Integrity | quality | solutions Copyright © 2004 Atlas World Group, Inc. 1212 St. George Road,...

integrity | quality | solutions

Copyright © 2004 Atlas World Group, Inc.1212 St. George Road, Evansville, IN 47711-2364800-252-8885 U.S. DOT No. 125550

37th Annual Corporate Relocation

Survey

Management Summary and Results Charts

April, 2004



Table of Contents

Section Slide Number

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

Methodology 3

Management Summary…………………………………………………………………… 4

Corporate Profile 4

Factors Impacting Transfers 8

Policy Administration 9

Relocation Costs 10

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues 11

Transportation 14

International 15

Respondent Profile 18

Survey Graphs……………………………………………………………………………… 19

Corporate Profile 19

Factors Impacting Transfers 39

Policy Administration 43

Relocation Costs 51

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues 61

Transportation 77

International 91

Respondent Profile 103

2



Foreword

Situational Analysis

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

For the 37th Annual Corporate Relocation Survey, Atlas World Group utilized OpinionWare, a software tool developed by SilkRoad Technology for building and conducting survey research on the Internet.

Methodology

For the year 2004, 340 surveys were completed by qualifying participants online from January 30 through February 29. Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/- 1%) due to rounding. Other questions totaling above 100% are due to multiple responses.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) Total % of

Sample

Less than 500 employees – Small 142 42%

500-4999 employees – Mid-size 112 33%

5000 or more employees - Large 86 25%

Total 340 100%

3



Management Summary

Corporate Profile

Forty-two percent of the companies involved in this study employ less than 500 salaried workers, one-third (33%) employ 500-4,999 salaried employees, and one quarter (25%) have 5,000 or more salaried employees.

Manufacturing/Processing and Service companies were the most highly represented business classifications in this study (40% and 39%, respectively).

Over half of participating companies are international (53%). Large companies (5,000+ salaried workers) and mid-size companies (500 – 4,999 salaried workers) are more likely to be international, as nearly twice as many large companies (70%) and medium companies (64%) are international than small companies (34%).

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

Total Business Classification Manufacturing/Processing 40% Service 39 Financial 10 Government/Military 3 Other 9

4



Management SummaryCorporate Profile (cont.)

Forty percent of the companies surveyed indicated approximately the same number of employee relocations in 2003 as they did in the previous year. Thirty-two percent indicated they saw increases over 2002 volume, while 28% indicated relocations decreased from 2002 levels. Company size did not seem to be a factor, as these percentages were similar across the different categories. Companies surveyed reported a median range of 10-19 employee relocations in 2003 (small companies reported a median range of 1-9, mid-sized companies 20-49, and large companies 200-399).

Just over fifty percent of the small and mid-size companies surveyed had approximately the same amount of money for relocations in 2003 as they did in the previous year. For large companies, over a third (36%) indicated that budgets stayed the same, with 28% of large companies indicating their budgets decreased.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees)

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

Company Size (By Salaried Employees)

2003 Number of Relocations Compared to 2002

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 32% 33% 30% 33%

Stay About the Same 40

42 41 36

Decrease 28

25 29 31

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

2003 Relocation Budgets Compared to 2002

Increase 29% 23% 30% 36%


52 51 36

Decrease 24

25 19 28

5



Management SummaryCorporate Profile (cont.)

One-third (33%) of firms responding anticipate an increase in the number of relocations in 2004, which is significantly above the 13% of respondents who expected an increase in 2003. Also, 29% of respondents expect relocation budgets to increase in 2004, which is a significant increase over the 15% who thought so last year. Expected increases in both relocation volume and budgets appear across the board for all size firms, although more large firms than medium or small firms expect such increases.

While similar percentages of firms this year expect relocation volume and budgets to remain the same, the percentage of firms that expect a decrease in these areas has dropped significantly. Only 16% expect a decrease in relocation volume, significantly lower than last year’s 29%. Correspondingly, only 18% expect relocation budgets to be lower this year than last, down significantly from the 28% of firms who last year expected decreases. This lowered expectation also cuts across company size.

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2004 Expectations: Number of Relocations Compared to 2003

Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 33% 27% 30% 44%


50 54 49

Decrease 16

23 16 7

Company Size (By Salaried Employees) 2004 Expectations: Relocation Budgets

Compared to 2003 Total Less than 500 500-4999 5000 or more

Increase 29% 25% 29% 37%


55 54 48

Decrease 18

20 18 15

6



Management Summary

Corporate Profile (cont.)

Seventy-seven percent of the companies surveyed have a formal relocation policy. Companies with 5,000 or more employees are more likely to have a formal relocation policy than are smaller companies (98% of large companies vs. 60% small companies).

Over 4 out of 5 (84%) of the large companies surveyed have a centralized relocation department, similar to 86% of mid-sized companies and 77% of the small companies. Most of the companies’ centralized relocation departments are responsible for managing domestic relocation programs (86%) and controlling household goods carrier selection (74%)

At 50% of the companies surveyed, the company is the sole selector of the household goods carrier for the employee’s move.

Thirty-one percent of the companies surveyed allow the employee some say in the household goods carrier selection, but employees of small companies are more likely have this option than those of mid- to large companies (54% of small companies vs. 15% of mid-sized and 14% of large companies).

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

Who Selects Carrier for Employee Moves The Company 50% 39% 56% 59% The Company & Employee Together 25 42 14 12 The Employee 6 13 1 2 A Relocation Firm 16 6 23 26 Other 3 1 5 1

7



Management Summary

Company Size (Salaried Employees)

Total

Less than 500

500-4999 5000 or more

External Conditions Having Significant Impact

External Conditions Had No Impact 19% 20% 21% 15%

Economic Conditions 51 41 49 70

Lack of Qualified People Locally 37 47 36 23

Factors Impacting Transfers

Over eighty percent of respondents indicated at least one external factor had a significant impact on the number of employee transfers in 2003. Overall, the “economic conditions” (51%) was the top reason indicated, followed by “lack of qualified people locally” (37%). The impact of “economic conditions” rose slightly in importance from 46% last year, but was not close to the 77% rating it received in the 2002 survey.

Internal company conditions affecting relocation varied broadly in 2003; the top three cited being the “growth of the company” (46%), “corporate reorganization” (34%), and “promotions/resignations” (34%). The impact of “corporate reorganization” and “budget constraints” appear to increase in importance with the size of the firm.

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

Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact*

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 8% 9% 8% 6%

Growth of Company 46 46 50 40

Corporate Reorganization 34 25 32 52

Promotions/Resignations 34 28 43 31

Budget Constraints 31 22 33 44

8



Management Summary

Policy Administration

Sixty-six percent of all companies outsourced relocation services in 2003. However, only forty-one percent of small companies outsourced, while 79% of mid-size companies and 88% of large companies outsourced relocation services.

The services that are outsourced by a third or more of companies responding are:- Real estate sales/purchase (52%)

- Contract of household goods moving company (40%)- Arrangement of family’s transportation/accommodations (36%)- Counseling about the planning/details of moving (34%)- Orientation tours at new location (34%)

Seventy percent of decision makers say that the Internet was used for relocation-related matters in 2003. The top use was to communicate via e-mail with relocating employees (63%), followed by researching relocation-related matters (46%).

Companies vary on the amount of time they allow employees to decide on whether to accept a relocation offer. Sixteen percent (16%) of the companies surveyed allow one week or less to accept or decline an offer, 49% of the companies surveyed allow up to two weeks, and 21% allow up to one month to decide.

The majority (80%) of companies surveyed allow the hiring of spouses of current employees. Smaller companies are somewhat less likely to hire a spouse (74%); while 81% of mid-sized companies and 90% of large companies said they allow hiring of an employee’s spouse.

Employees are allowed on average 4.7 expense-paid house-hunting days. Spouses of relocating employees are allowed an average of 1.5 expense-paid house-hunting trips.

9



Management Summary

Relocation Costs

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

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

- 85% to pack all items- 73% to move an automobile- 57% to more exercise equipment- 51% to carry items down from the attic

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

- 65% offer home finding trips- 62% reimburse/pay for lease cancellation- 52% offer to move one or more automobiles

Total Total Methods of Reimbursement TRANSFEREES NEW HIRES

Full reimbursement of moving expenses 74% 59%

Lump sum payment 22 24

Partial reimbursement based on salary, position, tenure, etc. 24 36

No reimbursement of moving expenses 6 7

10



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues

The following is the makeup of those employees transferred in 2003.

-Thirty-eight percent of companies surveyed indicated that the age range of their most frequently transferred employee was 36 to 40 years of age, and nearly two-thirds (66%) of the companies surveyed indicated some percentage of the employees they relocated were women.

- Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of companies indicated some percentage of their relocations involved a trailing spouse who was a wife or female partner, while about 3 out of 5 (61%) of the companies indicated that some percentage of relocations had accompanying husbands/male partners.

Thirty-nine percent of companies surveyed assist an employee’s spouse/partner in finding employment in the new location. Large companies have historically been somewhat more likely to offer spousal assistance, and this year the gap remained close last year’s results: 57% of large companies indicate they provide this assistance versus 33% of small companies.

Overall, the top method of spousal/partner assistance was finding employment outside the company (43%). However, large companies used a range of tools at roughly equal levels, while small companies are much more likely to help spouses/partners find employment outside the company (64%) than find employment within the company (26%) or pay a job-finder’s fee (15%).


Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance

Find Employment Outside Company 43% 64% 31% 33%

Pay Job-Finder’s Fee 25 15 28 33

Find Employment Within Company 21 26 14 22

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

Other 45 36 61 43

11



Management SummaryEmployee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Almost a quarter (23%) of companies surveyed provide some type of elder care assistance to the transferee. However, the assistance that is provided by companies is minimal, with very few employers allowing the use of pre-tax dollars for outside care or providing moving expense coverage for the elderly relative.

- 16% Provide a list of nursing homes and/or day-care centers- 7% Allow the transferee to use pre-tax dollars for outside care - 7% Move the elderly relative who will live with the transferee in the new location- 1% Move the elderly relative who does not live with the transferee

Only 11% of respondents believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is never affected by his/her spouse’s employment status, while 47% indicate this is seldom the case. However, 42% believe that an employee’s willingness to relocate is "almost always” or "frequently" affected by the employment status of an employee’s spouse, still significantly above over previous years and similar to last year (42% in 2003 vs. 42% in 2002, 17% in 2001 and 25% in 2000).

Never11%

Seldom47%

Frequently29%

Almost always

14%

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

12



Management Summary

Employee, Spousal & Assistance Issues (cont.)

Most (71%) respondents said that declining the opportunity to relocate does not hinder an employee’s career. Over half (57%) indicated they had employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2003; however, only 36% of respondents from small companies indicated this was the case, while 66% of mid-size and 93% of large companies said they had employees decline relocation.

About 4 out of 5 (83%) respondents said that the number of employees who declined relocation offers did not change between 2002 and 2003. Ten percent said that the number of employees declining relocation offers in 2003 decreased and 7% said it increased.

Reasons employees gave for declining relocation in 2003 were:

- Family issues/ties (83%) - Spouse’s employment (52%)- Cost of living in new location (48%)- Personal (undisclosed) (43%)- No desire to move (39%)- Housing/mortgage concerns (23%)- Could hurt career (1%)- Other (2%)

13



Management Summary

Transportation

Overall, 66% of companies have contracts with household goods carriers: 44% of small companies, 79% of mid-size companies, and 83% of large companies.

Of those companies surveyed who indicated they had standing contracts with household goods carriers, the average was 2.2 standing contracts with household goods carriers (similar to last year’s 2.3).

Two-thirds (67%) of companies surveyed with carriers under contract specify which carriers are preferred. In 2003, the percentages of companies indicating preferred carriers was similar across company size (63% of small versus 69% of mid-size companies and 68% of large companies).

The most important attributes when selecting a carrier indicated by companies surveyed were*:- Service (87%)

- Reputation (59%) - Price (58%)- Local agent(s) (48%)- Claims processing (47%)

The most important attributes when evaluating a carrier indicated by companies surveyed were*:- Service (89%)- On-time delivery (82%)

- Employee feedback (73%) - Price (62%)- Claims processing (50%)- Extra services (31%)

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

14



Management Summary

International

Fifty-one percent of companies surveyed relocate employees internationally: 27% of small companies, 60% of mid-size companies, and 78% of large companies.

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

- Additional tax considerations (73%)- Additional leave time (includes at least one visit to US or CAN) (63%) - Increased allowances for permanent storage (56%)- Allowances for children to attend certain schools (55%)- Intercultural and language training (55%) - Additional leave time (50%)- Higher moving allowances (40%) - Higher rental housing allowance (36%) - Extended per diem charges for hotel (22%)- More communication equipment (phones/laptops) (10%)- More leniency on insurance coverage (9%)- Other (6%).

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

- Service (91%) - Scheduling (73%) - Reputation (66%) - Price (59%) - Third Party (52%)

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

15



Management Summary

International (cont.)

Seventy percent of companies who relocate employees internationally indicate they outsourced an international relocation service in 2003. Of those companies who outsource relocation services domestically, 82% indicate they do so internationally.

Differences in outsourcing domestically carried over to the international side by company size, as small companies (38%) are much less likely to outsource international relocation services than medium (73%) and large (85%) firms, and medium and large companies report outsourcing a greater variety of their international relocation services than small companies.

Some companies (26%) who do not outsource domestically indicate they do outsource relocation services internationally.


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

30% 62% 27% 15%

Contract of Household Goods Moving Company – Intl Shipping 48 28 56 52

Securing Rental Property at International Location 43 23 44 55

Destination Services/Orientation Tours at New Location 41 18 42 53

Arrangement of Family Intl Trans./Temporary Accommodations 37 21 41 42

Counseling – Planning & Details of Moving Internationally 36 18 42 41

Monitoring of International Shipment 36 23 38 42

Intercultural and Language Training 34 10 32 50

Counseling – Company Policy Concerning Intl Relocation 28 13 26 39

Management of International Relocation Program 28 18 33 29

International Real Estate Sales/Purchase 26 15 26 32

Candidate Assessment 6 8 6 5

Other 3 - 3 5

16



Management Summary

International (cont.)

Over half (56%) of companies do not use electronic data interchange (EDI) interface capabilities on international shipments.

Almost 4 out of 5 companies (78%) offer no assistance to internationally transferred employees’ spouses/partners in finding employment in the new location.

Overall, 37% of companies that move employees internationally reported no international relocations were declined or failed in 2003 (74% of small companies, 36% of mid-size companies, and 17% of large companies). However, 25% of companies responded they did not know why an international relocation was declined or failed in 2003, with mid-size to large companies (24% and 36%, respectively) reporting not knowing more often than small companies (8%).


Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Int’l Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 37% 74% 36% 17%

Family Issues/Ties 31 13 33 41

Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 19 10 18 24

Lack of Adaptability by Spouse/Partner 11 8 9 15

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 8 5 7 11

Terrorism 6 5 6 6

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 5 3 6 5

Illness 3 - 4 5

Pet Quarantine 2 - 1 5

Don’t Know 25 8 24 36

Other 3 - 3 5

17



Management Summary

Respondent Profile

Most respondents (74%) work in Human Resources/Personnel departments. There were a variety of different positions held among those who completed this survey – from managers (24%), directors (29%), vice-presidents (16%), and relocation administrators (12%), as well as a myriad of other positions, including a few presidents, assistant vice-presidents, coordinators, and others.

A majority of the respondents regularly read trade publications (97%). The most popular publications were*:

- HR Magazine (63%)- Human Resource Executive (54%)- Mobility (36%)- Employee Benefits News (26%).

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

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

Total

Employees who belong to a relocation related association

Total 60%

Large companies 84

Mid-size companies 65

Small companies 43

18



Corporate Profile

Other9%

Mftg/ Processing

40%

Service39%

Financial10%

Government/ Military

3%

Total

Other11%

Financial14%

Mftg/ Proc.33%

Service36%

Govt/Military

6%

Financial12%

Other13%

Govt/ Military

1%

Service36%

Mftg/Proc.38%

Less than 500 Salaried Employees

500 – 4999 Salaried Employees

5000+ Salaried Employees

Q.1 – Business Classifications of Companies Participating

Other4%

Financial6%

Mftg/Proc.46%Service

44%

Govt/ Military

1%

19



Corporate Profile

Regional23%

National24%

International53%

Total

Regional39%

National27%

Interna-tional34%

National20%

Interna-tional64%

Regional16%

National26%

Regional5%

Interna-tional70%




Q.2 – Is your company…

20



Corporate Profile

over $1 billion35%

$500 million - $1 billion

14%

$100-$499 million

23%

$26-$99 million

15%

Less than $25 million

12%

Total


4%

$26-$99 million

4%

$100-$499 million29%$500

million - $1 billion25%

over $1 billion38%

$100-$499 million

5% $500 million - $1 billion

13%

$26-$99 million

2%


0%

over $1 billion80%




Q.3 – Participating Companies Annual Sales for 2003

over $1 billion

6%$500

million - $1 billion7%


26%$100-$499

million29% $26-$99

million32%

21



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

Employed by Company

42%

33%25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Less than 500Salaried

Employees

500 - 4999 SalariedEmployees

5000+ SalariedEmployees

22



Corporate ProfileQ.5 – Number of Employees Relocated in 2003


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Number of Employees Relocated in 2002

None 6% 13% 1% -%

1-9 37 72 20 1

10-19 8 6 15 2

20-49 13 4 29 8

50-99 9 1 20 8

100-199 10 3 9 22

200-399 7 - 5 22

400 or more 9 0

1 2 31

Don’t know 1 - - 5

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

By Company Size (Salaried Employees)

23



Corporate Profile

Increase32%

Stay About the Same

40%

Decrease28%

Total

Stay About the

Same42%

Decrease25% Increase

33%

Increase30%

Decrease29%

Stay About the

Same41%Increase

33%

Stay About the

Same36%

Decrease31%




Q.6 – Compared to 2002, did the number of employees you relocated in 2003…

24



Corporate Profile

Increase29%

Stay About the Same

48%

Decrease24%

Total

Stay About the

Same52%

Decrease25%

Increase23%

Increase30%

Decrease19%

Stay About the

Same51%

Increase36%

Stay About the

Same36%

Decrease28%




Q.7 – Compared to 2002, did your 2003 relocation budget…

25



Corporate Profile

Increase33%

Stay About the Same

51%

Decrease16%

Total

Stay About the

Same50%

Decrease23%

Increase27%

Increase30%

Decrease16%

Stay About the

Same54%

Increase44%

Stay About the

Same49%

Decrease7%




Q.8 – Compared to 2003, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will move during 2004 will…

26



Corporate Profile

Increase29%

Stay About the Same

53%

Decrease18%

Total

Stay About the

Same55%

Decrease20%

Increase25%

Increase29%

Decrease18%

Stay About the

Same54%

Increase37%

Stay About the

Same48%

Decrease15%




Q.9 – Compared to 2003, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2004 will…

27



Corporate Profile

None3%

50 or more34%

10-4922%

1-941%

Total

None 4%

50 or more 31%

10-49 42%

1-9 23%

50 or more82%

10-4913%

1-94%

None1%




Q.9a – Number of Employees Relocated in 2003 Within the U.S.

50 or more5%

None4%

10-4911%

1-980%

28



Corporate Profile

None68%

Don't know

3%

50 or more

1%10-494%

1-923%

Total

10-493%

Don't know4%

1-928%

None66%

None41%

Don't know7%

1-937%

10-4912%

50 or more2%




Q.9b – Number of Employees Relocated in 2003 Between the U.S. and Canada

10-491%

50 or more1%

1-911%

None88%

29



Corporate Profile

10-493%

50 or more

1%

Don't know5%

1-913%

None79%

Total

10-491%

Don't know5%

1-915%

None78%

50 or more1% Don't know

13%10-49

9%

1-916%

None61%




Q.9c – Number of Employees Relocated in 2003 Between the U.S. and Mexico

1-98%

50 or more1%

None91%

30



Corporate Profile

50 or more8%

Don't know3%

10-498%

1-929%

None52%

Total

10-497%

50 or more2%

Don't know4%

1-947%

None41%Don't know

9%

50 or more26%

10-4920%

1-922%

None24%




Q.9d – Number of Employees Relocated in 2003 Between the U.S. and Another Country

10-492%

50 or more2%

1-917%

None80%

31



Corporate Profile

1-98%

10-494% Don't know

12%

None76%

Total

10-491%

1-912%

Don't know11%

None77%

50 or more1%

10-4911%

Don't know32%

1-97%

None49%




Q.9e – Number of Employees Relocated in 2003 Within a Single Foreign Country

10-492%1-9

4%

None94%

32



Corporate Profile

10-494%

50 or more3%

Don't know12%

1-99%

None72%

Total

10-492%

50 or more1%

Don't know13%

1-913%

None72%

Don't know27%

50 or more9%

10-4913%

1-913%

None38%




Q.9f – Number of Employees Relocated in 2003 Between Two Foreign Countries

10-491%1-9

4%

Don't know1%

None94%

33



Corporate Profile

77%

60%

84%98%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Less than 500Salaried

Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Q.10 – Companies with a Formal Relocation Policy*

* % of companies answering “Yes”

34



Corporate Profile

Other3%

Relocation Firm16%Employee

6%

Company & Employee

25%

Company50%

Total

Other5%

Company56%

Employee1%

Company &

Employee14%

Relocation Firm23%

Other1%

Relocation Firm26%Employee

2%

Company &

Employee12%

Company59%




Q.11 – Who Selects The Carrier for Employee Moves

Company39%

Other1%Relocation

Firm6%

Employee13%

Company &

Employee42%

.

35



Corporate Profile

81% 77%86%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

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


36



Corporate Profile

Total

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

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

13%

23%

29%

30%

41%

47%

74%

86%

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

Recommend Site and Space Selection for OfficeRelocations

Handle Office Relocations

Control Air Carrier Selection

Handle Air Travel Via Commercial Airlines

Control Freight Carrier Selection

Manage International Relocation Programs

Control Household Goods Carrier Selection

Manage Domestic Relocation Programs

37



Corporate Profile


Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Centralized Relocation Department’s Duties

Manage Domestic Relocation Programs 86% 79% 86% 96%

Control Household Goods Carrier Selection 74 74 77 69

Manage International Relocation Programs 47 27 54 67

Control Freight Carrier Selection 41 48 39 35

Handle Air Travel Via Commercial Airlines 30 39 32 13

Control Air Carrier Selection 29 35 26 25

Handle Office Relocations 23 34 20 10

Recommend Site and Space Selection for Office Relocations

13 25 5 6

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

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


38



5%

3%

3%

6%

9%

14%

37%

51%

19%

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

Other

Terrorism

War in Iraq/Afghanistan

Events of September 11th

Growth of International Competition

Growth of Domestic Competition

Lack of Qualified People Locally

Economic Conditions

External Conditions Had No Impact

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

of Employee Relocations in 2003

Total

39





Total

Less than 500

500-4999 5000 or more

External Conditions Having Significant Impact

External Conditions Had No Impact 19% 20% 21% 15%

Economic Conditions 51 41 49 70

Lack of Qualified People Locally 37 47 36 23

Growth of Domestic Competition 14 8 18 17

Growth of International Competition 9 7 13 9

Events of September 11th 6 6 8 3

War in Iraq/Afghanistan 3 1 5 3

Terrorism 3 1 5 2

Other 5 4 7 5


Q.13 – External Factors Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2003

40



4%

2%

7%

9%12%

14%

15%

17%

21%

31%

34%

34%

46%

8%

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

Other

Security Issues

International Expansion

Decreased Production

Increased Production

Expansion of Facility

Acquisitions/Mergers

Closing of Facility

Expansion Into New Territories

Budget Constraints

Promotions/Resignations

Corporate Reorganization

Growth of Company

Internal Conditions Had No Impact

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

Employee Relocations in 2003

Total

41





Internal Conditions Having Significant Impact*

Internal Conditions Had No Impact 8% 9% 8% 6%

Growth of Company 46 46 50 40

Corporate Reorganization 34 25 32 52

Promotions/Resignations 34 28 43 31

Budget Constraints 31 22 33 44

Expansion into New Territories 21 17 23 27

Closing of Facility 17 9 21 27

Acquisitions/Mergers 15 7 20 23

Expansion of Facility 14 13 17 14

Increased Production 12 16 9 9

Decreased Production 9 10 6 9

International Expansion 7 2 14 8

Security Issues 2 1 4 2

Other 4 5 4 5


Q.14 – Internal Conditions Having the Most Significant Impact on the Number of Employee Relocations in 2003

42




1 week or less16%

Up to 2 months or

longer6%

Up to 1 month21%

Up to 3 weeks

7%

Up to 2 weeks

49%

Total

Up to 2 months or

longer9%

Up to 3 weeks

4%

Up to 1 month21%

1 week or less18%

Up to 2 weeks49%

Up to 2 months or

longer3% Up to 1

month14%

Up to 3 weeks

8%

Up to 2 weeks60%

1 week or less15%




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

Up to 2 months

or longer7% 1 week

or less16%

Up to 1 month25%

Up to 3 weeks

9%

Up to 2 weeks44%

* excludes those who “don’t know”

43




80%74%

81%90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

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

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

44




Outsourced66%

Not Outsourced

34%

52%

40%36%

34% 34%31% 29% 27% 27%

22%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Q. 17 – Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services in 2003 – the answers received indicate that…

TotalPercent Outsourced

TotalServices Outsourced

45





Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Services Outsourced

Did not use a relocation service or a brokerage firm in 2003 34% 59% 21% 12%

Real Estate Sales/Purchase 52 28 61 77

Contract of Household Goods Transportation 40 22 50 55

Arrange Family Transportation/Accommodations 36 20 46 49

Counseling – Planning & Details of Moving 34 15 44 52

Orientation Tours 34 17 42 50

Monitoring Shipment 31 15 40 44

Employee Claims Assistance 29 10 38 49

Counseling – Company Policy 27 7 35 49

Audit/Payment of Invoice 27 9 35 48

Supplementary Services 22 8 29 34

Other 4 2 5 3


Q. 17 – Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service or Brokerage Firm in 2003

46




Used Internet

70%

Did not use30%

6%

46%

63%

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

Other

To researchrelocation-related

matters

To communicate viae-mail with relocating

employees

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

TotalPercent Used

TotalInternet Uses

47






Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

How the Internet is Used

Did not use the Internet for relocation-related matters in 2003 30% 38% 30% 17%

To communicate via e-mail with relocating employees 63 55 64 76

To research relocation-related matters 46 40 48 53

Other 6 1 6 13

Q.18 – How the Internet was Used for Relocation-Related Matters in 2003

48



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

1.51.7

1.4 1.5

Total Less than500 SalariedEmployees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



49



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

4.73.8

5.05.7


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



50



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

TRANSFEREES

Total

6%

24%

22%

74%

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

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement

51



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Extent TRANSFEREES are Reimbursed

Full reimbursement of moving expenses 74% 61% 82% 85%

Lump sum payment 22 24 15 28

Partial reimbursement based on salary, position, tenure, etc. 24 31 23 14

No reimbursement of moving expenses 6 8 5 5

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

52



Relocation Costs

Paid directly by company

82%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

14%

Paid by employee

3%

Total

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

26%

Paid by employee

6%


68%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

8%

Paid by employee

1%


91%


94%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

3%

Paid by employee

2%




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

53



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

NEW HIRES

Total

7%

36%

24%

59%

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

No Reimbursement

PartialReimbursement

Lump Sum Payment

Full Reimbursement

54



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Extent NEW HIRES are Reimbursed

Full reimbursement of moving expenses 59% 48% 69% 64%

Lump sum payment 24 27 20 24

Partial reimbursement based on salary, position, tenure, etc. 36 40 33 34

No reimbursement of moving expenses 7 8 10 3

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

55



Relocation Costs


79%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

16%

Paid by employee

5%

Total

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

26%

Paid by employee

7%


67%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

10%

Paid by employee

5%


85%


90%

Paid by employee

then reimbursed

8%

Paid by employee

2%




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

56



Relocation Costs

Total

3%

15%18%

20%28%

30%

36%

41%46%47%

51%

57%

73%

85%

7%

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

Hire Temporary Maid Service

Move a Boat

Move Satellite TV Dishes

Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence

Move Pets

Permanent/Extended Storage

Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects

Move Unlimited Weight

Move Recreation/Lawn Equipment

Move 2nd Automobile

Carry Items Down from Attic

Move Exercise Equipment

Move an Automobile

Pack All Items

Company does not pay for any of these items

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

57



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Covered Moving Expenses Company does not pay for any of these items 7% 15% 3% 1%

To Pack All Items 85 74 91 93 To Move an Automobile 73 57 86 84 To Move Exercise Equipment 57 49 58 72 To Carry Items Down from the Attic 51 39 58 64 To Move a Second Automobile 47 32 50 67 To Move Recreation and Lawn Equipment 46 43 46 52 To Move Unlimited Weight 41 34 41 53 To Move Collections of Highly Valuable Objects 36 22 43 49 To Have Permanent/Extended Storage of Some Possessions 30 25 35 33 To Move Pets 28 20 29 39 To Have Belongings Picked Up from a Secondary Residence 20 14 23 25 To Move Satellite TV Dishes 18 14 17 27 To Move a Boat 15 13 14 19 To Hire Temporary Maid Service 3 6 1 -

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

58



Relocation Costs

24%

27%

31%

39%

44%

52%

62%

65%

15%

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

Reimburse/Pay Security Deposits

Reimburse/Pay for Hook-Up Fees

Apply Temporary Living Allowanceto Rent

Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder's Fees

Offer Storage

Offer to Move One or MoreAutomobiles

Reimburse/Pay for LeaseCancellation

Offer Homefinding Trips

Company does not offer any ofthese benefits

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

Total

59



Relocation Costs



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Covered Moving Expenses when Employee will be Renting

Company does not offer any of these benefits 15% 25% 11% 2% Offer Home-Finding Trips 65 50 71 81 Reimburse/Pay for Lease Cancellation 62 37 73 88 Offer to Move One or More Automobiles 52 32 61 74 Offer Storage 44 31 50 58 Reimburse/Pay Apartment Search or Finder’s Fees 39 23 44 59 Apply Temporary Living Allowance Toward Rent 31 40 24 25 Reimburse/Pay for Hook Up Fees 27 27 27 28 Reimburse/Pay for Security Deposits 24 24 24 25

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

60




7%

21%

38%

28%

5%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Less than 25 years

25-29 years

30-35 years

36-40 years

41-45 years

More than 45 years

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

Total


61





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Age Range of Most Frequently Transferred Employee

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

25 – 29 years 5 4 6 4

30 – 35 years 28 30 28 25

36 – 40 years 38 28 46 51

41 – 45 years 21 24 17 21

More than 45 years 7 14 1 -

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

Salaried Employee


62



Q.26 – In 2003, What Approximate Percentage of Your Company’s Transferred Employees Were Women?*

* excludes those who don’t know


15% 12%16% 22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

63



Q.27 – In 2003, What Approximate Percentage of Relocations Involved a Trailing Spouse that was a Wife or Female Partner?*


54%48%

58% 62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent


64



Q.28 – In 2003, What Approximate Percentage of Relocations that Involved a Trailing Spouse was a Husband or Male Partner?*



10% 9% 11% 14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

65



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

39%33% 32%

57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



66



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


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Spousal/Partner Employment Assistance

Find Employment Outside Company 43% 64% 31% 33%



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

Other 45 36 61 43



* those who answered “Yes” to Q29

67



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

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


21% 23% 24%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


Average Percent

68



Q.30 – Companies that Offer Elder Care Assistance

23%15%

21%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees



Average Percent

69



Q.30 – Elder Care Assistance Offered


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Elder Care Assistance

No Elder Care Assistance 77% 85% 79% 61%

Provide List of Nursing Homes and/or Day-Care Centers 16 11 12 28

Allow Transferee to Use Pre-Tax Dollars for Outside Care 7 5 5 12

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

7 4 6 13

Move an Elderly Relative That Does Not Live with a Transferee 1 - 2 4

Reimburse for Outside Care - 1 - -

Other 5 1 5 11



70



Never11%

Seldom47%

Frequently29%

Almost always

14%

Total Never16%

Frequently27%

Seldom37%

Almost always20%

Never8%

Frequently27%

Seldom56%

Almost always

9%

Almost always

8%Never7%

Seldom51%

Frequently34%




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


71



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

29% 30%23%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees




Average Percent

72



Q.33 – Companies that had Employees Decline the Opportunity to Relocate in 2003*

57%

36%

66%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


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


Average Percent

73



Decrease from 2002

10%

Remain about the same as

200283%

Increase from 2002

7%

Total Increase from 2002

7%

Decrease from 2002

13%


200280%

Decrease from 2002

9%

Increase from 2002

11%


200280%

Increase from 2002

3%Decrease from 2002

6%


200291%




Q.34 – Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2003…


74



2%

1%

23%

39%

43%

48%

52%

83%

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

Other

Could Hurt Career

Housing/Mortgage Concerns

No Desire to Move

Personal Reasons (undisclosed)

Cost of Living in New Location

Spouse's Employment

Family Issues/Ties

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

Total



75



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




Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Reasons for Declining Relocation

Family Issues/Ties 83% 79% 87% 84%

Spouse’s Employment 52 47 56 53

Cost of Living in New Location 48 38 42 63

Personal Reasons (undisclosed) 43 34 42 51

No Desire to Move 39 45 44 29

Housing/Mortgage Concerns 23 15 27 25

Could Hurt Career 1 2 - 2

Other 2 - 2 4


76



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

66%

44%

79% 83%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

Transportation

* % of companies indicating contracts with one or more carriers

77



Transportation

2.21.8

2.0

2.8


500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

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

* of those companies indicating contracts with one or more carriers

78



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

Transportation

67% 63%69% 68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees

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

79



Transportation

47%

48%

58%

59%

87%

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

Claims Processing

Local Agent(s)

Price

Reputation

Service

Total(Those who rated the attribute a “9" or "10," or "critically important")

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

*excludes those who “don’t know”

80





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

Service 87% 82% 87% 94%

Reputation 59 60 60 58

Price 58 63 58 49

Local Agent(s) 48 48 49 47

Claims Processing 47 45 48 49


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

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

(Those who rated the attribute a “9" or "10," or "critically important")

81



Transportation

31%

50%

62%

73%

82%

89%

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

Extra Services

Claims Processing

Price

Employee Feedback

On-time Delivery

Service

Total

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



82





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

Service 89% 87% 87% 94%

On-time Delivery 82 82 84 79

Employee Feedback 73 74 73 70

Price 62 68 63 51

Claims Processing 50 50 52 48

Extra Services 31 30 28 35


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

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


83



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


Transportation


Salesperson/Origin Agent

0% 54% 57% 58% 43%

10% 27 22 28 34

20% 10 11 11 9

30% 2 2 1 3

40% 2 2 - 4

50% or more 5 7 2 7


84



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


Transportation


Packing/Broken Items

0% 20% 28% 17% 7%

10% 34 26 44 33

20% 18 16 18 22

30% 10 9 7 17

40% 3 5 3 -

50% or more 15 16 11 20


85



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


Transportation


Driver/Timeliness

0% 33% 38% 37% 19%

10% 33 26 37 38

20% 12 11 12 14

30% 6 5 5 10

40% 2 3 1 3

50% or more 14 17 9 16


86



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


Transportation


Destination Agent/Unpacking

0% 39% 52% 43% 12%

10% 31 21 33 44

20% 11 8 10 18

30% 6 4 6 10

40% 2 1 1 4

50% or more 12 15 8 12


87



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


Transportation


Claims Processing

0% 35% 46% 32% 19%

10% 30 21 36 35

20% 12 9 12 16

30% 6 6 4 10

40% 2 2 2 4

50% or more 15 16 14 15


88



Transportation

15%10% 11%

75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Electronic Transfer ofFunds to Your Carrierfor Relocation Costs

On-Line RegistrationAccess with Your

Carrier

On-Line Access withYour Carrier for

ShipmentRecords/History

None of the Above

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

Total

89



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


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Elder Care Assistance

Electronic Transfer of Funds to Your Carrier for Relocation Costs

15% 7% 18% 23%

On-line Registration Access with Your Carrier 10 8 9 17

On-line Access with Your Carrier for Shipment Records/History 11 7 12 17

None of the Above 75 87 71 62

Transportation


90



Q.41 – Companies that Transfer Employees Between Countries

International

51%

27%

60%

78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Employees

500 - 4999Salaried

Employees

5000+Salaried

Employees


91



International

6%

9%10%

22%

36%

40%

50%

55%

55%

56%

63%

73%

12%

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

Other

More Leniency on Whom Insurance Covers

More Communication Equipment (Phones/Laptops)

Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel

Higher Rental Housing Allowance

Higher Moving Allowances

Additional Leave Time

Intercultural and Language Training

Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools

Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage

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

Additional Tax Considerations

No Difference Between Int'l/Domestic Policies

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

Total


92



International



Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

International Relocation Policy Offers Different from Domestic

No difference between international and domestic relocation policies

12% 21% 12% 6%

Additional Tax Considerations 73 56 70 87 Additional Leave Time (Includes At Least 1 Visit Back to U.S./Canada)

63 49 63 72

Increased Allowances for Permanent Storage 56 38 52 70 Allowances for Children to Attend Certain Schools 55 44 54 64 Intercultural and Language Training 55 41 48 70 Additional Leave Time 50 44 45 60 Higher Moving Allowances 40 41 37 42 Higher Rental Housing Allowance 36 41 28 40 Extended Per Diem Charges for Hotel 22 31 18 21 More Communication Equipment (Phones/Laptops) 10 13 13 6

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

9 13 6 9

Other 6 3 10 3

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


93



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

relocation services in 2003 – the answers received indicate that…*

48%43% 41%

37%36%36% 34%28% 28% 26%

6%3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

TotalPercent Outsourced

TotalServices Outsourced

Outsourced70%

Not Outsourced

30%


94



International


Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Services Outsourced

Did not use a relocation service or brokerage firm for international relocation services in 2003

30% 62% 27% 15%

Contract of Household Goods Moving Company for Intl Shipping 48 28 56 52

Securing Rental Property at Intl Location 43 23 44 55

Destination Services/Orientation Tours at New Location 41 18 42 53

Arrangement of Family’s Intl Transportation & Temporary Accommodations

37 21 41 42

Counseling – Planning & Details of Moving Internationally 36 18 42 41

Monitoring of International Shipment 36 23 38 42

Intercultural and Language Training 34 10 32 50

Counseling – Company Policy on Intl Relocation 28 13 26 39

Management of International Relocation Program 28 18 33 29

International Real Estate Sales/Purchase 26 15 26 32

Candidate Assessment 6 8

8 6 5

Other 3 - 3 5


Q. 41b – International Services Outsourced to a Relocation Service or Brokerage Firm in 2003*


95



International

52%

59%

66%

73%

91%

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

Third Party

Price

Reputation

Scheduling

Service

Total

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


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

96





Important Attributes when Selecting an Int’l Carrier (Top 3-Box)

Service 91% 90% 90% 94%

Scheduling 73 72 82 65

Reputation 66 67 75 58

Price 59 69 58 53

Third Party 52 54 53 48

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

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


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

97



Frequently15%

Always16%

Never56%

Seldom13%

InternationalQ.41d – Does company use EDI on international shipments?*

(EDI = Electronic Data Interchange)

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

98



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

International

1%

6%

11%

14%

78%

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

Pay Spouse's PartialSalary Till Hired

Find Employment WithinCompany

Find Employment OutsideCompany

Pay Job-Finder's Fee

No Assistance

Total


99




Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Spousal Employment Assistance – International

No Assistance 78% 72% 83% 76%


Find Employment Outside Company 11 21 9 7


Pay Spouse’s Partial Salary Until Hired 1 - 2 1

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

Employee’s Spouse or Partner



100



3%

25%

2%

3%

5%

6%

8%

11%

19%

31%

37%

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

Other

Don't Know

Pet Quarantine

Illness

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance

Terrorism

Lack of Adaptability by Employee

Lack of Adaptability by the Spouse/Partner

Personal Reason (non-disclosed)

Family Issues/Ties

No International Relocations Declined or Failed

Q.41f – In 2003, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail

Total

International


101




Total Less than

500 500-4999 5000 or more

Reasons Cited for Employee Declining/Failed Int’l Relocation

No international relocations declined or failed 37% 74% 36% 17%

Family Issues/Ties 31 13 33 41

Personal Reason (non-disclosed) 19 10 18 24

Lack of Adaptability by Spouse/Partner 11 8 9 15

Lack of Adaptability by Employee 8 5 7 11

Terrorism 6 5 6 6

Lack of Spousal/Partner Assistance 5 3 6 5

Illness 3 - 4 5

Pet Quarantine 2 - 1 5

Don’t Know 25 8 24 36

Other 3 - 3 5

InternationalQ.41f – In 2003, Reasons Cited for Employee Declining International

Relocation or for an International Relocation to Fail



102



Respondent Profile

Male41%

Female59%

Total

Female49%

Male51%

Male36%

Female64%

Male30%

Female70%




Q.42 – Respondent Gender

103



Respondent Profile

Traffic/Transportation

0%Compensation & Benefits

5%

Administration5%

Relocation Services

11%

Other4%

Human Resources/Personnel

74%

Total

Other2%Admin.

4%

Comp. & Benefits

7%

HR/ Personnel

81%

Relo-cation

Services6%

Other3%

Traffic/Trans1%

Comp. & Benefits

8%

Admin. 3%

Relocation Services

35%

HR/Personnel

49%




Q.43 – Departmental Function

Other5%

HR/ Personnel

84%

Comp. & Benefits

2%

Admin.8%

Relocation Services

1%

104



5%

1%

0%

1%

3%

12%

2%

2%

24%

29%

2%

16%

4%

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

Other

HR Assistant

Assistant

Recruiter

Coordinator

Relocation Administrator

Supervisor

Department Head

Manager

Director

Assistant Vice President

Vice President

President

Total

Respondent ProfileQ.44 – Respondent’s Position

105




Respondent’s Position

President 4% 8% -% -%

Vice President 16 26 11 8

Assistant Vice President 2 3 2 1

Director 29 40 25 17

Manager 24 10 23 47

Department Head 2 1 4 1

Supervisor 2 2 1 2 Relocation Administrator 12 1 20 20

Coordinator 3 1 6 2

Recruiter 1 1 1 -

Assistant - - - -

HR Assistant 1 2 - - Other 5 4 8 1


Respondent ProfileQ.44 – Respondent’s Position

106



3%3%

3%3%4%5%

8%13%

16%16%16%

21%

21%26%

36%54%

63%

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

None

Others

Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) Today

HR Wire

HR Innovator

Human Capital

National Relocation & Real Estate

HR & Corporate Relocation

Workforce

HR Solutions

HR Focus

HR News

Runzheimer Reports On Relocation

Employee Benefits News

Mobility

Human Resource Executive

HR Magazine

Total

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

107




Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Trade Publications Respondent’s Read

HR Magazine 63% 79% 63% 36%

Human Resource Executive 54 82 44 23

Mobility 36 6 41 80

Employee Benefits News 26 37 22 10

Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 21 5 25 43

HR News 21 30 22 5

HR Focus 16 20 19 3

HR Solutions 16 18 21 8

Workforce 16 20 16 10

HR & Corporate Relocation 13 10 18 13

National Relocation & Real Estate 8 1 7 19

Human Capital 5 5 9 -

HR Innovator 4 5 4 1

HR Wire 3 4 4 1

Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) Today 3 2 4 3

Others 3 4 4 2

None 3 3 4 3


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

108



Total

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

14%

1%

3%

36%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

HR.com

bound4.com

HRRadio.com

Other(s)

109





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Online/E-mail Trade Publications Regularly Read

None 48% 37% 49% 63%

HR.com 36 47 37 17

bound4.com 3 1 3 6

HRRadio.com 1 1 - -

Other(s) 14 15 13 14

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

110



Total

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

3%

0%

1%

21%

33%

36%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

ERC (U.S.)

SHRM

Regional or Local Relocation Council

CERC (Canada)

Industrial Traffic League

Other(s)

111





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Relocation-Related Associations – Respondent Membership

None 40% 57% 35% 16%

ERC (U.S.) 36 6 43 80

SHRM 33 36 39 20

Regional or Local Relocation Council 21 6 26 41

CERC (Canada) 1 1 - 1

Industrial Traffic League - 1 - -

Other(s) 3 3 1 7

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

112



Total

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

11%

22%

16%

1%

2%

12%

25%

19%

36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

None

ERC National Relocation Conference

SHRM Conference & Exposition

ERC Global Workforce Symposium

Employee Mgmt Assoc. Annual Conference & Expo

HRO World

Regional SHRM Conference

Local ERC Conference

Other(s)

113





Total Less than

500 500-4999

5000 or more

Relocation-Related Associations – Respondent Membership

None 36% 47% 34% 21%

ERC National Relocation Conference 19 1 21 47

SHRM Conference & Exposition 25 30 28 13

ERC Global Workforce Symposium 12 2 9 31

Employee Management Association’s

Annual Conference & Exposition 2 3 3 -

HRO World 1 1 - -

Regional SHRM Conference 16 23 14 9

Local ERC Conference 22 7 25 44

Other(s) 11 8 11 16

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

114

Integrity | quality | solutions Copyright © 2004 Atlas World Group, Inc. 1212 St. George Road,...

Documents

Transcript of Integrity | quality | solutions Copyright © 2004 Atlas World Group, Inc. 1212 St. George Road,...