GLOBAL MOBILITY POLICY & PRACTICES - Cartus · CARTUS | 2016 GLOBAL MOBILITY POLICY & PRACTICES SURVEY 3 INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES Cartus’ 2016 Trends in Global Relocation: Global

®

Trends In Global Relocation

G L O B A L M O B I L I T Y P O L I C Y & P R A C T I C E S

2016 SURVEY REPORT

C O N T E N T S

Introduction & Objectives ............................................................................. 3

Key Survey Trends and Insights .................................................................... 5

Long-Term Assignments ................................................................................................ 6

Flexibility........................................................................................................................ 10

Duty of Care .................................................................................................................. 12

Cost Savings ................................................................................................................. 14

Regional Differences .................................................................................................... 16

2016 Global Mobility Policy & Practices Detailed Survey Findings ............................................................................ 19

CARTUS | 2016 GLOBAL MOBILITY POLICY & PRACTICES SURVEY 3

I N T R O D U C T I O N & O B J E C T I V E S

Cartus’ 2016 Trends in Global Relocation: Global Mobility Policy & Practices survey—the seventh in our series of policy and practices surveys that began in 2002—was conducted in June 2016 and elicited responses from 176 mobility managers around the world. This study is a continuation of our investigation into global mobility trends, related policy approaches, how and where companies are sending their transferring employees, the challenges they are facing, and the solutions they are employing.

We take a look at the macro trends facing global mobility managers, share how companies are managing their programs, and offer best practices. The report also takes a detailed look at policy approaches, assignment types, and hot topics, including cost control, talent management, duty of care, and more. All major industry groups are included, and the respondents are multinational companies representing nearly 10 million employees worldwide. Survey respondents represent all regions, with 76% coming from the Americas, 18% coming from EMEA, and 6% coming from APAC.

We would like to extend a special thank you to the 176 mobility managers that took the time to share their valuable insights and experiences with us. This report is largely the result of their participation and collaboration.

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

ASSIGNEE PROFILE RESPONDENTS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

Respondent Locations Respondents by Industry Sector

Chart 8: Chart 20:

Chart 22 Chart 23 Chart 26 Chart 27 Chart 28



Chart 57 Chart 58 Chart 59 a Chart 59 b Chart 59 c

Chart 57 Chart 60 Chart 62 Chart 63

Chart 64 a Chart 64 b Chart 64 c Chart 65 Chart 67


Chart 34

Chart 77 Chart 80 Chart 81-2012 Chart 81-2014 Chart 81-2016

Chart 39

Manufacturing/Construction

28%

Service/Media

11%

Tech15%

Other 2%

Finance12%

Consumer Goods14%

Oil and Gas7%

Pharma9%

Raw Materials

2%

Age 2016

Under 30 14%

30-39 33%

40-49 35%

50+ 18%

Gender 2016

Male 76%

Female 24%

Family Status 2016

Single 32%

Single, accompanied by dependent family

6%

Married/with partner, not accompanied by dependent family

18%

Married/with partner, accompanied by dependent family

44%

4 2016 GLOBAL MOBILITY POLICY & PRACTICES SURVEY | CARTUS

NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL MOVES ANNUALLY BY RESPONDENTS

(Total international [cross-border] relocation volume, including long- and short-term assignments, permanent one-way moves, extended business travelers, sequential assignments, localizations, commuters, rotational assignments, and developmental assignments.)

0-25

26-100

101-250

251-500

501-1,000

1,001+

21%

30%

10%

7%

19%

13%

DEFINITIONS

The policy types we studied include the following traditional and emerging forms:

� Long-Term Assignment: Relocation from one country to another for the length of assignment—typically one year or more.

� Short-Term Assignment: Relocation from one country to another for the length of assignment—typically up to one year.

� Permanent Transfer: A one-way relocation from one country to another for an indefinite period of time.

� Extended Business Travel: An employee who does not relocate, but travels regularly to an international location for an extended period of time.

� Sequential Assignments: Employees who continually move from one country to another on assignment.

� Localization: Integration of an employee into the compensation and benefits system of the host country, typically following a long-term assignment and continuing for an indefinite period of time.

� International Commuter: An employee who works in the country/countries of assignment and commutes frequently to his/her home country.

� Rotational Assignments: Assignments that run back to back as the employee “rotates” to various locations. Most commonly these assignments are developmental in nature, and they may also be project based.

� Developmental Assignments: An assignment—generally short-term—with the major objective of broadening the experience of an employee and providing a career-development opportunity.


For the 14 years Cartus has conducted its benchmark surveys exploring relocation policies and practices, it’s clear that mobility managers have been facing an ever-increasing array of challenges as business environments evolve. In the main, many of today’s major challenges were on mobility managers’ radar screens even ten years ago, but the level of complexity involved in each has intensified. New demographics, dramatic expansion of global locations, increasing regulations, and competing needs for cost control and talent mean that companies’ solutions to the challenges they face are also growing in complexity. As mobility managers explore different approaches to address these challenges, they are looking for a deeper understanding of the considerations and the outcomes. In this report, we’ve highlighted some of the top areas of focus for companies around the globe and discussed the myriad solutions they are putting into place.

Top challenges facing companies Percentage of respondents

Cost control 71%

Visa and immigration regulations 63%

Mobility program/assignee tracking and reporting 54%

Measuring mobility program/assignment success 53%

Linking mobility to career development 50%

Developing global competencies 44%

Global versus local policy development 39%

Designing equitable compensation packages 35%

KEY SURVEY TRENDS AND INSIGHTS


ARE LONG-TERM ASSIGNMENTS STILL KING?For several years, there has been talk about the demise of the long-term assignment—that short-term assignments and other mobility scenarios, including permanent relocation (or one-way moves), are

taking the place of traditional long-term assignments. This year’s Global Mobility Policy & Practices survey data, along with data from our 2014 survey, was analyzed to see if this prediction is, in fact, true.

Overall, the survey findings do not bear out the expectation of the “disappearance” of long-term assignments. In this year’s survey, 43% of respondents state that their long-term assignment activity is about the same as it has been over the past two years, and 32% state that it is higher, leaving just 25% to say that long-term assignment activity is lower. This is on par with what companies reported in 2014.

Looking ahead, while a few more respondents this year expect long-term assignments to decrease, and a few less expect it to increase, the same percentage as in 2014—48%—expect it to remain the same. Again, this aligns with 2014 findings and is an indicator that companies view long-term assignments as an essential part of their mobility portfolio.

Change in use of long-term assignments

Past 2 years Next 2 years

2014 2016 2014 2016

Same 45% 43% 48% 48%

More 34% 32% 35% 33%

Less 21% 25% 17% 19%

Despite the fact that use of long-term assignments has remained fairly steady to date, there are indicators that there is change afoot for this assignment type. For one thing, more respondents reported a decrease in long-term assignments than in any other assignment type. For another, it appears that companies do expect their use of long-term assignments to decrease, even if it is not actually happening yet. The number of respondents that expect their use of long-term assignments to decline (19%) is anywhere from nine to 19 percentage points higher than for any other mobility type.

Change in activity by assignment/transfer type over the past 2 years

Higher About the same Lower

Long-term assignments 32% 43% 25%

Short-term assignments 44% 41% 15%

Permanent transfer 54% 40% 6%

Extended business travel 45% 50% 5%

Sequential assignments 18% 66% 16%

Localization 42% 47% 11%

Commuter assignments 28% 56% 16%

Rotational assignments 32% 58% 10%

Long-term assignments are still viewed as essential to global mobility… 81% expect long-term assignment activity to stay the same or increase over the next two years.


Why the focus on reducing long-term assignments? Why does there continue to be so much interest in reducing long-term assignments? The primary reason is cost: long-term assignments cost more than other assignment types. Partially this is because of their duration, and because long-term assignments typically require more support than other mobility types. For example, long-term assignments are almost always offered on the more costly accompanied basis (84%), whereas this is not common for short-term assignments (12%). Also, while long-term assignments may not incur the same level of costs for elements such as home disposition, as in the case of permanent transfers, long-term assignments typically require costly compensation-related adjustments and allowances that permanent transfers do not.

Simply put, the continued use of long-term assignments puts pressure on companies’ mobility budgets. Managing costs is the number-one challenge stated for long-term assignments (46%, though notably down 11 percentage points from the 2014 survey results). Other challenges listed, such as tax compliance, exception request management, controlling assignment duration, cost of living allowance (COLA), and host-country housing assistance, are all elements that can drive costs up.

Biggest management challenges for long-term assignments

2014

2016

Percentage point increase/decrease

Managing assignment costs 57% 46% -11

Tax compliance 51% 43% -8

Linking talent management with mobility N/A 36% —

Immigration compliance 33% 30% -3

Exception requests N/A 27% —

Inconsistent policy application 30% 20% -10

Operating shadow payroll, including accurate tax/gross-up calculation

24% 19% -5

Controlling assignment duration 34% 18% -16

Repatriation N/A 18% —

Goods and services differential/ cost of living allowance

11% 6% -5

Host-country housing assistance 7% 4% -3

Tracking assignments 7% 3% -4

Early return from assignments N/A 2% —

So, why are long-term assignments still hanging around?If the use of long-term assignments conflicts with a company’s objective to reduce mobility costs, why are there still so many long-term assignments? The answer is that there are many business objectives that can best be met via this assignment type. Management and leadership roles, which 82% of respondents state are primary business drivers of long-term assignments, cannot be addressed as effectively through other assignment types. Note that only 11% of respondents state they use short-term assignments for this purpose.

Many business objectives can best be met through

long-term assignments, most notably filling

management and leadership roles.


Some business objectives, such as filling certain roles or starting up new operations, require a longer duration to accomplish. The comparison of assignment objectives for long- and short-term assignments, below, illustrates that each assignment type is better suited to certain goals.

Primary business drivers for sending employees on long- and short-term assignments

Long-term Short-term

Filling management and leadership roles 82% 11%

New business/start-up operations 52% 27%

Part of employees’ succession/career planning 43% 19%

Transferring knowledge and/or corporate culture 41% 32%

Transferring technical skills 34% 51%

Development 32% 38%

Project-based assignment 28% 77%

Employee request (self-initiated) 14% 12%

Employee training 4% 32%

The gap between projections and realityWhat causes the gap between what companies say they want (fewer long-term assignments) and what they actually do (retain long-term assignments)? There are several possibilities:

� While companies are clearly looking for alternatives to long-term assignments to meet business needs, long-term assignments will always be the best approach for certain business scenarios. As a result, while other assignment types are undoubtedly growing, long-term assignments are not likely to disappear. For example, at one time, developmental assignments were predominantly long-term assignments. In recent years, there has been a shift toward shorter assignment types for developmental needs. Conversely, companies are increasingly training emerging market leaders at company headquarters, an approach that typically requires a long-term assignment to be effective.

� While new assignment types continue to emerge, and some of them are quite different from long-term assignments (such as localization and local plus), others are really variations of long-term assignments, such as rotational or commuter assignments.


Further, while long-term assignments remain a key part of most companies’ mobility platforms, tomorrow’s long-term assignment policy may look very different from today’s. This shift is already in progress. In some areas, long-term policies may contain less assistance than they did just two years ago, notably in relocation support.

Policy provision

Percentage that typically offer, 2014


Pre-assignment trip 66% 60%

Medical exams 67% 55%

Intercultural training 58% 54%

Language training 51% 49%

Home/auto disposition 49% 46%

Relocation allowance 95% 88%

Property management 31% 27%

Storage of household goods 62% 48%

There are also areas where assistance is increasing, such as on-assignment support, though these are not as numerous.

Policy provision



Temporary living 73% 87%

Settling-in assistance 58% 82%

Host transportation 50% 56%

Hardship allowance 28% 34%

To sum up, while the face of long-term assignments is changing, their use is still prevalent. There are enough business needs that require long-term assignments to keep long-term assignments as a key part of most companies’ mobility programs.


THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY76% of survey respondents report an increase in the need for flexibility in their mobility programs, which is consistent with both the 2014 and 2012 Policy & Practices survey results. As in our past two

Policy & Practices surveys, the primary driver for the need for flexibility, by far, is budget constraints. In 2016, however, the margin is higher than in prior years, with 80% stating that this is one of the key drivers behind interest in a flexible policy, versus 67% in 2014 and 68% in 2012.

Meeting flexibility needsBeyond budget constraints, some drivers of interest in flexibility are changing. In 2016, changing employee expectations was noted by 42% of respondents, up from 29% in 2014, whereas attracting qualified candidates, reported in 2016 as a key driver by 29% of respondents, was down from 40% in 2014, and 49% in 2012. The increase in changing employee expectations may in part be attributed to the fact that millennials are now fully coming of age and making their influence felt as they move into increasingly responsible positions.

Drivers for more flexibility in mobility programs

2012 2014 2016

Budget constraints/economic climate 68% 67% 80%

Changing employee needs (family, spouse, elder care, etc.)

36% 44% 42%

Changing employee expectations (Gen X, Gen Y, Millennials, etc.)

22% 29% 42%

Need to reduce policy exceptions N/A 32% 34%

Attracting qualified candidates 49% 40% 29%

Regional need 21% 36% 27%

Emerging markets (housing, schools, etc.) 44% 40% 22%

This represents an important distinction for companies interested in developing flexible mobility programs: is the objective to reduce costs because the current program is too costly, or is it because the current approach is not meeting the needs of assignees/transferees and is too costly?

The secondary drivers of mobility program flexibility carry a lot of importance. They provide indicators as to how a flexible policy should be structured beyond just reducing costs of international employee mobility. According to survey respondents, the most common way companies address flexibility is through ad hoc solutions, stated by 50% of respondents (up from 41% in 2014).

Ad hoc solutions are a convenient way to address flexibility because managers or other decision makers can adapt policy on the spot to meet a variety of needs, ranging from budget constraints to personal needs adjustments. However, unless ad hoc is a documented approach with guidelines in place on how it may be applied, this methodology is actually the same as managing by exception. Exception management can drive up costs and result in inconsistency, making it a factor companies consistently point to as a reason to develop flexible policy. Clearly, the need for actual flexible policy is there; what is needed is an approach that companies find effective and compelling enough to take the place of ad hoc solutions.

76% of companies are seeing an increased need for flexibility.

50% of companies address flexibility through ad hoc solutions.


Tiered policy has a long track record of helping companies adapt policy to different needs, and its use by 40% of respondents in 2016 is on par with 2014 survey results. Policies may be tiered by purpose: for example, developmental versus skill transfer assignments. They may be distinguished by level, such as entry level versus executive. Tiers are an effective way to implement flexibility on a large scale where the options are pre-set, much like a standard policy.

Though the survey findings indicate that the use of core-flex policy has decreased (30% in 2016 versus 38% in 2014), this may be due to the use of new terms for what is essentially a core-flex policy. The same holds true for lump sum options, which according to survey results appear to have decreased as an approach (sliding from 38% in 2014 to 29% in 2016), although anecdotal information does not generally bear this out. Cafeteria approach, employee choice, and even lump sum and tiered policy are all actually core-flex concepts. Core-flex policy is evolving to address a much greater range of choice than in the past. Core elements may be set by the company and apply worldwide, but flex elements may be delivered as a service or a lump sum, and choices may be made by employees or managers based on assignment objectives or budgets. In many cases, flex elements are a mix of all of these.

What to consider when looking at flexible mobility policiesWhen considering a flexible structure, companies should look at a variety of factors to ensure success.

� Know the objective. Cost containment rolls right off the tongue, but it must go further in order to develop a flexible approach that will meet your needs and the needs of your employees. Why does the company want to contain costs? Consider:

– Are costs out of line with industry norms? – Is there a lot of negotiation, or are there requests for exceptions for support outside of policy? – Is the variety of assignment parameters changing, with the result that your current policy does

not make sense for all scenarios? – Are there current provisions that are underutilized? – Do managers provide assistance outside mobility?

Flexible policy that does not address specific objectives is not likely to be successful, so know the goal before making changes to policy.

� Consider your corporate culture. This is a key determinant of flexible program success or failure. Going to conferences and hearing about how other companies do things is educational and can help generate new ideas, but what works in one company may not stand a chance in another. Industry can be an influencing factor, too, if only because companies in the same industry tend to have similar reasons for mobility. But they can still have very different corporate cultures that influence how a flexible program may actually work out.

� Flexible equals complicated, usually. The one-policy-fits-all approach is nice because it is simple. It can be designed to work on a global basis and still remain simple in construct. It is the opposite of a flexible policy. Once a company introduces options, alternatives, different decision makers, or any other non-standard elements, things will be more complicated. Complicated does not mean bad, however. A less straightforward approach can save money, time, and provide better service. However, it’s a trade-off that your organization has to be able to handle.

� Consider how you will measure success and track costs. Developing a flexible approach to help manage costs and increase satisfaction is only part of the process. At the same time, there must be a way to gather data and compare it with past experience or expectations. This is a common point of failure: not taking into consideration how to determine if the flexible approach is effective.

Unless documented, ad hoc solutions can actually

be the same as exceptions, and drive up costs and

result in inconsistencies.


DUTY OF CAREDuty of care is a legal term and refers to the obligation requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care. Essentially, it is the opposite of negligence. It has been adopted as a core concept of international employee mobility, addressing the responsibility for ensuring the safety and security

of assignees and the company they represent. In recent years, more companies have become aware of this obligation. They may have to consider their level of care for employees who “don’t know what they don’t know” about tax, legal, and immigration compliance, as well as safety and security, and even appropriate preparation prior to undertaking an international assignment.

The focus on addressing duty of care becomes more apparent as companies grow internationally and have to manage more assignees, in

more countries, under more circumstances. This year’s survey is the first time questions were included specifically about this topic, and it became clear that concerns about issues related to duty of care are at the top of many relocation professionals’ minds.

The compliance factorCompliance—be it tax, legal, immigration, or data security—is clearly a hot topic, as 79% of the survey respondents stated that their organization’s focus on compliance had increased in the past two years. Just 21% stated it had stayed the same, and none said that it had decreased.

Compliance is also a high-ranking challenge for companies. Compliance challenges varied in importance between assignment types, but compliance-related issues were cited among the top challenges.

Compliance as a mobility program challenge

Tax compliance ranking

Immigration compliance ranking

Long-term assignments #2 #4

Short-term assignments #1 #2

Business travel #1 #2

Commuters #1 #3

79% of survey respondents stated that their organization’s focus on compliance has increased in the past two years.


How are companies managing compliance risks? In pursuit of better management of compliance risks, companies are focusing on several key areas, with 72% stating they are focusing on early involvement of tax and immigration providers. Consultations with these providers have long been a part of pre-departure preparation for employees; now, with compliance being a more critical issue for companies, earlier involvement with business leaders during the assignment development process is also key. For example, the process of identifying the proper candidate is a lot easier if it is known prior to visa application if there are any specific requirements or challenges that would create issues for certain assignees.

The second challenge companies are facing vis-à-vis compliance is better tracking of assignees’ days in country, cited by 56% of respondents. Exceeding allowable days or other non-compliant presence can trigger costly tax implications, such as the unintended creation of permanent establishment, or legal implications jeopardizing the employee’s presence in-country.

One way companies are addressing these issues is to more clearly define policies and processes (identified by 51% of respondents); another is to focus on the education of company management and administrators (47%). Compliance and duty of care are closely related, and duty of care is not just a mobility department concern: it can and should be addressed throughout the organization.

Areas of increased focus on managing compliance risks

2014 2016

Early involvement of tax and immigration providers 70% 72%

Better tracking of assignees’ days in country 47% 56%

More clearly defined policies and processes 49% 51%

Education of company management and administrators 42% 47%

Consolidation to one global travel provider 17% 22%

As companies expand into new countries, compliance is one of the key issues that can make a new location challenging. As one respondent wrote, “These countries have compliance barriers that require we change our standard policy and process, whether in how we structure our offers, get support from our vendors, and/or how we perform our accounting and finance activities.” Not only does staying in compliance require a lot more knowledge, preparation, and planning, but creating a global compliance strategy itself can border on impossible, since:

� Compliance can look very different from one location to the next.

� Both corporate and personal compliance need to be addressed.

� Compliance is not a downstream issue, it is a source issue. Assignments cannot be planned, let alone begun, without addressing compliance issues first.

72% of respondents said that they are focusing on

early involvement of tax and immigration

providers to better manage compliance risks.


COST SAVINGS FOCUSCost savings remains a key focus for mobility program managers. Managing assignment costs was cited as the number-one management challenge for long-term assignments, and the containment of mobility costs is stated as the number-three reason (by 51% of respondents) for company-requested permanent relocation.

Interestingly, in reviewing responses from the past six years, it appears that companies’ emphasis on cost control is not as significant as in the past. There is a decrease of 26 percentage points in the number of respondents who said their company’s focus on cost control has increased from 2010 to the present. However, the fact that the percentage stating their cost focus has remained the same has risen over the same time period suggests that cost control is simply becoming “business as usual.”

Cost control focus shift this year compared to the previous two-year period

2010 2012 2014 2016

Increased 76% 61% 57% 50%

Decreased 3% 2% 1% 3%

Stayed the same 18% 28% 35% 42%

Don’t know 3% 9% 7% 5%

Where are companies focusing to achieve cost savings? There has been a notable change in what companies are focusing on when they look for cost savings, either in changes they have made or are considering making. In 2014, the number-one area of change being considered was restructuring policy, at 56%. This year, 48% stated they are considering changes to policy for cost-savings purposes, but it was well down the list of top considerations at number seven. In 2016, the number of companies considering outsourcing for cost savings purposes jumped to 29% (from 13% in 2014), with another 71% saying that they have already made outsourcing changes.

That outsourcing is virtually tied with reduced number of assignments or transfers (70%) as a top cost-savings measure made is notable. The ability to save money on mobility by having less mobility is clear. So, how does outsourcing save money? There are two primary areas:

1. Access to expertise at a fraction of the cost. Both smaller and larger companies benefit by being able to access high-level talent to accomplish mobility tasks without having to pay for a whole staff of their own.

2. Outsourced service providers have expanded buying power because they help move assignees and transferees for thousands of companies. It follows that they can use that volume leverage to negotiate favorable pricing, as well as insist on high quality service standards.

Further, outsourcing can support administrative process improvements and reduced headcount in mobility program administration, which at 60% each were the number four and number five changes companies have made to achieve cost savings in their global mobility programs.

Though still a key focus, there are indicators that cost control is simply becoming “business as usual.”


Changes companies are considering to achieve cost savings in their global mobility program

Have made

Are considering making

Outsourcing 71% 29%

Reducing the number of assignments/transfers 70% 30%

Tiering programs based on purpose or objective of assignment 61% 39%

Administrative process improvements 60% 40%

Reducing headcount in mobility program administration 60% 40%

Reducing benefits 59% 41%

Restructuring policy 52% 48%

Using lump sums more often 51% 49%

Better and more proactive assessment of local talent 48% 52%

IT enhancements 46% 54%

External provider changes/renegotiations 45% 55%

Insourcing (moving outsourced services in-house) 38% 62%

Other 25% 75%

Effective approaches to cost containmentOn a per occurrence basis, employee mobility-related costs can be among some of the highest non-salary-related costs companies experience, yet the need to move employees from one place to another for some period of time remains a necessity in the ever-growing global business environment. As a result, the search for more cost-effective approaches is of continuing interest to companies. Some areas of cost containment mentioned by respondents:

� Localization: 69% stated that localization (transition from temporary to local status) is of interest as a cost-containment measure.

� Increase in new move types: Companies noted increases in move types with lower costs over the past two years, including short-term assignments (44%), permanent transfers (54%), and extended business travel (45%). This compares with the 32% that saw an increase in the costlier long-term international assignments.

� Flexible policy: 80% state that budget constraints are driving the need for more flexible approaches (up from 67% in 2014). Further, the use of flexible policies to reduce costly policy exceptions was reported by 34% of survey respondents as a driver of interest in flexible policy.

� Decreased mobility activity: 95% state that budget constraints are a factor in their organization’s decrease in mobility activity (versus 70% in 2014).

As the search for cost savings has been going on for a solid eight years, it appears that many companies are seeing the results they sought and may not have this as their number-one priority anymore. Cost savings is still the primary management challenge reported by this year’s survey respondents, though not by as wide a margin as in the past, indicating that supporting globally mobile employees as cost effectively as possible is still a key area of focus.


DOES LOCATION MATTER? Typically, mobility policy and practices are influenced by a company’s dominant region, which is most commonly their headquarters region, but can also be the region where they have the most assignments or transfers. A challenge faced by many companies in pursuit of global policy and practice is how to respond to differences among regions. Are there regional differences that should impact global policy? Are there regional differences that justify separate regional practices?

Differences in types of mobility activity across regionsOver the past two years, changes in the types of mobility activity in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC align overall, though there are noteworthy differences.

The greatest difference between regions, in terms of assignment types, is in which type respondents felt had the lowest rate of growth. For long-term assignments, EMEA had the lowest growth rate at 22%, whereas the growth rate for the Americas region was 33%, and that for APAC was 44%. For short-term assignments, the Americas region responses showed the

lowest rate of growth at 43%, while EMEA came in at 48% and APAC 56%. For permanent transfers, the lowest numbers were in APAC, where 38% of respondents pointed to low growth, compared to 58% of respondents in EMEA, and 54% in the Americas.

Increase in assignment growth (traditional mobility types) over the past two years

Mobility type Americas EMEA APAC

Long-term assignments 33% 22% 44%

Short-term assignments 43% 48% 56%

Permanent transfers 54% 58% 38%

What about “newer” mobility types? The EMEA region (68%) has seen the most growth in extended business travel, followed by APAC (44%), and the Americas region (41%) close behind. Localization was also a popular assignment type for EMEA-based respondents (62%). Rotational assignments have been more common in APAC over the past two years—50% reported higher activity versus 34% in the Americas and 15% in EMEA.

Increase in assignment growth (newer mobility types) over the past two years

Mobility type Americas EMEA APAC

Extended business travel 41% 68% 44%

Sequential assignments 19% 14% 25%

Commuter assignments 29% 28% 17%

Rotational assignments 34% 15% 50%

Localization 36% 62% 38%

Growth in assignment types differs between regions.


What are the drivers of mobility growth in each region? When examining the differences in the growth of mobility types between regions over the past two years, it is essential to understand the regional drivers for that growth. The differences are stark: by far, the most common reason for growth in the Americas is overall company growth strategy (83%). The fact that the Americas region reports the highest growth in long-term assignments aligns with this, as it was pointed out earlier that 82% of respondents say they use long-term assignments to fill management and leadership roles, followed by 52% who stated they use this assignment type for new business and start-up operations, which are mobility reasons typically associated with company growth.

Again, overall company growth strategy (80%) was the number-one reason for increases in mobility for EMEA respondents. Expansion into emerging markets also ranked highly (53% of respondents) as a reason behind the increase in mobility over the past two years for EMEA respondents, an objective that can precipitate a number of different mobility types. This is reflected in the EMEA findings—just behind extended business travel (68%) and localization (62%) for growth in assignment types are permanent transfers (57%). The permanent transfer is a mobility type that many companies seek to increase over temporary assignments, but often cannot because the reasons for mobility require transfer of knowledge or experience back to the home location.

Interestingly, APAC results are a combination of these: the top two reasons are overall company growth strategy and expansion into emerging markets. This comes through in the types of mobility activity APAC respondents have seen the most growth in—short-term assignments, long-term assignments, extended business travel, and rotational assignments.

Reasons for increase in mobility over the past two years

Americas EMEA APAC

Overall company growth strategy 83% 80% 71%

Merger & acquisition or divestment activity 30% 13% 29%

Talent not available locally 55% 60% 43%

Expansion into emerging markets 42% 53% 57%

Increased support for, or interest in, global mobility 27% 33% 29%

Greater emphasis on career development 32% 60% 0%

How are companies handling cost containment by region? As expected, the cost of mobility is the top concern in all regions. Where we see differences is in how companies in each region have responded to the quest for cost savings.

In the Americas, outsourcing, at 73%, is the most common change companies have made to achieve cost savings. Also high on the list in the Americas was reduced number of assignments/transfers (71%). Use of a tiered program, administrative process improvements, and using lump sum more often, were all reported by 63% of respondents.

Cost control is the top concern across

regions…the difference lies in how each

region has responded.


In EMEA, the most popular cost-savings approach is to reduce benefits, cited by 86% of EMEA respondents. As in the Americas, reducing the number of assignments/transfers was second at 83%, followed by reduced headcount in mobility program administration.

APAC’s responses were confined to five areas, led by outsourcing, reduced number of assignments/transfers, better and more proactive assessment of local talent, tiered programs, and administrative process improvements.

What changes have you made in order to achieve cost savings in your global mobility program?

Americas EMEA APAC

Outsourcing 73% 71% 50%

Reducing the number of assignments/transfers 71% 83% 25%

Tiering programs based on purpose or objective of assignment 63% 69% 20%

Administrative process improvement 63% 60% 25%

Reducing headcount in mobility program administration 56% 80% 0%

Reducing benefits 57% 86% 0%

Restructuring policy 54% 57% 0%

Using lump sums more often 63% 30% 0%

Better and more proactive assessment of local talent 53% 36% 25%

IT enhancements 47% 54% 0%

External provider changes/renegotiations 42% 53% 0%

Insourcing (taking outsourced services in-house) 50% 0% 0%

Regional differences exist because business, government, history, and culture vary, and all influence mobility policy and practices. As companies continue to grow internationally and seek to develop a cohesive strategy and approach to global employee mobility, developing policies and practices that address each region’s specific circumstances within a global platform will be a key challenge.


2016 GLOBAL MOBILITY POLICY & PRACTICES:

DETAILED SURVEY FINDINGS

Assignee Profile ................................................20

General Mobility Activity Trends .....................20

Top Destination Trending ................................22

Flexibility ...........................................................24

Long- and Short-Term Assignments ...............26

Accompanying Family Members .....................30

Permanent Transfers .........................................31

Extended Business Travel ................................33

Developmental Assignments...........................34

Commuters........................................................36

Localization .......................................................37

Sequential Assignments ...................................39

Cost Control ......................................................40

Assignment Turn Down ....................................41

Assignment Acceptance and Support ............43

Assignment Early Returns ................................43

Cross-Cultural Training .....................................44

Language Training ............................................46

Repatriation and Retention ..............................47

Compliance .......................................................49

Challenges and Program Improvement .........51

Global Mobility and Talent Management .......53


ASSIGNEE PROFILE

ASSIGNEE DEMOGRAPHICS: Please estimate the breakdown of your assignees by gender, age, and family status.

Gender 2007 2010 2012 2014 2016

Male 79% 81% 76% 76% 76%

Female 21% 19% 24% 24% 24%

Age 2007 2010 2012 2014 2016

Under 30 19% 29% 14% 15% 14%

30-39 37% 36% 38% 31% 33%

40-49 31% 24% 33% 38% 35%

50+ 13% 11% 15% 16% 18%

Family Status 2007 2010 2012 2014 2016

Single 29% 42% 31% 30% 32%

Single, accompanied by dependent family N/A N/A N/A N/A 6%

Married/with partner, not accompanied by dependent family

18% 20% 20% 24% 18%

Married/with partner, accompanied by dependent family

53% 38% 49% 46% 44%

GENERAL MOBILITY ACTIVITY TRENDS

CHART 1: For each of the following assignment types, how did your organization’s global mobility activity change over the past two years? (percent of respondents)

Overall

Permanent transfer

Extended business travel

Short-term

Localization

Long-term

Rotational

Developmental

Commuter

Sequential

� Higher

��About the Same

� Lower

52% 35% 13%

54% 40% 6%

45% 50% 5%

44% 41% 15%

42% 47% 11%

32% 43% 25%

32% 58% 10%

30% 56% 14%

28% 56% 16%

18% 66% 16%


CHART 2: If your organization’s overall mobility activity increased over the past two years, which of the following factors played a significant role? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Overall company growth strategy 82%

Talent not available locally 55%

Expansion into emerging markets 45%

Greater emphasis on career development 34%

Increased support for, or interest in, global mobility 28%

Merger & acquisition or divestment activity 27%

Other 9%

CHART 3: If your organization’s overall mobility activity decreased over the past two years, which of the following factors played a significant role? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Budget constraints 95%

Change in business strategy 45%

Corporate restructuring 30%

Merger & acquisition or divestment activity 25%

Talent available locally 20%

Other 20%

CHART 4: For each of the following assignment types, how do you expect your organization’s mobility activity to change over the next two years? (percent of respondents)

Overall

Extended business travel

Short-term assignments

Permanent transfer

Commuter assignments

Developmental assignments

Localization

Long-term assignments

Rotational assignments

Sequential assignments

� Higher

��About the Same

� Lower

47%

47%

46%

43%

40%

40%

35%

33%

32%

19%

45%

47%

43%

49%

48%

51%

55%

48%

58%

62%

8%

6%

11%

8%

12%

9%

10%

19%

10%

19%


TOP DESTINATION TRENDING

CHART 5: Actual and predicted volumes 2014 and 2016—countries listed as top destinations.

2014 Prediction 2016 Actual 2016 Prediction

United States 20% United States 21% United States 23%

China 13% United Kingdom 13% United Kingdom 11%

United Kingdom 8% China 10% China 10%

Singapore 7% Singapore 7% India 4%

India 4% Canada 5% Singapore 4%

United Arab Emirates 4% Hong Kong 3% Canada 4%

Malaysia 3% United Arab Emirates 4% United Arab Emirates 4%

Switzerland 3% Japan 3% Germany 3%

Hong Kong 3% Mexico 3% Mexico, Hong KongIreland, Japan, Switzerland 2%

CHART 6: Which new countries have you been sending assignees to in the past two years? (respondents could list up to three countries)

1. Brazil 6. India

2. China 7. Malaysia

3. Australia 8. Mexico

4. United Kingdom 9. United Arab Emirates

5. Singapore 10. Kenya, Spain

CHART 7: Which countries currently present the greatest mobility challenge for your organization? (respondents could list up to three countries)

1. Brazil 6. Saudi Arabia

2. China 7. United Arab Emirates

3. India 8. France, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, United Kingdom

4. United States

5. Italy

Additional respondent comments:

The challenges that respondents indicated their assignees were facing varied, but they included lack of infrastructure, bureaucratic complexity, political instability, cultural and language differences, and security. Some representative comments follow:

� Angola—immigration and shipments.

� Argentina—difficult processes for short-term trips.

� Australia—immigration process in Australia is quite demanding and paper-intensive; it is extremely hard to establish corporate registration.

� Belgium—immigration is very complicated; schools are expensive.


� Brazil—compensation, benefits, general infrastructure, exchange rates, economic volatility, security, local employment laws, transferring money into/out of Brazil, language challenges.

� Canada—tightening/strict immigration and tax policies.

� China—due to immigration rules changing often, regulations and interpretations seem to be changing constantly, length of time it takes to get a visa, pollution, lack of adequate medical services, housing availability, culture and language challenges, difficulty filling positions.

� France—high social taxes, complex equity taxation.

� Germany—language.

� Guinea—general immaturity of the market.

� India—new tax laws, high level of scrutiny on violations, regulations and interpretations seem to be changing constantly, housing, split tax year and continuation of tax preparation fees due to government reviews of past tax returns, cultural differences, payroll issues.

� Indonesia—different or more complicated process on taxation and immigration for employees/expatriates.

� Italy—immigration requirements, lengthy work permit process, driving rules make it challenging for employees, no clear ruling in registration, immigration, and tax.

� Iraq—instability/geopolitical issues.

� Israel—long visa and immigration processes.

� Kazakhstan—availability of work permits.

� Kuwait—immigration.

� Malaysia—immigration processing is laborious and time consuming.

� Nigeria—safety.

� Peru—local country legislation can be challenging in terms of people being on assignment there, but also people being transferred out.

� Russia—exchange rate and economy volatility.

� Saudi Arabia—support from vendors, very different culture for most of the assignees, families do not want to accompany the assignee due to all of the restrictions of the country, immigration is a real challenge.

� Singapore—high cost of living.

� Slovakia—time/difficulty to obtain work visa, immigration.

� Spain—immigration.

� Switzerland—high costs and immigration.

� United Kingdom—cost, tightening/strict immigration and tax policies, UK leaving the EU.

� United States—immigration.

� Vietnam—immigration.


FLEXIBILITY

CHART 8: Are you seeing the demand for greater flexibility from your mobility program?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Stay the Same 22%

Increase 76%

Decrease 2%

CHART 9: What is driving the need for more flexible approaches? (multiple responses possible)

Budget constraints/economic climate

Changing employee needs (family, spouse, elder care, etc.)

Changing employee expectations (Gen X, Gen Y, Millennials, etc.)

Need to reduce policy exceptions

Attracting qualified candidates

Regional need

Emerging markets (housing, schools, etc.)

Other

80%

42%

42%

34%

29%

27%

22%

4%


CHART 10: How has the need for more flexibility been met by your organization? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Ad hoc solutions (not supported by formal policy) 50%

Tiered mobility programs by assignment type/purpose 40%

Core-flex policy approach 30%

Increased use of alternative policy forms (commuter, extended business travel) 30%

Lump sum options 29%

Shorter-term assignments 25%

Other 7%

Additional respondent comments: � We are reviewing our policies now.

� We are looking at how we can provide more flexibility/choice in our relocation policies and support.

� We are a very employee friendly organization, and as we move more partners globally, we are seeing more exceptions to policy and ad hoc solutions.

� Evaluations of alternative residence locations where possible.

� New purchaser of our company uses lump sum-only approach to international relocations. Most of our expatriate assignees will return to their home locations in 2016.

� We offer standard core benefits and customize to fit need and budget.

� We look at each individual’s requirements.

� We have more policy exceptions.

� We have had more permanent transfers.

� Have made adjustments to current policies to incorporate more diverse situations.

� Researching adding alternative policy types such as local plus or core-flex policies.

� Looking into a perhaps tiered mobility policy approach.

� Multiple policies for two-way and one-way moves, including commuter and location free/business traveler options.

� We have reviewed our programs to allow more flexibility in how managers want to tailor a package. There are still various components that are considered “core” benefits, such as medical cover and compliance (immigration, tax assistance), but anything else can be reduced/removed/increased.

� Aligning the global mobility strategy and polices to the business strategy.

� Swap approved assignment allowances to offset personal needs (e.g., lower COLA for higher housing).

� Through a local plus package or localization.

� Leveraging more extended business travel assignment as opposed to short-term assignments, and local plus transfer versus traditional long-term expatriates.


LONG- AND SHORT-TERM ASSIGNMENTS

CHART 11: What are the primary business drivers in your organization for sending employees on long- and short-term global assignments? (respondents could list up to three)

Fill management and leadership roles

New business/start-up operations

Part of employees’ succession/career planning

Transfer knowledge and/or corporate culture

Transfer technical skills

Development

Project-based assignment

Employee request (self-initiated)

Employee training

CHART 12: In your opinion, what are the biggest management challenges for long-term assignments? (respondents could list up to three)

Response Percentage

Managing assignment costs 46%

Tax compliance 43%

Linking talent management with mobility 36%

Immigration compliance 30%

Exception requests 27%

Inconsistent policy application 20%

Operating shadow payroll (including accurate tax/gross-up calculation) 19%

Controlling assignment duration 18%

Repatriation 18%

Goods and services differential/cost of living allowance 6%

Host housing assistance 4%

Tracking assignments 3%

Early return from assignments 2%

Other 1%

82%

11%

27%

19%

32%

51%

38%

77%

12%

32%

52%

43%

41%

34%

32%

28%

14%

4% � Long term

��Short term


Additional respondent comments: � Internal processes between HR, tax provider, payroll, finance group, vendors, etc.

� Assignees do not want to localize.

CHART 13: In your opinion, what are the biggest management challenges for short-term assignments? (respondents could list up to three)

Response Percentage

Tax compliance 53%

Immigration compliance 50%

Managing assignment costs 35%

Exception requests 25%

Controlling assignment duration 23%

Linking talent management with mobility 17%

Inconsistent policy application 16%

Establishing per diem/short-term allowances 13%

Tracking assignments 10%

Repatriation 5%

Other 4%

Early return from assignments 1%

Additional respondent comments: � Assignment creep.

� Operating shadow payroll including accurate tax/gross-up calculation.

CHART 14: What compensation approach does your organization use for traditional long- and short-term global assignments? (multiple responses possible)

Response Long-term Short-term

Employee is paid on home country compensation guidelines (for base compensation and bonus) with allowances as needed

76% 75%

Employee is paid based on host country compensation guidelines (for base compensation and bonus)

14% 5%

Employee is paid based on host country compensation guidelines (for base compensation and bonus) with “plus” type assignment allowances

19% 4%

Employee is paid based on headquarters location compensation guidelines (for base compensation and bonus)

4% 5%

Variable 4% 5%

Additional respondent comments: � Only in countries which require host-based compensation (e.g., UAE).

� For some short-term assignments, host country bonuses may apply.

� Regions are free to manage as they wish; some use host pay and others remain as home pay.

� Employee can select better of home or host compensation guidelines.

� Exception is Brazil, where we have to deliver some compensation/allowances directly in country.


� Depends on the circumstances with each country combination and employee.

� Varies based on ease of payroll administration.

� We have four compensation countries (U.S., UK, Hong Kong, and Singapore); all are paid out of the U.S. (expats only, long-term assignments).

� Extended business travelers remain on home country payroll and are permitted for 3-6 months.

CHART 15: What pay delivery approach does your organization use for traditional long- and short-term global assignments? (multiple responses possible)


Employee remains on home country payroll 60% 70%

Employee is put on host country payroll 25% 5%

Combination of home/host country payroll 26% 12%

Offshore (third-country) payroll approach 5% 3%

Variable 7% 5%

Additional respondent comments: � Base and expat allowances are paid in home country; however, might elect to receive a portion

of it in the host country.

� For Brazil to Chile assignments, use third party to operate a split payroll approach.

� Regions are free to manage as they wish.

� Exception is Brazil, where we have to deliver some compensation/allowances directly in country.


� We practice a home-based approach; however, U.S. outbound employees remain on U.S. payroll, while employees inbound to the U.S. are put on U.S. payroll.

� When possible, expats will be maintained on the home payroll except when moving an employee to the U.S., where he or she will mostly be put on the host payroll.

� Split payroll, base paid by expat payroll in home country currency. Allowances paid in host-country currency.

� We have four compensation countries (U.S., UK, Hong Kong, and Singapore); all are paid out of the U.S. (expats only, long-term assignments).

� We allow extended business travelers for period of 3-6 months, and they remain on home country payroll.

CHART 16: What approach to healthcare coverage does your organization use for traditional long- and short-term global assignments? (multiple responses possible)


Employee remains on home country plan (where possible) 29% 49%

Employee is put on host country plan (where possible) 18% 5%

International healthcare plan (where possible) 76% 50%

Variable 3% 8%


Additional respondent comments: � Assignees going to the U.S. join the local U.S. plan for medical and dental.

� For some short-term assignments unaccompanied by the family, the home country plan continues to provide healthcare benefits and the company pays out-of-pocket costs for medical care in the host location.

� On short-term assignments of less than six months, the assignee stays on home country plan.

� The employee remains on the home country plan, and is also provided with a travel insurance plan for emergency/urgent care.

� If the host location will accept it, the employee can leave the home plan and move onto the host plan. But if not, like U.S. outbound assignees, employees tend to stay on the U.S. plan and utilize local host location services as well.

� Regions are free to manage as they wish.

� Emerging immigration regulations are impacting the ability to use certain types of health plans into certain countries.

� Our international policy is for outbound assignees from the U.S. We have had inbound assignees to the U.S. where we have had to obtain separate individual policies for each.

� Short-term assignees are placed on international plan and removed from home plan only if reasonable to do so for the employee, and family, if applicable.

� For U.S. payrolled employees, they can chose to stay on home plan or transfer to international plan.

� Extended business travelers remain on home country health care.

CHART 17: What approach does your organization take on tax policy? (multiple responses possible)


Tax equalization 81% 65%

Tax protection 15% 15%

Laissez-faire (employee’s responsibility) 8% 5%

Variable 6% 6%

Additional respondent comments: � We tax protect most allowances for permanent moves, but will do a tax settlement (equalization)

to determine true liabilities. Expats only get equalizations.

� While the regions are free to manage as they wish, we standardize our tax policies and generally equalize.

� Tax equalization depends on the country combination. Some combinations are tax equalization, some are tax protected.

� The company will cover any host location taxes, and the employee is responsible for home country tax.


� Benefits in kind are grossed up.

� May not be tax equalized depending on the duration of assignment. Will pay the tax directly in host country (double taxation and settle taxes at the end of fiscal tax year).

� We gross-up allowances/payments to cover the employee’s portion of the tax.


� Historically, tax equalization has provided the most favorable tax outcome for the employee. Looking to be consistent through tax equalization.

� Always tax equalization except for the U.S. where the employee will be on U.S. tax.

� Employees’ responsibility, but company provides support with tax matters from an external provider.

CHART 18: What approach to pension coverage does your organization use for traditional long-term global assignments? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Employee remains on home country plan 90%

Employee is put on host country plan 8%

Other 4%

Not applicable 7%

ACCOMPANYING FAMILY MEMBERS

CHART 19: Does your organization allow family members to accompany the employee on international assignments? (multiple responses possible)


Allowed for all assignees 84% 12%

Can vary depending on conditions in host country (political instability, security issues, etc.)

12% 10%

Allowed if permitted by host country regulations 8% 4%

Allowed for some assignees 6% 20%

Allowed only at management’s discretion 2% 10%

Allowed by exception only 1% 24%

No, never 0% 15%

CHART 20: If your organization sends married couples (both of whom are employees) on international assignments to the same location, how do you approach the benefit level you provide?

One employee is identified as the lead employee and receives a full set of benefits and the second employee is designated as the spouse/partner 70%

Don’t know 17%

We handle each case individually

12%

Each employee is provided a separate full benefit package 1%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39


CHART 21: Does your organization provide support for elderly or dependent parents? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Not providing support 41%

Has not been a significant issue 37%

Provide support if parent qualifies as household dependent 19%

Provide support on a case-by-case basis 12%

No support directly, but additional trips home for expats 6%

Other 3%

CHART 22: If you do provide support, do they qualify for the same benefits as other qualified dependents?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Yes 65%

No 35%

PERMANENT TRANSFERS

CHART 23: Does your organization have a permanent transfer policy?Respondent Locations Respondents by Industry

SectorChart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Yes 84%

No 16%


CHART 24: What kind of policy approach do you use to support permanent transfers? (multiple responses possible)

We have a permanent international transfer policy

We use offer letters only

We adapt our domestic relocation policy

We adapt our long-term international assignment policy

Other

We use the same policy for domestic and international transfers

Additional respondent comments: � Capped move, managed lump sum.

� Combination of domestic and international assignment components.

� We don’t have a policy, but we have guidelines.

� Global guidelines are provided and the regions interpret as needed.

� We handle permanent moves on a case-by-case basis.

� We have a permanent local-to-local transfer policy.

CHART 25: What are the most common reasons for relocating employees internationally on a permanent/indefinite basis? (multiple responses possible)

Employee initiated

Skills are not available locally

Containment of mobility costs

Part of a globalization strategy

New hire transfer

Retention strategy

Other

Additional respondent comments: � Typically only done in the U.S. when career path becomes U.S.-based, and generally the

employee is already in the U.S.

� Part of the employee’s career path.

� Part of nationalization strategy.

� Moving to headquarters location with no likely return opportunity.

14%

13%

10%

8%

3%

70%

59%

58%

51%

44%

43%

24%

7%


CHART 26: In your opinion, what is the single biggest challenge for moving someone internationally on a permanent/indefinite basis?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Identifying healthcare coverage 2%

Employee resistance related to home country pension

benefit plans 23%

Difference in taxation 23%

Compensation 29%

Other 7%

Dealing with major expense items (e.g.,

sale of home residence) 6%

Leaving extended family members behind

6%

Career development opportunities

4%

Additional respondent comments: � Containing costs.

� Not wanting to leave U.S. payroll and benefits.

� Family/spouse not allowed to work or find a job.

� Pension and social security impacts.

� Total financial impact—compensation and tax.

� This has not been an issue for us, but cost of living differences can potentially be a challenge.

EXTENDED BUSINESS TRAVEL

CHART 27: Does your organization have an extended business travel policy?Respondent Locations Respondents by Industry









Chart 34


Chart 39

Yes 36%

No 64%


CHART 28: In what region is your extended business travel policy most frequently used? Respondent Locations Respondents by Industry









Chart 34


Chart 39

APAC 22%

EMEA 49%

Americas 29%

CHART 29: Whether or not you have a formal policy, in which areas have you experienced the biggest challenges involving extended business travel? (multiple responses possible)

Tax compliance

Immigration

Tracking

Legal compliance

Internal communication

Cost management

Security of employees

Other

Additional respondent comments: � Social taxes, end dates, and work schedule not clear.

� Assignments extending longer than permitted and wanting to change from extended business travel to another type. It is very difficult and challenging for our employees and vendors to manage.

DEVELOPMENTAL ASSIGNMENTS

CHART 30: Does your organization have a developmental assignment policy?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Yes 40%

No 60%

88%

76%

67%

35%

25%

23%

9%

2%


CHART 31: What kind of policy approach do you use to support developmental assignments? (multiple responses possible)

Same as long-term

Same as short-term

Short-term with reduced benefits

Long-term with reduced benefits

Other

Additional respondent comments: � Handled on an ad hoc basis.

� We use talent swaps.

� Reduced permanent relocation.

CHART 32: What are the most common reasons for sending employees on developmental assignments? (multiple responses possible)

Career development

Leadership/management skill development

Technical training

Corporate culture transfer

New hire development

Other

CHART 33: What is the duration of your typical developmental assignment?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Other 7%

12-18 months

25%

Less than 12 months 36%

18 months or

longer 32%

39%

37%

25%

23%

4%

80%

67%

36%

27%

12%

5%


COMMUTERS

CHART 34: Does your organization have a commuter relocation policy?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Yes 39%

No 61%

CHART 35: In what region is your commuter relocation policy most frequently used?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

APAC 15%

EMEA 65%

Americas 20%

CHART 36: Whether or not you have a formal policy, in which areas have you experienced the biggest challenges involving commuters? (multiple responses possible)

Tax compliance

Tracking

Immigration

Legal compliance

Cost management

No significant challenges

Internal communication

Security of employees

72%

50%

43%

38%

31%

16%

12%

5%


LOCALIZATION

CHART 37: Does your organization have a formal policy for localizing employees on temporary assignments?


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Yes 47%

No 53%

CHART 38: Our organization’s localization policy is:


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

A stand-alone policy 65%

Part of the long-term assignment policy

35%

CHART 39: How many employees do you localize per year?

11-20 13%

6-10 22%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

1-5 58%

>20 7%


CHART 40: What approach to localization does your organization use most frequently? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Transition to local status immediately following an international assignment 58%

Reduced assignment benefits following an assignment (over a 1-2 year period) 27%

Reduced assignment benefits following an assignment (over a 3-5 year period) 17%

Reduced assignment benefits following an assignment (varies by country) 7%

Other 6%

Additional respondent comments: � We use a Local Plus premium approach.

� Case-by-case basis.

� We extend the assignment by a year or two, and then localize with no benefits.

CHART 41: What is driving localization within your organization? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Containment of mobility costs 69%

Lack of suitable local talent 33%

Career development opportunities in local markets 31%

Part of the globalization strategy 29%

Reduction of assignees 20%

Achieving equity with local employees 19%

Other 10%

Additional respondent comments: � Extended stay at host, typically over four years, for relevant locations.

� The business wants the employee to stay without the expatriate costs.

� Employee request.

� Used as an alternative when there is no position available to go back to in the home location.

CHART 42: In your opinion, what is the single biggest localization challenge?

Income taxes 9%

Other 5%

Housing 3%

Spouse/partner employment

3%

Pension/retirement

36%

Compensation (base salary and incentives) 42%

Education 1%

Healthcare 1%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39


CHART 43: What approach do you use most frequently for pension and healthcare coverage in your localization policy? (multiple responses possible)

Employee is put on host country plan

Employee remains on home country plan

Global/international plan

Other

SEQUENTIAL ASSIGNMENTS

CHART 44. In your company, what is the trend toward sending employees on sequential assignments without repatriating them?

Staying the same

72%

Decreasing 15%

Increasing 13%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 45: What assignment type do you typically use for this type of assignee? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Long-term assignment 80%

Short-term assignment 28%

Permanent transfers (series of permanent assignments) 5%

Rotational assignment 5%

Other 5%

Local Plus 3%

� Pension

��Healthcare

69%

73%

9%

7%

5%

2%

3%

3%


CHART 46: What are the biggest challenges you are seeing for sequential assignments? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Cost 59%

Personal/family challenges 36%

Career management 29%

Pension portability 21%

Compensation 14%

Other 6%

COST CONTROL

CHART 47: In the area of global mobility, how has your organization’s focus on cost control shifted this year compared to the previous two-year period?

2016

2014

2012

2010

CHART 48: What changes are you considering in order to achieve cost savings in your global mobility program?

Outsourcing

Reducing number of assignments/transfers

Tiered programs based on purpose or objective of assignment

Administrative process improvements

Reducing headcount in mobility program administration

Reducing benefits

Restructuring policy

Using lump sums more often

Better and more proactive assessment of local talent

IT enhancements

External provider changes/renegotiations

Insourcing (moving outsourced services in-house)

Other

� Increased

��Decreased

��Stayed the same

��Don’t know

50% 42%

57% 35% 7%

5%

1%

61% 28% 9%2%

76% 18% 3%3%

3%

� Have made ��Are considering making

71%

70%

61%

60%

60%

59%

52%

51%

48%

46%

45%

38%

25%

29%

30%

39%

40%

40%

41%

48%

49%

52%

54%

55%

62%

75%


CHART 49: In what areas do you see a need to increase expenditures in order to meet your business needs? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Improved software for tracking/compliance purposes 46%

Enhanced candidate selection/readiness process 36%

Add assignment benefits to obtain key talent for assignments 25%

Enhanced recruitment efforts to secure talent externally 22%

Additional assistance to support employees in emerging markets 20%

Other 6%

Additional respondent comments: � Candidate assessment.

� Enhanced benefits to support “career” expats.

� Additional self-service assistance for lump sums.

� Assistance to help transferee/family with technology.

ASSIGNMENT TURN DOWN

CHART 50: What percentage of your assignees turn down assignments?

11-20% 2%

More than 20% 1%

Don’t track 33%

6-10% 6%

0-5% 58%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 51: Is the percentage of assignees turning down assignments less than or greater compared to the past two years?

Don’t know 81%

Greater than 5%

Less than 14%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39


CHART 52: Is the percentage of assignees turning down assignments less than or greater than your expectations?

Don’t know 66%

Greater than expected 6%

Less than expected 28%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 53: What are the main reasons for employees to turn down an assignment in your organization? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Family or personal circumstances 69%

Spouse/partner employment issues 55%

Compensation and benefits issues 23%

Concern with impact on career 23%

Schooling availability or quality 14%

Concerns about safety/security 10%

Elder parent issues 10%

Other 10%

Lack of suitable housing 2%

Lack of familiarity with the local language and/or customs 2%

Results from employee readiness assessment 2%

Additional respondent comments: � Employee doesn’t believe the mobility package is good enough.

� Visa issues.

� Employees turned down an assignment due to air quality in Shanghai.

� Tax implications.

� Employee expectations.


ASSIGNMENT ACCEPTANCE AND SUPPORT

CHART 54: What are the main reasons for employees to accept an assignment in your organization? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Job opportunity 82%

Career development 78%

Attractive compensation 42%

Personal/family opportunity 28%

Quality of life 6%

Fear of job loss 5%

Don’t know 5%

Other 2%

CHART 55: What support is offered to your assignees to prepare them for assignment success?

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Policy/assignment orientation

84% 8% 7% 1% 0%

Tax consultation 82% 9% 5% 2% 2%

Security briefing 28% 11% 25% 15% 21%

Spouse support 37% 15% 23% 8% 17%

Home finding 74% 11% 10% 1% 4%

Settling-in assistance 69% 12% 12% 2% 5%

School finding 59% 19% 13% 5% 4%

Cross-cultural training

42% 17% 19% 12% 10%

Language training 40% 15% 27% 9% 9%

Formal candidate assessment program

5% 9% 12% 13% 61%

Employee self-assessment

5% 6% 11% 11% 67%

ASSIGNMENT EARLY RETURNS

CHART 56: What are the main reasons for the early return of assignees in your organization? (multiple responses possible)

Response 2014 2016

Business conditions changed 63% 69%

New opportunity became available/employee needed for something else

N/A 48%

Family unable to adapt to the host location 61% 28%

Job finished ahead of schedule N/A 27%

Employee unable to adapt to the host location 46% 20%

Other 4% 7%


CHART 57: Over the past two years, how has the incidence of early returns from assignments changed in your organization, if at all?

Decreased substantially/

somewhat 5%

Do not track 36%

Stayed about the same 47%

Increased substantially/ somewhat 12%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CROSS-CULTURAL TRAINING

CHART 58: Please choose the response that most closely matches your organization’s approach to cross-cultural training.

Don’t offer 15%

Required 11%

Other 1%

At manager’s discretion

13%

Optional element 19%

Recommended 41%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 59: What percentage of your assignees, accompanying spouses/partners, and accompanying dependents who are eligible actually use cross-cultural training?

Fewer than 20% 21-40% 41-60% More than 60%

Assignees/transferees 26% 11% 24% 39%

Accompanying spouses/partners

26% 14% 22% 38%

Accompanying dependents 41% 14% 19% 26%


CHART 60: Overall, do these levels of utilization meet your expectations?

Meets expectations

71%

Exceeds expectations 5%

Below expectations 24%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 61: What types of challenges are you facing most often when providing cross-cultural training for assignees and transferees? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Difficulty finding the time for training (from assignee’s point of view) 63%

Difficulty in getting assignees to take cross-cultural training 34%

Difficulty in getting managers to approve cross-cultural training 26%

More cultural competency required than was anticipated for the spouse and/or accompanying children (from assignee’s point of view)

13%

More cultural competency was required than anticipated for the assignee 10%

CHART 62: What do you see as the primary benefit of cross-cultural training?

Higher level business

performance 11%

Survival skills for daily life 8%

Relationship building in the business setting

10%

Adjustment to the host location 71%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39


LANGUAGE TRAINING

CHART 63: Please choose the response that most closely matches your organization’s approach to language training:

Don’t offer 17%

Required 5%

Other 5%

At manager’s discretion

15%Recommended 40%

Optional element 18%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 64: What percentage of your assignees, accompanying spouses/partners, and accompanying dependents who are eligible actually use language training?

Fewer than 20% 21-40% 41-60% More than 60%

Assignees/transferees 24% 14% 24% 38%

Accompanying spouses/partners

22% 13% 23% 42%

Accompanying dependents 34% 6% 23% 37%

CHART 65: Overall, do these levels of utilization meet your expectations?

Meets expectations

82%

Exceeds expectations 5%

Below expectations 13%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39


CHART 66: What types of challenges are you facing most often when providing language training for assignees? (multiple responses possible)

Response Percentage

Difficulty finding the time for training (from the assignee’s point of view) 70%

More language competency was required than anticipated for the assignee 20%

More language competency was required than anticipated for the spouse and/or accompanying children (from the assignee’s point of view)

19%

Difficulty in getting assignees to take language training 17%

CHART 67: What do you see as the primary benefit of language training?

Higher level business

performance 17%

Survival skills for daily life 27%

Relationship building in the business setting

14%

Adjustment to the host location 42%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

REPATRIATION AND RETENTION

CHART 68: Do you track employee retention after repatriation from an assignment?

No 78%

Yes 22%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39


CHART 69: What percentage of your repatriating assignees leave the organization within 12-24 months of the conclusion of their assignment?

21-30 17%

40+ 14%

31-40 10%

11-20 7%

0-10 52%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 70: When does post-assignment job finding begin?

After repatriation 4%

Three to five months

prior to repatriation

25%

Don’t know 29%

Six months to one year prior to repatriation 42%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 71: How effectively does your company manage the transition for repatriating assignees and make good use of the experience they have gained on assignment?

Response 2012 2014 2016

Very effectively 7% 3% 9%

Somewhat effectively 48% 61% 47%

Not very effectively 41% 32% 35%

Ineffectively 4% 4% 9%


CHART 72: In preparing an assignee for repatriation, which of the following does your organization address? (multiple responses possible)

Response 2012 2014 2016

Transition out of assignment role to local successor 56% 76% 62%

Advance career planning 54% 58% 28%

Cultural re-entry support or workshop 19% 21% 22%

Spouse/partner career re-entry assistance 16% 21% 15%

Post-assignment debriefing 37% 51% 37%

Post-assignment career tracking 30% 25% 13%

COMPLIANCE

CHART 73: Has your organization’s focus on compliance (payroll, immigration, tax, and data security) increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

Stayed the same

21%

Decreased 0%

Increased 79%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

CHART 74: Do you track all employee travel (including assignments, international transfers, and business travel) globally?

Don’t know 15%

No 45%

Yes 40%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39


Additional respondent comments: � Centralized travel information through security advisors.

� Mobility department tracks assignments and transfers. Travel department tracks business travel.

� Outsourced system for assignees already in place, currently implementing outsourced system for business travelers.

� Through an internally developed system.

� Our Manager of Travel takes care of this for the company.

� Employees book through a central travel agency that tracks employee location/travel.

� Tracked through our provider and recently through the implementation of an HRIS system.

� Our primary focus right now is into Canada. Our payroll area gets feeds directly from our travel services provider. They have an in-house system which calculates wages and tax obligations. We are expanding our focus now to other countries and even into the U.S.

� We track manually via excel spreadsheets.

� Through a global travel services agency.

� With the help of internal system, as well as AMEX/ISOS.

� When we know about them, we have our tax provider track their travel.

� There could be more efficient ways. We monitor travel booking.

� Mobility group tracks assignees and transfers. Security group tracks all movement.

� We track assignments and international transfers through our assignment management tool. We track extended business travelers through Business Travel Watch (led by PwC) which is linked to our employee’s timesheet.

� Tracked locally by tracking report.

� We use an online calendar.

CHART 75: Please indicate the areas, if any, in which your company is placing increased focus on managing compliance risks related to payroll, immigration, and tax. (multiple responses possible)

Response 2014 2016

Early involvement of tax and immigration providers 70% 72%

Better tracking of assignees’ days in country 47% 56%

More clearly defined policies and processes 49% 51%

Education of company management and administrative functions 42% 47%

Consolidation to one global travel provider 17% 22%

Other 1% 4%

None 6% 3%

CHART 76: How do you communicate the seriousness of security compliance to your international employees? (multiple responses possible)

Response Frequency

Pre-departure briefing 58%

Briefing in the host location (as needed) 36%

Referral to websites for information 36%

Written documentation that needs to be signed 22%


CHART 77: Has your company incurred fines, fees, or other issues related to non-compliance?

Don’t know 46%

No 45%

Yes 9%


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Additional respondent comments: � Payroll audits.

� Permanent establishment violation.

� In the past, we had to return a project group.

� Business travelers without proper work permit(s).

CHALLENGES AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

CHART 78: Respondents were asked to rate each of the following global mobility challenges on a scale of 1 (no concern) to 5 (great concern) in terms of future impact on their organization. The chart below lists how each challenge ranked as an area of high concern (rated 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) to their organization. (multiple responses possible)

2012 2014 2016

Cost control 68% 75% 71%

Visa and immigration regulations 44% 57% 63%

Mobility program/assignee tracking and reporting 41% 40% 54%

Measuring mobility program/assignment success 40% 46% 53%

Linking mobility to career development 42% 47% 50%

Developing global competencies 44% 40% 44%

Global versus local policy development 24% 37% 39%

Designing equitable compensation packages 46% 52% 35%

Other Challenges

We asked respondents which hot topics, challenges, or mobility issues their organization is facing that the survey did not cover. The comments displayed a variety of concerns:

� Coping with disparities in compensation and benefits between host and home country practices.

� “Location free”—living in one country and working for a corporate entity that is sited in a different country.

� Compensation accumulation and tracking.


� It is difficult to get management who does have any sort of international assignment experience on the same page, because assignments are typically expensive.

� Increased tax compliance including tracking and reporting to tax authorities, international pricing, payroll reporting, etc.

� The quality of service provided by various service providers in an international assignment.

� The integration of mobility and talent management, and developing a core-flex policy.

� Corporate assessment of physical entity issues and associated compliance risk—particularly in light of BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting) initiative. Resistance to change (cultural and entrenched historic processes).

CHART 79: What aspects of your global mobility program are you most interested in improving? (multiple responses possible)

Response 2014 2016

Upfront assignment planning (objectives, cost, value, repatriation) 55% 55%

Cost containment 46% 51%

Return on investment 39% 51%

Repatriation and career management 39% 47%

Candidate assessment and selection 44% 46%

Performance measurement/evaluation of assignees 29% 33%

Compensation and benefits design and administration 29% 31%

Formal mentoring program while on assignment 20% 22%

Global leadership development 16% 22%

Support services for assignees 24% 22%

Family assistance 17% 14%

Other 2% 3%

Additional respondent comments: � Localization after a set period of time on assignment.

� Placement of assignees upon assignment completion.

� Better link international assignments into the total corporate and individual talent/career development picture.

� Learn if international assignments help to advance career goals due to global learning, and enhanced knowledge of overseas operations.

� Analyze policy benefits for market competitiveness and potential cost savings.

� Real-time cost projections and letters of assignment embedded in a decision-support system allowing managers to model scenarios and select the appropriate relocation package. Tracking of actual versus budgeted costs, including excess tax costs.

� As we move more into the talent realm, our efforts need to focus on development.

� Better tracking of ROI.

� Mentoring.


GLOBAL MOBILITY AND TALENT MANAGEMENT

CHART 80: When considering the role your global mobility program plays in achieving your company’s organizational goals, would you say that its impact has:


Chart 8: Chart 20:








Chart 34


Chart 39

Don’t know 3%

Decreased 2%

Increased 59%

Stayed the same

36%

CHART 81: To what extent do you think that the global mobility function integrates with your organization’s other HR and talent functions?

2012

2014

2016

Additional respondent comments: � Unfortunately, global mobility is not seen as strategically as it should be.

� Our managers are responsible for filling requisitions worldwide and are focused solely on technical skills rather than career development or long-term company objections. Speed in filling open requisitions is the most important concern. If an employee is willing to live and work abroad, the hiring manager will support a long-term or short-term assignment to fill the talent gap quickly.

� Global mobility is part of our global talent management department.

� Still distance between the need of mobility as a function; you “have to use it” but not really a “core” HR function.

� Moved Global Mobility under Talent Management Center of Expertise with new reporting structure.

� Mobility reports into Talent Acquisition since most of our international movements are for recruiting purposes and involve recruitment. The reporting structure also allows for common goals and objectives.

� Not a lot of coordination.

48%

43% 30% 24% 3%

31% 19% 2%

21% 21% 5%53%

� Somewhat related

��Closely related��Distantly related

��Not at all related


� One does not work without the other.

� International assignments are considered a resourcing option and not a strategic arm of talent management.

� No current synchronization of mobility and talent management.

� Constantly work with local HR business partners, compensation, benefits, and staffing groups.

� Used to be managed by the business, now managed centrally in HR.


RESPONDENTSWe would like to thank the following companies who participated in Cartus’ 2016 Global Mobility Policy & Practices survey and gave their permission to be identified as participants:

Abbott Laboratories

Ageas

Alere, Inc.

Allianz SE

Apache Corporation

Arc International

Asurion Corporation

Avnet, Inc.

BackOffice Associates

Baxalta, Inc.

Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. (BRP)

Booking.com Limited

BorgWarner, Inc.

Broadcom Corporation

Cequel III, LLC

CH2M HILL Companies, Ltd.

CIGNA Corporate Services, LLC

Citi

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Convergys Corporation

Corning, Incorporated

Covance

Cristal USA, Inc.

CSG Systems, Inc.

Curtiss Wright Corporation

The Danfoss Group

DaVita, Inc.

Daymon Worldwide, Inc.

Dell

Department of Defense

Donaldson Company, Inc.

Essilor of America

The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.

ExxonMobil

Federal Express Corporation

Fluor Corporation

Ford Motor Company

Fujitsu UK & Ireland

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

Holiday Retirement

Hootsuite

Hyatt Corporation

IBM Corporation

Ingersoll-Rand Company

Johnson & Johnson

Kellogg Company

Kohl’s Corporation

KPMG, LLP

Lenovo Group, Ltd.

Levi Strauss Asia Pacific Division Pte, Ltd.

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, Inc.

McDonald’s Corporation

Molex, LLC

Monadelphous Group, Ltd.

Moog, Inc.

NIKE, Inc.

Nikon Precision, Inc.

Novo Nordisk, Inc.

Orbital ATK, Inc.

Owens-Illinois General, Inc.

Praxair, Inc.

PSA Peugeot Citroen

PVH Corp

Raytheon Company

RGA-Reinsurance Group of America

Robert Bosch, LLC

Robert Half International, Inc.

SABIC Innovative Plastics US, LLC

Sartorius Stedim (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd.

Schindler Elevator Corp

Shelf Drilling Holdings Limited

Standard Chartered Bank, New York

State Street Bank & Trust Company

Statoil ASA

Tenneco, Inc.

Teradata Corporation

Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

Uber Technologies

Vermilion Energy

Wells Fargo & Company

Whirlpool Corporation


RESEARCH & TRENDS BLOGS VIDEOS

Trends in Global Relocation: 2015 Biggest Challenges Survey

Best Practices for Effective Relocation to Africa

Best Practices for Effective Relocation to Brazil

Best Practices for Effective Relocation to China

How to Structure a Flexible Relocation Policy

How to Effectively Manage Short-Term Assignments

Cost Savings for Global Relocation Managers

How to Structure a U.S. Temporary Assignment Policy

Intra-Europe Relocation: Best Practice Recommendations

Relocation Destination Videos

Global Mobility Tips and Best Practices

How Compliant is Your Relocation Program?

Driving Greater Relocation Cost Efficiencies

For these, and other mobility-related resources, please visit our Resource Hub at www.cartus.com.

RELATED CARTUS RESOURCES

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/global-relocation-biggest-challenges-survey-2015.html

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/global-relocation-biggest-challenges-survey-2015.html

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/effective-relocation-to-africa.html

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/effective-relocation-to-africa.html

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/effective-relocation-to-BRAZIL.html

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/effective-relocation-to-BRAZIL.html

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/effective-relocation-to-CHINA.html

http://guidance.cartusrelocation.com/effective-relocation-to-CHINA.html

https://cartus.com/en/blog/structuring-flexible-relocation-policy/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/structuring-flexible-relocation-policy/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/how-effectively-manage-short-term-assignments/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/how-effectively-manage-short-term-assignments/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/cost-savings-global-relocation-managers/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/cost-savings-global-relocation-managers/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/cartus_structuring_us_temporary_assignment_relocation_policy/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/cartus_structuring_us_temporary_assignment_relocation_policy/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/intra-europe-relocation-best-practice-recommendations/

https://cartus.com/en/blog/intra-europe-relocation-best-practice-recommendations/

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA56F4BB8C7389E1E

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPGYZQWN100nwtcerozhtDh5gO3nxqzDe

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPGYZQWN100nwtcerozhtDh5gO3nxqzDe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_baQkFR9lM&list=PL3A2A177631941C69&index=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_baQkFR9lM&list=PL3A2A177631941C69&index=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Taj-OtyNA&index=4&list=PL3A2A177631941C69

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Taj-OtyNA&index=4&list=PL3A2A177631941C69

THANK YOU to our sponsoring partners:

(National Foreign Trade Council)

http://www.nftc.org/

http://www.relocatemagazine.com/

© 2016 Cartus Corporation | All rights reserved.Cartus and the Cartus logo are registered trademarks of Cartus Corporation.

www.cartus.com | connect with us

https://www.facebook.com/cartus

http://www.linkedin.com/company/cartus

http://twitter.com/cartus

http://google.com/+cartuscorporation

http://www.youtube.com/user/CartusCorporation

http://www.xing.com/companies/cartus

http://www.cartus.com/en

Documents

GLOBAL MOBILITY POLICY & PRACTICES - Cartus · CARTUS | 2016 GLOBAL MOBILITY POLICY & PRACTICES SURVEY 3 INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES Cartus’ 2016 Trends in Global Relocation: Global