Executives Experienced Professionals Entry Level Employees Transferees 55% 52% 48% 45% 43% Renters 33% Homeowners 24% Other 4% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 165

166 Relocation Costs Q.35b-1 What Types of Relocating Employees Most Commonly Receive Lump Sum Payments?* By Company Size () Employees Most Commonly Receiving Lump Sums Total Less than New Hires 55% 55% 52% 58% Executives 52% 57% 57% 43% Experienced Professionals 48% 55% 43% 45% Entry Level Employees 45% 31% 49% 53% Transferees 43% 35% 46% 46% Renters 33% 24% 34% 41% Homeowners 24% 25% 21% 27% Other 4% 1% 5% 5% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 166

167 Relocation Costs Q.35b-2 What Types of Relocations Most Commonly Receive Lump Sum Payments?* Total Domestic Relocations 80% International Long-Term Assignments 31% Short-Term/Temporary Assignments 27% Alternative Assignment Types 14% Other 2% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 167

168 Relocation Costs Q.35b-2 What Types of Relocations Most Commonly Receive Lump Sum Payments?* By Company Size () Relocations Most Commonly Receiving Lump Sums Total Less than Domestic Relocations 80% 80% 77% 84% International Long-Term Assignments 31% 23% 37% 34% Short-Term/Temporary Assignments 27% 20% 30% 30% Alternative Assignment Types (i.e. commuters, EBTs, etc.) 14% 10% 20% 13% Other 2% 1% 1% 3% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 168

169 Relocation Costs Q.35c For the Applicable Cost Types Below, What are the Typical Ranges of Lump Sums Offered?* By Company Size () Median Amounts Shown Total Less than Real Estate Assistance/ Transactions Household Goods Shipping/ Storage $1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$9,999 $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 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 Travel Expenses $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 Temporary Housing $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 $2,500-$4,999 Miscellaneous Expense Allowances $2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500-$4,999 * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 169 April 2017

170 Relocation Costs Q.35c Typical Range for Lump Sum Payments Real Estate Assistance/Transactions* 10% Less than % No lump sum offered 27% Total Don t know 13% $10,000 or more 23% 24% 13% 25% 21% 10% 25% Less than $5,000 23% $5,000 to $9,999 14% 33% 18% 27% 16% % * of * those of those offering offering lump sum lump payments sum payments (Q. 32) (Q34) 18% 13%

171 Relocation Costs Q.35c Typical Range for Lump Sum Payments Household Goods Shipping/Storage* 14% 14% Less than 500 No lump sum offered 21% Don t know 11% 31% 15% 27% 15% 8% Less than $5,000 23% Total $5,000 to $9,999 18% $10,000 or more 26% 35% 13% 22% 26% 22% 30% * of * those of those offering offering lump sum lump payments sum payments (Q. 32) (Q34) 13% 17%

172 Relocation Costs Q.35c Typical Range for Lump Sum Payments Entire Relocation Cost* 5% Less than % 4% Less than $5,000 17% $5,000 to $9,999 19% No lump sum offered 9% Don t know 8% Total $10,000 or more 48% 23% 14% 8% 10% 47% 21% 14% 7% 9% 49% % 47% * of those * of offering those offering lump sum lump payments sum (Q. payments 32) (Q34)

173 Relocation Costs Q.35c Typical Range for Lump Sum Payments Rental Assistance/Transactions* 25% 12% Less than 500 No lump sum offered 25% Total Don t know 12% $5,000 or more 21% 36% 19% 9% 20% 9% 24% 26% Less than $2,500 27% $2,500 to $4,999 14% 32% 15% 20% 22% * of * those of those offering offering lump sum lump payments sum payments (Q. 32) (Q34) 21% 12%

174 Relocation Costs Q.35c Typical Range for Lump Sum Payments Travel Expenses* 11% 12% Less than 500 Less than $2,500 38% No lump sum offered 15% Total Don t know 12% $5,000 or more 20% $2,500 to $4,999 16% 39% 23% 16% 23% 16% 48% 11% 6% 27% 8% % * of * those of those offering offering lump sum lump payments sum payments (Q. 32) (Q34) 26% 17%

175 Relocation Costs Q.35c Typical Range for Lump Sum Payments Temporary Housing* 19% 11% Less than 500 No lump sum offered 19% Don t know 11% 32% 20% 18% 11% 6% Less than $2,500 21% Total $2,500 to $4,999 22% $5,000 or more 27% 27% 15% 22% 28% 33% % 28% * of * those of those offering offering lump sum lump payments sum payments (Q. 32) (Q34) 18%

176 Relocation Costs Q.35c Typical Range for Lump Sum Payments Miscellaneous Expense Allowances* 22% 12% Less than 500 No lump sum offered 15% Don t know 12% 33% 17% 17% 10% 9% Less than $2,500 33% Total $2,500 to $4,999 14% $5,000 or more 26% 25% 13% 16% 42% 13% 26% % * of * those of those offering offering lump sum lump payments sum payments (Q. 32) (Q34) 12%

177 Relocation Costs Q.35d Lump Sum Spending/Allocation per Employee Tracking - Performed by:* Total Human Resources Staff Member 55% Relocating Employee Finance/Procurement Department Relocation Team Staff Member Outsourced 29% 29% 22% 14% Other Not Tracked 1% 3% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 177

178 Relocation Costs Q.35d Lump Sum Spending/Allocation per Employee Tracking - Performed by:* By Company Size () Lump Sum Tracking Performed by: Total Less than Human Resources Staff Member 55% 65% 63% 37% Relocating Employee 29% 24% 33% 30% Finance/Procurement Department 29% 34% 38% 15% Relocation Team Staff Member 22% 6% 26% 32% Outsourced 14% 6% 13% 22% Other 1% 1% 1% 1% Not Tracked 3% 0% 2% 7% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 178

179 Relocation Costs Q.35d Lump Sum Spending/Allocation per Employee Tracking - Method:* Total Submission of Expense Reports Excel Spreadsheet 37% 45% In-House Software Report Online Reporting Tool/Mobile App Outsourced 23% 22% 19% Other Not Tracked 4% 4% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 179

180 Relocation Costs Q.35d Lump Sum Spending/Allocation per Employee Tracking - Method:* By Company Size () Lump Sum Tracking Method: Total Less than Submission of Expense Reports 45% 51% 45% 39% Excel Spreadsheet 37% 40% 44% 27% In-House Software Report 23% 19% 27% 23% Online Reporting Tool/Mobile App 22% 18% 29% 19% Outsourced 19% 12% 14% 31% Other 4% 4% 4% 3% Not Tracked 4% 1% 3% 8% * of those offering lump sum payments (Q34) 180

181 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.36 Age Range of Most Frequently Relocated Salaried Employee* years 28% Less than 30 years 9% More than 50 years 3% Total years 10% years 20% 30% 8% 5% 12% 26% 19% Less than % 7% 3% 7% 21% years 29% 22% 13% 13% 2% 19% 29% * excludes those who don t know 32%

182 Employee, Spousal Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.35 Q.37 Does Does Your Your Organization Organization Perform Perform Candidate Candidate Assessments Assessments Prior Prior to to Relocation Relocation Offers? Offers? Total Yes, for All Relocations Total Candidate Assessments 38% No 35% Yes, for Domestic Relocations Yes, for New Hires 15% 10% Yes 65% Yes, for International Relocations Yes, on an "As Needed/Requested" Basis Yes, for Transferees Yes, Based on Policy Tier/Reimbursement Level Other 8% 7% 5% 2% 1% 182

183 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.37 Does Your Organization Perform Candidate Assessments Prior to Relocation Offers? By Company Size () Candidate Assessment Use Total Less than No, Candidate Assessments are Not Performed 35% 33% 26% 46% Yes, for All Relocations 38% 39% 45% 29% Yes, for Domestic Relocations 15% 14% 19% 12% Yes, for New Hires 10% 13% 12% 6% Yes, for International Relocations 8% 3% 10% 10% Yes, on an As Needed/Requested Basis 7% 7% 5% 10% Yes, for Transferees 5% 3% 6% 4% Yes, Based on Policy Tier/Reimbursement Level 2% 3% 0% 4% Other 1% 1% 0% 3% 183

184 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.38 In 2017, What Approximate Percentage of Your Relocations Involved: Female Employees* By Company Size () Average Percent 25% 25% 23% 26% Total Less than * excludes those who don t know 184

185 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.38 In 2017, What Approximate Percentage of Your Relocations Involved: Wife/Female Partner (Trailing Spouse)* By Company Size () Average Percent 27% 26% 25% 29% Total Less than * excludes those who don t know 185

186 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.38 In 2017, What Approximate Percentage of Your Relocations Involved: Husband/Male Partner (Trailing Spouse)* By Company Size () Average Percent 25% 25% 25% 25% Total Less than * excludes those who don t know 186

187 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.38 In 2017, What Approximate Percentage of Your Relocations Involved: Employees with Children* By Company Size () Average Percent 35% 29% 37% 40% Total Less than * excludes those who don t know 187

188 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.39 Companies Offering Elder Care Assistance* By Company Size () 55% 44% 37% 40% Total Less than * % of companies indicating they offer this assistance (Q39) 188

189 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.39 Elder Care Assistance Offered By Company Size () Elder Care Assistance Total Less than No Elder Care Assistance 56% 63% 45% 60% Provide Paid Personal Leave Days 21% 17% 25% 22% Allow Flexible Scheduling or Telecommuting 19% 16% 23% 18% Provide List of Nursing Homes and/or Day-Care Centers Allow Employee to Use Pre-Tax Dollars for Outside Care Relocate an Elderly Relative that Does Not Live with the Employee Currently, but Will Either Live with the Employee at the New Location or at a Nearby Residence/Facility 18% 10% 27% 17% 15% 14% 20% 12% 11% 9% 16% 9% Other 2% 1% 3% 1% 189

190 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.40 Companies Offering Childcare Assistance* By Company Size () 59% 68% 63% 45% Total Less than * % of companies indicating they offer this assistance (Q40) 190

191 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.40 Childcare Assistance Offered By Company Size () Childcare Assistance Total Less than No Childcare Assistance 41% 55% 32% 37% Provide List of Local Schools/Educational Options Provide List of Childcare Providers/Services and/or Agencies Allow Employee to Use Pre-Tax Dollars for Outside Care 28% 16% 34% 34% 27% 18% 32% 30% 24% 21% 26% 26% Provide Paid Personal Leave Days 22% 17% 25% 26% Allow Flexible Scheduling or Telecommuting 19% 17% 23% 19% Reimburse Childcare Costs 14% 8% 24% 10% Other 1% 1% 1% 1% 191

192 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.41 Frequency of Employee s Relocation Being Affected by the Employment Status of His/Her Spouse/Partner* 20% 11% Less than 500 Almost always 16% Never 7% 34% 35% 17% 4% 32% Total Seldom 34% Frequently 44% 10% 5% 35% 46% % * excludes those who don t know

193 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.42 Companies that Allow the Hiring of Spouses of Employees* Without Restriction Not at Same Location Total 22% 8% 56% 86% Not in Same Dept/Division Less than % 7% 59% 80% % 13% 50% 87% % 6% 59% 92% * % of companies answering Yes / excludes those who don t know 193

194 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.42a Companies that Assist an Employee s Spouse or Partner in Finding Employment in the New Location* By Company Size () 59% 50% 59% 68% Total Less than * % of companies indicating Yes 194

195 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.42b Methods of Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance* Total Provide Networking Assistance 48% Provide Resume Preparation Assistance Pay for Outplacement/Career Services from an Outside Firm Find Employment Within Company Provide Interviewing Skills Training Reimburse for Career Transition Expenses Find Employment Outside Company 30% 26% 25% 24% 23% 19% Other 2% * of those who provide assistance (Q42a) 195

196 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.42b Methods of Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance* By Company Size () Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance Total Less than Provide Networking Assistance 48% 51% 53% 40% Provide Resume Preparation Assistance 30% 26% 29% 34% Pay for Outplacement/Career Services from an Outside Firm 26% 19% 23% 33% Find Employment Within Company 25% 25% 27% 23% Provide Interviewing Skills Training 24% 21% 26% 24% Reimburse for Career Transition Expenses (i.e. interview trips, certifications, etc.) 23% 14% 26% 27% Find Employment Outside Company 19% 19% 22% 16% Other 2% 0% 3% 2% * of those who provide assistance (Q42a) 196

197 Employee, Spouse & Assistance Issues Q.42c Approximate Percentage of Relocated Employees with a Spouse/Partner Who Used Employment Assistance* By Company Size () Average Percent 30% 26% 35% 29% Total Less than Average Percent * of those who provide assistance (Q42a) / excludes those who don t know 197

198 30% Supplier Management Q.43 Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services in 2017 the answers received indicate that Total Services Outsourced 27% 25% 25% 24% 24% 23% 22% 21% 20% Outsourced Total 70% 30% Did Not Outsource 18% 17% 17% 13% 11% 10% 1% 198

199 Supplier Management Q.43 Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm in 2017 By Company Size () Services Outsourced in 2017 Total Less than Did Not Use a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm in % 51% 26% 14% Real Estate Sales/Marketing 30% 15% 27% 48% Contract of Household Goods Carrier 27% 14% 25% 43% Counseling about the Planning & Details of Relocation 25% 15% 21% 40% Real Estate Purchase 25% 11% 22% 42% Counseling about Company Policy 24% 12% 25% 35% Management of Full Relocation Program 24% 13% 19% 39% Expense Management/Tracking/Reimbursement Services 23% 10% 20% 37% Orientation Tours at New Location 22% 11% 22% 32% Coordination & Monitoring of Shipment 21% 12% 17% 34% Tax Gross-Up Assistance 20% 10% 19% 30% Arrangement of Family s Transportation & Accommodations 18% 10% 17% 28% Assistance with Employee Claims Preparation & Submission 17% 13% 12% 28% Property Management 17% 8% 19% 23% Audit and/or Payment of Invoice(s) 13% 6% 11% 21% Supplementary Services (appliances, cleaning, etc.) 11% 6% 12% 15% Compensation Services (i.e. payroll arrangements, tax compliance, etc.) 10% 7% 8% 16% Other 1% 0% 0% 2% 199

200 Supplier Management Q.43a Department(s) that Select a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm* Total Human Resources 63% Relocation/Mobility Services 39% Executive Management 19% Procurement 19% Other 3% * of those companies who outsourced (Q43) 200

201 Supplier Management Q.43a Department(s) that Select a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm* By Company Size () Department(s) Selecting Outsourcing Vendor Total Less than Human Resources 63% 81% 69% 47% Relocation/Mobility Services 39% 15% 29% 62% Executive Management 19% 26% 23% 11% Procurement 19% 12% 16% 25% Other 3% 1% 3% 3% * of those companies who outsourced (Q43) 201

202 Supplier Management Q.44 Are Carrier Transportation Expenses Paid Directly by the Company or Paid by the Employee and Then Reimbursed? (Transferees ONLY)* By Company Size () 73% 40% 56% 45% 76% 40% 84% 35% Paid Directly by the Company Paid by the Employee Then Reimbursed Paid by Employee and Not Reimbursed 23% 27% 23% 19% Total Less than * respondents could indicate more than one method was used 202

203 Supplier Management Q.44 Are Carrier Transportation Expenses Paid Directly by the Company or Paid by the Employee and Then Reimbursed? (New Hires ONLY)* By Company Size () 65% 37% 55% 62% 41% 47% 79% Paid Directly by the Company Paid by the Employee Then Reimbursed Paid by Employee and Not Reimbursed 23% 23% 27% 25% 18% Total Less than * respondents could indicate more than one method was used 203

204 Supplier Management Q.45 Who Selects the Household Goods Carrier for Your Employee s Relocation? Other 2% 22% 1% 8% Less than 500 Company 34% Relocation Firm 18% 31% 39% 32% 2% 16% Total 22% Company & Employee 23% Employee 24% 47% 2% 30% 28% % 11%

205 Supplier Management Q.45a Department(s) that Select the Household Goods Carrier for Employee s Relocation* Total Human Resources 48% Relocation/Mobility Services 27% Executive Management 12% Procurement 11% Other 2% * of those where company is involved in selection carrier selection (Q43) (Q45) 205

206 Supplier Management Q.45a Department(s) that Select a Household Goods Carrier for Employee s Relocation* By Company Size () Department(s) Selecting Household Goods Carrier Total Less than Human Resources 48% 62% 49% 36% Relocation/Mobility Services 27% 12% 20% 47% Executive Management 12% 16% 15% 4% Procurement 11% 8% 15% 11% Other 2% 2% 2% 3% * of those where company is involved in selection carrier selection (Q43) (Q45) 206

207 International Q.46a Compared to 2016, Did the Number of Employees Your Company Relocated Internationally During 2017 * Decrease Significantly 4% 8% 10% 13% Less than 500 Increase Significantly 10% Decrease Somewhat 17% 23% 48% 9% 6% 13% Increase Somewhat 31% Total 38% Stay About The Same 38% 29% 10% 2% 22% 34% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 38%

208 International Q.46b Compared to 2017, Do You Anticipate that the Number of Employees Your Company Will Relocate Internationally During 2018 Will * Increase Significantly 9% Decrease Significantly 6% 10% 15% Less than % 10% Increase Somewhat 30% Total Decrease Somewhat 14% 45% 38% 9% 4% 15% Stay About The Same 41% 28% 8% 4% 16% 34% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 45%

209 International Q.46c What is the Typical International Relocation Assignment Duration for Employees at Your Company?* 30% 20% Less than years or more 27% Less than 3 months 8% Total 4 to 12 months 18% 23% 28% 16% 9% 31% More than 12 months, less than 3 years 47% 32% 4% 8% 44% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 57%

210 International Q.46d In 2017, What Percentage of Your International Relocations Were * By Company Size () 14% 11% 19% 12% (Average Percent) Less than 12 months 55% 54% 57% 54% 1-3 years More than 3 years Other 24% 30% 21% 24% 8% 5% 5% 9% Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) / excludes those who don t know 210

211 International Q.46d In 2017, What Percentage of Your International Relocations Were * By Company Size () (Average Percent) Fully Covered/Reimbursed Lump Sum Payment Only Total 38% 6% Less than % 10% % 7% % 5% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) / excludes those who don t know 211

212 International Q.46e Compared to 2017, Do You Expect the Number of International Short-Term/Temporary Assignments (Less than 12 Months) in 2018 to * Increase Somewhat 25% Increase Significantly 10% Decrease Significantly 6% Total Decrease Somewhat 8% 15% 15% Less than % 10% 7% 50% 6% 29% 4% Stay About The Same 51% 12% 9% 2% 27% 53% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 50%

213 International Q.46f Companies with a Formal Policy for: International Relocation Assignments* (1-3 years) By Company Size () 77% 81% 87% 40% Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) / % of companies answering Yes 213

214 International Q.46f Companies with a Formal Policy for: Permanent Transfers* (International) By Company Size () 62% 62% 70% 40% Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) / % of companies answering Yes 214

215 International Q.46f Companies with a Formal Policy for: Localization* (International) By Company Size () 57% 57% 63% 38% Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) / % of companies answering Yes 215

216 International Q.46f Companies with a Formal Policy for: Intra-Regional Assignments* (International) By Company Size () 50% 50% 57% 33% Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) / % of companies answering Yes 216

217 International Q.46g-1 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Policy for International Relocation Assignments (1-3 Years)?* Five or more 5% 3% 6% 19% Less than 500 Four 11% 52% No Tiers/ Single Policy 40% Total Three 25% 19% 40% 0% 10% 24% 9% Two 19% 37% 13% 26% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 15% 27%

218 International Q.46g-1 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within International Relocation Assignments Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with tiers/levels (Q46g-1) 218

219 International Q.46g-2 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Permanent Transfers (International) Policy?* Five or more 5% 7% Less than 500 Four 7% 47% 0% 20% No Tiers/ Single Policy 45% Total Three 25% 27% 38% 5% 5% 26% Two 18% 48% 5% 9% 26% 26% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with permanent transfers policy (Q46f) 12%

220 International Q.46g-2 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within Permanent Transfers (International) Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with permanent transfers policy (Q46f) with tiers/levels (Q46g-2) 220

221 International Q.46g-3 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Localization (International) Policy?* Five or more 4% Four 8% 27% 7% 0% 20% Less than 500 No Tiers/ Single Policy 46% Total Three 21% 47% 38% 3% 9% 24% Two 21% 54% 4% 9% 21% 26% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with localization policy (Q46f) 12%

222 International Q.46g-3 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within Localization (International) Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with localization policy (Q46f) with tiers/levels (Q46g-3) 222

223 Five or more 2% International Q.46g-4 Does Your Company Have Different Tiers (or Levels) Within Its Intra-Regional Assignments (International) Policy?* 8% Less than 500 Four 8% 38% 0% 23% 9% No Tiers/ Single Policy 44% Total Three 24% 31% 36% 0% 27% Two 21% 50% 2% 10% 23% 27% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with intra-regional assignments policy (Q46f) 16%

224 International Q.46g-4 Average Number of Tiers (or Levels) Within Intra-Regional Assignments (International) Policy* By Company Size () Total Less than * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with intra-regional assignments policy (Q46f) with tiers/levels (Q46g-4) 224

225 International Q.46h What Are Your Different Tiers (or Levels) Based On?* Total Job or Grade Level Position/Job Title Length of Assignment New Hire/Current Employee Status Assignment Objectives Assignment Location/Region Homeowner/Renter Status Company vs. Employee Initiated 54% 43% 38% 27% 26% 25% 23% 21% Other 1% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with tiers/levels (Q46g-1) 225

226 International Q.46h What Are Your Different Tiers (or Levels) Based On?* By Company Size () Bases for International Policy Tiers (or Levels) Total Less than Job or Grade Level (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) 54% 47% 46% 60% Position/Job Title 43% 47% 41% 43% Length of Assignment 38% 40% 43% 35% New Hire/Current Employee Status 27% 7% 32% 29% Assignment Objectives (i.e. developmental, etc.) 26% 27% 30% 23% Assignment Location/Region 25% 47% 27% 18% Homeowner/Renter Status 23% 7% 14% 32% Company vs. Employee Initiated Relocation 21% 7% 19% 25% Other 1% 0% 0% 2% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) with tiers/levels (Q46g-1) 226

227 International Q.46i Comparing Your International Relocation Policy to Your Domestic Relocation Policy, Does Your Company s International Relocation Policy Offer * Total No Difference Between Intl & Domestic Policies 15% Additional Tax Considerations Additional Leave Time (Inc. 1 Visit Back To Home Country) Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools International Transportation Allowance Intercultural & Language Training Financial Services Assistance Additional Leave Time Higher Relocation Allowances Higher Rental Housing Allowance Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage Security Support Program Extended Per Diem Charges Allowances for Elder Care * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) Other 6% 4% 19% 18% 22% 41% 36% 35% 33% 31% 31% 30% 30% 30% 227

228 International Q.46i Comparing Your International Relocation Policy to Your Domestic Relocation Policy, Does Your Company s International Relocation Policy Offer * By Company Size () International Relocation Policy Differences from Domestic Total Less than No Difference Between International & Domestic Relocation Policies 15% 40% 12% 9% Additional Tax Considerations 41% 10% 35% 55% Additional Leave Time (Inc. 1 Visit Back to Home Country) 36% 8% 34% 47% Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools 35% 13% 21% 52% International Transportation Allowance (i.e. rental car, commuting costs, etc.) 33% 13% 28% 43% Intercultural & Language Training 31% 3% 19% 48% Financial Services Assistance (i.e. bank account setup, specialized compensation arrangements) * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 31% 5% 32% 39% Additional Leave Time 30% 23% 37% 29% Higher Relocation Allowances 30% 23% 26% 35% Higher Rental Housing Allowance 30% 15% 25% 39% Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage 22% 13% 19% 27% Security Support Program 19% 5% 19% 25% Extended Per Diem Charges 18% 8% 24% 18% Allowances for Elder Care 6% 5% 9% 4% Other 4% 5% 6% 3% 228

229 International Q.46j Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced international relocation services in 2017 the answers received indicate that * 0% Did Not Outsource 20% Total Services Outsourced 80% 36% 30% 30% 29% 29% 29% 29% 28% 26% 25% 25% 24% 24% Outsourced 22% 17% 14% 2% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 229

230 International Q.46j International Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm in 2017* - By Company Size () International Services Outsourced in 2017 Total Less than Did Not Use a Relocation Service, HRO or Brokerage Firm for Intl Relocation Services in % 43% 18% 14% Visa & Immigration Services 36% 28% 31% 41% Destination Services/Orientation Tours in Host Country 30% 10% 25% 40% Contract of Household Goods Carrier for International Shipping 30% 8% 19% 44% Securing Rental Property in Host Country 29% 15% 24% 38% Coordination & Monitoring of International Shipment 29% 5% 25% 40% Counseling about the Planning & Details of Relocating Internationally 29% 18% 24% 35% Arrangement of Family s Temporary Accommodations 29% 10% 24% 38% Management of International Relocation Program 28% 13% 24% 36% Intercultural & Language Training 26% 10% 13% 39% Expense Management/Tracking/Reimbursement Services 25% 10% 21% 33% Arrangement of Family s International Transportation 25% 10% 25% 30% Compensation Services (i.e. payroll arrangements, tax compliance, etc.) 24% 13% 19% 31% Counseling about Company Policy Concerning International Relocation 24% 15% 21% 28% Repatriation Services 22% 10% 15% 30% Property Management of Home at Origin 17% 13% 12% 22% International Real Estate (sales/marketing and/or purchases) 14% 8% 10% 18% Other 2% 0% 3% 3% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 230

231 International Q.46k Method of Employment Assistance for Internationally Relocated Employee s Spouse or Partner* Total No Assistance Provide Networking Assistance 23% 39% Provide Resume Preparation Assistance Pay for Outplacement/Career Svcs from Outside Firm Provide Interviewing Skills Training Pay for Work Visa in New Location Reimburse for Career Transition Expenses Find Employement Within the Company Find Employment Outside Company Other 17% 17% 17% 14% 13% 10% 9% 5% 61% Offer Assistance * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 231

232 International Q.46k Method of Employment Assistance for Internationally Relocated Employee s Spouse or Partner* Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance Intl Total Less than No Assistance 39% 48% 40% 36% Provide Networking Assistance 23% 20% 24% 24% Provide Resume Preparation Assistance 17% 8% 19% 19% Pay for Outplacement/Career Services from an Outside Firm 17% 18% 15% 18% Provide Interviewing Skills Training 17% 13% 21% 16% Pay for Work Visa in New Location 14% 18% 16% 12% Reimburse for Career Transition Expenses (i.e. interview trips, certifications, etc.) By Company Size () 13% 5% 18% 12% Find Employment Within Company 10% 5% 12% 11% Find Employment Outside Company 9% 10% 10% 9% Other 5% 3% 3% 6% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) 232

233 International Q.46l In 2017, Reasons Cited for an Employee Declining an International Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail* Total No International Relocations Declined or Failed 13% Family Issues/Ties 46% Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 31% Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner 22% Financial Issues/Concerns 22% Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 18% Lack of Adaptability by Employee 14% Safety Concerns 14% Host Country Infrastructure Inadequacies 11% Job Performance Issues 9% * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) Illness Other Don't Know 1% 6% 16% 233

234 International Q.46l In 2017, Reasons Cited for an Employee Declining an International Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail* * of those who relocate internationally (Q2) By Company Size () Reasons Cited for Declining/Failed Intl Relocation Total Less than No International Relocations Declined or Failed 13% 25% 13% 8% Family Issues/Ties 46% 30% 47% 51% Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 31% 30% 29% 32% Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner 22% 18% 19% 25% Financial Issues/Concerns 22% 13% 24% 25% Lack of Spousal/Partner assistance 18% 13% 16% 21% Lack of Adaptability by Employee 14% 10% 12% 18% Safety Concerns (i.e. war/terrorism/political unrest/etc.) 14% 5% 16% 15% Host Country Infrastructure Inadequacies 11% 3% 15% 11% Job Performance Issues 9% 10% 9% 10% Illness 6% 5% 12% 4% Other 1% 3% 1% 0% Don t Know 16% 13% 16% 18% 234

235 Corporate/Respondent Profile Q.47 Business Classifications of Companies Participating Other 6% Govt/ Military 6% 35% 4% 5% 8% 21% Less than 500 Service (Profit) 35% Mftg/ Processing 21% Total Wholesale/ Retail 10% Service (Non-Profit) 11% Financial 12% 39% 22% 4% 6% 9% 10% 2% 30% 23% 7% 5% 14% 12% 9% % 19%

236 39% 7% Corporate/Respondent Profile Total 5% Q.48 Participating Companies Annual Sales for 2017* 4% 3% 8% 12% 10% 8% 10% 11% 16% 4% 20% 21% 21% 0% 1% 4% 4% 3% 2% 6% Less than % 11% 3% 9% 9% 4% 11% 20% * excludes blank responses 80%

237 Corporate/Respondent Profile Q.49 Departmental Function 1% 3% 6% Less than 500 1% 3% 1% 12% 4% 60% 17% 6% 5% 41% Total 19% 18% 26% 1%4% 1% 34% 36% 17% 0% 16% 21% % 14% 19%

238 Corporate/Respondent Profile Q.50 Respondent s Department Reports to Total Executive Management 50% Human Resources/Personnel- General/Administration 21% Human Resources/Personnel-Talent Management Human Resources/Personnel-Compensation & Benefits 10% 10% Finance/Accounting Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing Relocation/Mobility Services Other 4% 3% 3% 0% 238

239 Corporate/Respondent Profile Q.50 Respondent s Department Reports to By Company Size () Respondent s Dept Report Total Less than Executive Management 50% 76% 43% 30% Human Resources/Personnel General/Administration 21% 9% 26% 28% Human Resources/Personnel-Talent Management 10% 2% 10% 17% Human Resources/Personnel Compensation & Benefits 10% 6% 11% 12% Finance/Accounting 4% 3% 3% 4% Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing 3% 1% 3% 5% Relocation/Mobility Services 3% 3% 3% 3% Other 0% 1% 0% 1% 239

240 Corporate/Respondent Profile Q.51 Respondent s Position Total President 3% Vice President 10% Director Manager 28% 31% Relocation Administrator 9% Supervisor Coordinator Recruiter HR Assistant Other 3% 4% 5% 3% 4% 240

241 Corporate/Respondent Profile Q.51 Respondent s Position By Company Size () Respondent s Position Total Less than President 3% 3% 4% 1% Vice President 10% 10% 11% 10% Director 28% 34% 28% 23% Manager 31% 30% 26% 37% Relocation Administrator 9% 2% 12% 12% Supervisor 3% 1% 3% 4% Coordinator 4% 7% 6% 1% Recruiter 5% 4% 4% 7% HR Assistant 3% 2% 3% 4% Other 4% 6% 3% 3% 241

242 Corporate/Respondent Profile Q.52 Trade Publications Respondent s Regularly Read Total None HR Magazine Human Resource Executive HR News Employee Benefits News Mobility Workforce Human Resources Outstanding (HRO) Today The Relocation Report National Relocation & Real Estate Runzheimer Reports on Relocation Other(s) 7% 6% 6% 3% 16% 30% 28% 23% 21% 19% 16% 43% 242