47th Annual Atlas Corporate Relocation SurveyResults...Apr 28, 2014 · • National and international firms report the highest levels of company growth: around half say it had an

47th Annual Atlas Corporate Relocation Survey

Results


Results

Who Responded?Atlas sent invitations by email, and 353 professionals completed online questionnaires between January 22 and March 8. Each respondent has responsibility for relocation and is employed by a company that has either relocated employees during the past two years or plans to relocate employees this year.

• Nearly all (90%) work in human resources/personnel or relocation/mobility services departments for firms in:

-Service (44%)

-Manufacturing/processing (27%)

-Financial (14%)

-Wholesale/retail (9%)

-Government/military (3%)

-Other (3%)

• For analysis, firms are categorized by size: - Small: Fewer than 500 salaried

employees (44%)

- Mid-Size: 500-4,999 salaried

employees (29%)

-Large: 5,000+ salaried employees (27%)

• Roughly half (48%) are international firms.

For complete results, interactive graphs, and historical insights, see

www.atlasvanlines.com/relocation-surveys/corporate-relocation.

SmallFewer than 500

salaried employees

Mid-size500-4,900 salaried

employees

Large5,000+ salaried

employees

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

44%

27%14%

9% 3% 3%

Service Manufacuring/processing

Financial Wholesale/retail

Government/military

Other0%

PAGE 2 HIGHLIGHTSPAGE 18 QUESTION RESPONSES

The Industry’s Longest Running SurveyEvery year since 1966, Atlas has collected input from corporate decision makers, analyzed it, and reported our findings. We illuminate the finer points of relocation to bring the bigger picture into focus.

HIGHLIGHTS

Relocation Volumes & Budgets — Overall & InternationalRecovery Stabilizing, Volume Expectations Positive, Budgets Increase at Slower Pace

The past year brought continued normalization for the industry, solidifying the recovery that began in 2012. Forty-one percent of firms saw relocation volumes increase; over a fourth saw budgets increase as well. Mid-size and large firms experienced the greatest gains overall, with nearly half seeing more relocations and more than a third seeing budget increases. Internationally, the story is similar; thirty-seven percent of firms saw international relocation volumes increase. Large firms lead the surge; around half experienced growth in international volumes. Few saw any decreases in volumes or budgets.

Expectations for 2014 are positive and similar to 2013. Most companies expect volumes and budgets to stay at 2013 levels; a fourth or more expect further increases in volumes overall and internationally. Compared to 2004 and 2005, expectations overall remain muted (similar to 2006 through 2008), while expectations for international volumes are similar to previous growth years. Mid-size and large firms are more optimistic generally, but large firms are slightly more optimistic internationally.

Across company size, around a fifth of firms expect budget increases in 2014, while the majority expects budgets to remain the same. This follows a trend that emerged last year and suggests the creative budgeting of the Great Recession has become the new normal. Over the last two years, relocation volumes have risen at a greater rate than budgets.

• The median numbers of relocations by large firms (200-399)

and mid-size firms (20-49) remain in normal territory after

falling substantially (100-199 and 10-19, respectively) during the

economic downturn.

• The greatest growth in volume occurred for national and

international firms. Around half of them reported increases, and

roughly a third saw budgets grow as well. Just under a fourth of

regional firms saw increases in volumes, and only a sixth saw

budgets increase. Over a fourth of international firms and roughly

a third of national firms expect further increases in volume for

2014; however, slightly fewer of these firms expect corresponding

budgetary increases (23% and 26%, respectively).

• For-profit service firms are the most optimistic internationally;

more than a third expect overseas volumes in 2014 to rise.

20030%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Stay the sameDecrease

Increase

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

13%

58%

29%

33%

51%

16%

33%

51%

16%

28%

52%

29%

56%

14%

25%

56%

18%

10%

38%

52%

22%

53%

26%

30%

58%

13%

26%

61%

12%

27%

59%

14%

25%

59%

15%20%

Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during [this year] will…

Note: Totals greater than/less than 100 due to rounding.

20030%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


Increase

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

15%

57%

28%

29%

53%

18%

32%

55%

14%

31%

52%

17%

32%

57%

11%

35%

51%

14%

13%

38%

48%

24%

53%

23%

27%

60%

13%

26%

60%

14%

20%

66%

14%

22%

65%

12%

Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that your relocation budget for [this year] will…


20050%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Increase

2011 2012 2013 2014

27%

57%

16%

30%

57%

13%

29%

57%

13%

28%

57%

15%

15%

46%

39%

18%

65%

17%

28%

56%

16%

29%

55%

16%

29%

57%

14%

30%

54%

16%

Compared to [last year], do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during [this year] will…


Question 6: Overall Relocation Volume

Question 44b: International Relocation Volume

Compared to [last year] , do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during [this year] will…

Compared to [last year] , do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during [this year] will…

Compared to [last year] , do you anticipate that your relocation budget for [this year] will…

Question 7: Relocation Budget Expectation

HIGHLIGHTS

2 3


Results HIGHLIGHTS

Factors Affecting Relocation —External & InternalNeed for Talent and Company Growth Drive Relocations, Impacts of Economic Conditions and Real Estate Market Continue to Diminish

While company growth remains the top internal condition influencing volumes for the fourth straight year, it remains similar to previous recessionary levels despite maintaining last year’s substantial increase over 2009 (46% vs. 24%). For the first time in seven years, this factor inches ahead as the top reason for relocations overall. Lack of local talent is the top external factor, similar in weight to company growth (44% vs. 46%). Economic conditions (30%) and the real estate market (23%) decline slightly, falling within historical ranges for economic recoveries. Only small firms weigh local talent shortfalls more than company growth (43% vs. 35%). Generally, external pressures seem to be lessening. Company growth as a driver remains muted and is markedly below levels seen in previous periods of strong economic growth across company size, but most substantially among small firms.

• The impact of external factors still varies by company size. At

mid-size firms, need for talent outstripped economic conditions

and real estate concerns nearly 2-to-1 (48% vs. 25%). Small firms

viewed local talent (43%) and economic conditions (30%) as

much more important than real estate (16%). Among large firms,

the three factors remain more closely weighted (40%, 36%, 31%).

Question 13: Select External Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: 1988-2013

Question 14: Select Internal Factors: Impact on Relocation Volume: 1988-2013

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Economic ConditionsLack of Qualified People Locally Real Estate Market

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

17%

22%

16%

35%

39%

28%

23%21%

49%

17%

38%

24%

51%

25%

28%

40%

25%

34%

38% 37%

48%

58%

52% 52%

31%

51%49%

44%

34%

20%

38%

30%

53%

34%

18%

48%

14%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

44%46%

22%24%

36%

37%

29%

32%

40%

Note: 1999-2001 results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable.

46%

47%

25%

24%

38%

40%

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Budget ConstraintsCompany Growth

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

64% 63%

22%

28%

13%

55%

39%

47% 47% 47% 46%

58% 57%59%

53%

38%

64%

46%

24%

33%37%

46% 46%

39%40%

55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

10%13%

9%

28%28%

15% 13%

22%25%

12%

18%

10%

31%

13% 14%

21%

15%12%

22%

29%

Note: 1999-2001 results were compiled without accounting for mutual exclusivity and are not historically comparable.

Question 11a: Select Reasons Relocations Declined: 2002-2013

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Family Issues/TiesHousing/Mortgage Concerns Spouse’s/Partner’s Employment

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

26%

57%

79%83%

52%

23% 25%

49%

76%81%

84%

49%

62%

70%

60%

45%

69%

55%

41%

71%

64% 65%61%

45%

64%

52%

42%39%

77%

51%

43%48%50%

30%

53%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

• Even with a slight decline in the importance of available talent,

it stands markedly above the level recorded in 2009 (31%) and

far above much lower levels recorded before 1996. Regardless of

company size, talent shortfalls remain one of the most forceful

drivers of relocation volumes overall.

• For both small and large firms, the impact of real estate is at its

lowest point since measurement began in 2007. Only mid-size

firms continue to report a slightly higher impact over the 2007

value (25% vs. 18%).

• Financial firms felt the greatest impact of local talent shortfalls

(58%), while nearly half of wholesale/retail (48%) and

manufacturing/processing firms (44%) also viewed it as a key issue.

• Company growth is the top internal factor, regardless of company

size. Mid-size and large firms felt it more strongly than they did all

other factors (54%+ vs. roughly a third or less). Among small firms, it

was nearly equal in weight to promotions/resignations (35% vs. 32%).

• The percentage of firms citing budget constraints remains within

non-recessionary ranges.

• National and international firms report the highest levels of

company growth: around half say it had an impact on relocation,

compared to just 31% of regional firms. Almost half (44%)

of regional firms said promotions/resignations affected

relocation volumes.

What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year] ?

What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in [last year]?

What reasons did employees give for declining relocation?Employees Declining RelocationImpact of Housing/Mortgage Concerns Drops Dramatically, Overall Reluctance Remains Slightly Elevated

An unprecedented housing crisis exerted much of the pressure on relocation policies during the Great Recession. As a factor in declined relocations, housing/mortgage con-cerns fell dramatically for the first time in five years. How-ever, it remains somewhat above pre-recession levels.

Family issues/ties retook the top spot among firms of all sizes, with spouse/partner employment in second place.

• Around half of firms saw employees decline relocation, but few

saw an increase in reluctance over 2012. Employee reluctance

(13%) remains far below the peaks of 2008 (28%) and 2009 (29%),

and slightly above pre-recession levels (7% to 9%, 2002 to 2006).

4 5


Results HIGHLIGHTS

Economic Outlook Continued Optimism & Improving Real Estate Expectation

The outlook is positive for 2014. Expectations for improvement in the U.S. real estate market match last year’s high. Optimism extends to company performance and the U.S. economy. These markers remain at pre-recession/recovery levels and offer hope for continued normalization of the industry this year.

• Across company size, two-thirds or more of firms anticipate better performances in 2014. Half or more expect improvements in

emerging economies, in developed economies, and in the U.S. economy and real estate market. Mid-size and large firms are the

most optimistic internationally.

• Optimism is likely fueled by the experiences of 2013: two-thirds of companies performed better last year, while roughly half or more sensed

improvement in global and domestic economies and in the U.S. real estate market.

20060%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

SameWorse

Better

2012 2013 2014

76%

20%

4%

74%

23%

2%

59%

32%

9%

27%

34%

40%

63%

32%

5%

72%

23%

5%

67%

29%

4% 5%

70%

28%

3%

72%

23%


Question 16: Anticipated Performance—Compared to [last year] , please indicate what you anticipate for [this year] :

Did your company offer additional incentives to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

Relocation Policy & PracticeFlexibility Built-in During Recession Provides Key Tools; Reliance Lessening as Pressures Ease

The industry is still healing from the housing crash and Great Recession. Answering new economic challenges has yielded tools in policy and practice that allow greater flexibility to adapt. As pressures ease, firms are still using these new tools—but are less dependent on them.

Incentives

While most firms still offer incentives to relocate, use in 2013 has dropped significantly from 2011 to 2012, especially among large firms. Perhaps the reduction in housing/mortgage concerns is offsetting the need. However, a variety of economic and social factors still constrict

employee willingness. The most popular incentive is extended temporary housing benefits, offered by two-thirds or more of companies.

Relocation bonuses (54%), cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) (45%), extended duplicate housing benefits (31%), and loss-on-sale protection (29%) round out the top five incentives. Around half or more of firms across size offered relocation bonuses or COLAs. Large firms were more likely than mid-size and small firms to offer loss-on-sale protection (50% vs. 31% and 13%) or extended duplicate housing benefits (47% vs. 25% and 26%).

ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES OFFERED (TOP 5) 2013Question 10b:

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE USE BY COMPANY SIZE: 2008-2013Question 10a:

54%64% 63% 61% 67% 73%

57%69%

80%63%

78% 76% 69%80% 80%

61%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

74% 64%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES OFFERED: 2008-2013Question 10a:

60%40%20%0%

Extended temporary housing benefits

Relocation bonuses

COLAs in salary at new location

Extended duplicate housing benefits

Loss-on-sale protection 29%

31%

45%

54%

72%

60%66% 67% 73% 76%

65%


0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


54%64% 63% 61% 67% 73%

57%69%

80%63%

78% 76% 69%80% 80%

61%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

74% 64%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


60%40%20%0%


Relocation bonuses




31%

45%

54%

72%

60%66% 67% 73% 76%

65%


0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


54%64% 63% 61% 67% 73%

57%69%

80%63%

78% 76% 69%80% 80%

61%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

74% 64%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


60%40%20%0%


Relocation bonuses




31%

45%

54%

72%

60%66% 67% 73% 76%

65%


0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


54%64% 63% 61% 67% 73%

57%69%

80%63%

78% 76% 69%80% 80%

61%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

74% 64%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


60%40%20%0%


Relocation bonuses




31%

45%

54%

72%

60%66% 67% 73% 76%

65%

Question 10a: Additional Incentives Offered: 2008-2013

Question 10b: Additional Incentives Offered (Top 5) 2013

20060%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

53%

36%

11%

45%

46%

9%

13%

42%

45%

10%

25%

65%

45%

50%

5%

54%

40%

6%

44%

48%

7% 9%

54%

41%

5%

54%

38%

SameWorse

Better


20080%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

7%

15%

78%

12%

29%

59%

40%

52%

8%

32%

57%

12%

35%

55%

10%

60%

36%

5%

60%

37%

3%

SameWorse

Better


Which of the following additional incentives did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year?

By Company Size

Overall

Your Company

U.S. Econom

yU

.S. Real Estate M

arket

20060%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

53%

36%

11%

45%

46%

9%

13%

42%

45%

10%

25%

65%

45%

50%

5%

54%

40%

6%

44%

48%

7% 9%

54%

41%

5%

54%

38%

SameWorse

Better


20060%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

53%

36%

11%

45%

46%

9%

13%

42%

45%

10%

25%

65%

45%

50%

5%

54%

40%

6%

44%

48%

7% 9%

54%

41%

5%

54%

38%

SameWorse

Better


6 7


Results HIGHLIGHTS

Question 19a: Core/Flex Policy

Yes71%

No29%

Does your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy?

Does your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy?

60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (all employees)

Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category)

Flexible use of full relocation benefit coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category)

Flexible use of a portion of relocation benefit coverage (all employees)

Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) dependent on employee levels/categories

Relocation benefit coverage of specific items (i.e. core components) across all employee levels/categories

Other 2%

10%

12%

12%

16%

45%

48%

Question 19b: Use of Core/Flex Policy in Relocation

Cost Containment

The majority of firms employed cost-containment measures last year, but overall use trends lower compared to its recessionary peak. Markedly fewer small and large firms are taking such measures. Yet mid-size and large firms continue to be the heaviest users of a variety of methods. More than a fourth of firms, regardless of size, capped relocation benefit amounts; this was the most frequently used method for small and mid-size firms. Large firms relied most on reviewing/renegotiating supplier contracts.

Core/Flex Policy

Nearly three-fourths of firms incorporate core/flex elements in their policies, similar to last year’s findings. These are most popular with mid-size companies (83%), followed by large (77%) and small firms (60%). The most popular aspect is coverage for core components, either across all employee levels/categories or depending

Question 21: Cost Containment Methods Used 2009-2013

Question 21: Cost Containment Measures (Top 5) 2013

on employee level/category. This is true regardless of company size.

Alternative Assignments

Firms continue to use the flexibility of alternative assignments, with 37% of firms indicating so overall. This includes roughly two-thirds of large firms, 37% of mid-size firms, and 19% of small firms. Similar to the last two years, the reason for their use cited most often is to meet strategic business goals. About two-fifths of firms also use alternative assignments to develop internal talent, to accommodate employee needs, to maximize budgets/corporate resources, or along with long-term assignments. Less than a fourth typically use them as replacements for long-term or traditional short-term assignments. Regardless of company size, the top three “key factors” in the decision to use an alternative assignment are assignment purpose, cost, and job function.

20130%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2009 2010 2011 2012

COST CONTAINMENT METHODS USED BY COMPANY SIZE: 2009-2013

Question 21:

54%62% 78% 44% 64% 81%

60%69%

80%50%

58% 76% 42%

20132009 2010 2011 2012

63% 65%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

COST CONTAINMENT METHODS USED: 2009-2013Question 21:

COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES (TOP 5) 2013Question 21:

40%20%0%

No additional cost containment measures

Cap relocation benefit amounts

Limit misc allowance benefits

Review/renegotiate supplier contracts

Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for benefits 16%

18%

21%

30%

46%

64% 61%

70%

60%54%

20130%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2009 2010 2011 2012


Question 21:

54%62% 78% 44% 64% 81%

60%69%

80%50%

58% 76% 42%

20132009 2010 2011 2012

63% 65%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



40%20%0%






18%

21%

30%

46%

64% 61%

70%

60%54%

20130%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2009 2010 2011 2012


Question 21:

54%62% 78% 44% 64% 81%

60%69%

80%50%

58% 76% 42%

20132009 2010 2011 2012

63% 65%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



40%20%0%






18%

21%

30%

46%

64% 61%

70%

60%54%

20130%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Less than 500500-4,9995,000+

2009 2010 2011 2012


Question 21:

54%62% 78% 44% 64% 81%

60%69%

80%50%

58% 76% 42%

20132009 2010 2011 2012

63% 65%

0%

20%

40%

10%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



40%20%0%






18%

21%

30%

46%

64% 61%

70%

60%54%

Which of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy does your relocation policy incorporate?

Respondents were given a list of possible cost containment measures; the answers received indicate that…

Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year?

By Company Size

Overall

Relocation Policy & Practice Continued…

8 9


Results HIGHLIGHTS

20020%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Did Not OutsourceOutsourced

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

61%

39%

66%

34%

63%

37%

55%

45%

58%

42%

55%

45%

61%

39%

55%

45%

66%

34%

72%

28%

63%

37%

59%

41%

Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services; the answers received indicate that…

Question 41: Outsourcing

Question 44g: International OutsourcingNo &

No plans to do so

63%

Yes & plan to do so

37%

Is your company utilizing “alternative assignments” (i.e. extended business travel, cross-border commuting, localization, permanent international transfers, rotators, etc.)?

Is your company utilizing “alternative assignments” (i.e. extended business travel, cross-border commuting, localization, permanent international transfers, rotators, etc.)?

60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

5%Other

Used in place of traditional short-term assignments

Used in addition to long-term assignments

Used to accommodate employee needs

Used to meet strategic business goals

Used to develop internal talent

Used in place of long-term assignments

Used in addition to traditional short-term assignments

Used to maximize budget/corporate resources

16%

22%

23%

34%

34%

36%

37%

57%

How are these “alternative assignment” arrangements incorporated into your organization’s overall employee mobility strategy?

60% 70%50%40%30%20%10%0%

Cost

Job function

Employee requests

Career development

Assignment purpose

Other 5%

30%

31%

53%

54%

66%

What are the key factors that determine if an “alternative assignment” method will be used?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Did Not OutsourceOutsourced

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

70%

30%

58%

42%

62%

38%

66%

34%

63%

37%

74%

26%

62%

38%

72%

28%

77%

23%

67%

33%

72%

28%

Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced international relocation services; the answers received indicate that…

Question 27: Alternative Assignment Use

Question 27a: Alternative Assignment Use In Employee Mobility Policy

Question 27b: Alternative Assignment Use Determining Factors

How are these “alternative assignment” arrangements incorporated into your organization’s overall employee mobility strategy?

What are the key factors that determine if an “alternative assignment” method will be used?

Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced relocation services; the answers received indicate that…

Respondents were given a list of possible outsourced international relocation services; the answers received indicate that…

OutsourcingNearly six out of ten companies outsourced relocation services in 2013, similar to 2012 and well below the peak of 2011. Overall, outsourcing falls in the historical mid-range. A slight decline from 2012 owes itself to a near-historic low among small firms with only slight upticks by large and mid-size firms. The vast majorities of large and mid-size firms practice outsourcing and

typically require a greater variety of services than do small firms.

• Outsourcing remained at levels similar to 2012 across every service

category, with two exceptions. Orientation tours at new location (24%)

and audit and/or payment of invoices (20%) fell significantly (from 31%

and 28%, respectively). Only the outsourcing of real estate purchases

(40%) remains similar to the historic high of the past decade (44%).

• Overall, outsourcing trends within the historical mid-range for most

service categories.

Shifts by Company Size

• Among large firms, outsourcing across categories is nearly the same

or up slightly from last year, with a few exceptions. Expense tracking/

reimbursement services rose from 50% to 61%, approaching a historic

high (65%). Audit and/or payment of invoices fell from 50% to 38%, close

to the lower historic range on average. Five services remain near historic

high levels: household goods carrier contracts (57%), real estate purchases

(66%), expense tracking/reimbursement services (61%), relocation planning

& details counseling (56%), tax gross-up assistance (54%), and company

policy counseling (51%). The rest fall well below historic highs.

• For mid-size firms, outsourcing across categories is nearly the same or

down slightly from 2012, except for tax gross-up assistance, which fell

from 40% to 33%. Six services remain near historic highs: real estate

sales/marketing (56%), household goods carrier contracts (58%), real estate purchase (50%), expense

tracking/reimbursement services (44%), relocation planning & details counseling (43%), and property

management (26%). The rest fall well below historic highs.

• Among small firms, most outsourcing services are close to historic lows. The exceptions are

household goods carrier contracts (23%), real estate purchases (16%), and family transportation and

accommodation arrangements (14%), which fall in historic mid-ranges on average.

International

Interestingly, far more firms outsourced internationally last year than did overall (72% vs. 59%). Nearly three-fourths outsourced relocation, up slightly from 2012 (67%) and similar to the historic high (77%) in 2011. Overall, outsourcing falls in the high range historically. It reflects heavy international outsourcing by vast majorities of mid-size and large firms, which typically access a greater variety of services than do small firms.

• International outsourcing increased for almost every service category, with levels near or

above historic highs. The exceptions are: visa & immigration services (38%) and international

real estate (19%), which trend lower; and counseling about company international relocation

policy (31%), which falls in the historic mid-range. The drop in visa/immigration services

reflects a marked decrease in activity among small firms; the drop in international real estate

is due to fewer large firms outsourcing it. Outsourcing of company policy counseling remains

fairly static compared to 2012.

• Overall, international outsourcing across most categories trends higher and near historic

highs for mid-size and large firms. For small firms, it trends lower, generally, with two

exceptions: outsourcing of international relocation program management (25%) and of

international real estate (17%) are at their highest levels to date. Among companies that outsourced relocation services domestically, the percentage

that also outsourced internationally surpassed the historic high (89% vs. 88%). Large firms remain more likely to outsource internationally than mid-size firms. However, both groups show similar propensities to outsource across individual categories.

Relocation Policy & Practice Continued…

1 0 1 1


Results

Relocation Reimbursement/PaymentFull Reimbursement Tapers Slightly, Multiple Methods Still Favored

The percentage of firms using full reimbursement, the most popular method overall, is similar to levels reported over the past eight years (59%). Use of lump sum payments by roughly half of companies is consistent with findings since 2008. Use of partial reimbursement continues to decline, falling from nearly half of companies in 2011 to 34%; yet it remains similar to levels reported in all other years since 2006. Small firms are less likely than mid-size and large firms to offer transferees full reimbursement (48% vs. 70% and 63%). However, roughly half of firms, regardless of size, offer lump sums. Mid-size firms show a strong preference for full reimbursement (70%) compared to lump sums (51%); small and large firms report similar preferences for both methods.

For new hires, full reimbursement and lump sum payments are nearly tied in popularity for the second straight year (51% and 50% in 2014 vs. 53% and 51% in 2013). Roughly half of firms have used lump sum payments for new hires since 2008. The percentage of firms using partial reimbursement continues to decline from 2011 (51%)

to the lowest level in more than a decade (34%). Among all firms, full reimbursement and lump sum are the top two choices. However, mid-size firms report the strongest preference for full reimbursement (64%) compared to lump sums (48%), while preferences for the two methods vary less at small and large firms.

Lump Sum ApplicationThe consistent use of lump sums by roughly half or more firms continues to prompt deeper investigation. For the third year, the survey asked which costs are covered and to whom lump sums are applied. The biggest shifts: fewer firms use lump sums to cover the entire relocation cost (42% vs. 51%) and miscellaneous expenses (53% vs. 63%), although these are two of the most popular expense categories. As they did last year, 47% of firms used lump sums to reimburse travel expenses, compared to 41% in 2012. The percentages of firms offering other lump-sum types have remained fairly consistent over the last three years.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Lump SumFull Reimbursement Partial Reimbursement

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

56%

30%

38%36%

24%

59%56%

28%

35%31%

41%45%

55%57%

40%37%

34%

50%49%

54%

32%

43%

15%

30%

45%

60%

49%51% 51%

47%

51%

47%

53%

42% 48%46%50%

49% 51%

43%

For the applicable cost types below, what are the typical ranges of lump sums offered? Median amounts shown:

Less than $1,000

Less than 500Median Amounts

Real Estate Assistance/Transactions

Rental Assistance/Transactions

Household GoodsShipping/Storage

Entire Relocation Cost

Travel Expenses

Temporary Housing

Misc. Allowances

500-4,999 5,000 or more Grand Total

No lump sum offered No lump sum offered$1,000-$4,999

$1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4,999 $1,000-$4,999

$5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999 $5,000-$9,999

Less than $1,000

$1,000-$2,499

$1,000-$2,499

$1,000-$2,499

$1,000-$2,499

$1,000-$2,499

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$2,500-$4,999 $1,000-$2,499

$5,000-$7,499

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$2,500-$4,999

For the applicable cost types below, what are the typical ranges of lump sums offered? Median amounts shown:

Question 33c: Lump Sum Ranges

200315%

30%

45%

60%

75%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Full ReimbursementLump SumPartial Reimbursement

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

70%

30% 25%

74%

22% 24%

58%

32% 33%

55%

32% 30%

63%

44%37%

63%

45%40%

59%

44% 41%

57%49% 47%

65%

47%40%

69%

25% 22%

63%

48%36%

59%49%

34%

To what extent does your company reimburse: Transferees? New Hires?

Question 32: Transferee/New Hire Reimbursement 2003-2014

Transferee:

Use of lump sums differs by company size. Large firms (60%) are nearly twice as likely as small or mid-size firms (33%) to use lump sums for temporary housing. On the other hand, small firms are nearly twice as likely as mid-size or large firms to use them for household goods shipping/storage (46% vs. 25% and 21%). Regardless of size, nearly two-fifths of firms use lump sums to reimburse the entire relocation cost, and around half or more of firms apply them for miscellaneous allowances. Around half or more of small and large firms use lump sums for travel expenses, compared to about a third (36%) of mid-size firms.

In 2011, about half or more of firms said most employee types, except for homeowners, commonly received lump sum payments. In 2012, gaps widened between the types of employees receiving them. As in 2013, new hires this year are more likely to receive a lump sum than are transferees (59% vs. 42%), and renters are more likely than homeowners (39% vs. 28%). Similar to last year as well, employee level is less a factor than new hire status.

• Renters are much more likely to receive lump sum payments at

mid-size and large firms than at small firms (42% and 51% vs.

28%), and transferees are more likely to receive them at large

firms than small (54% vs. 34%). However, firms of all sizes show

a similar likelihood for offering lump sums to new hires (56%+).

Similar to previous years, large firms more commonly offer lump

sums to entry-level employees than to experienced professionals

or executives (61% vs. 46% and 42%). However, mid-size firms show

less discrimination by level compared to previous years. Small firms

continue to do the opposite of large firms and are more likely to

offer lump sums to experienced professionals than to entry-level

employees (58% vs. 29%).

A new question last year probed the ranges offered for various lump sum categories. This year the median offer differed by company size for real estate assistance/transactions, rental assistance/transactions, temporary housing, and miscellaneous allowances, with larger firms appearing to be more generous. However, median amounts offered fell within similar ranges across company size for household goods shipping/storage ($1,000-$4,999), the entire relocation cost ($5,000-$9,999), and travel expenses ($1,000-$2,499). Compared to last year, median-amount ranges remained about the same overall for household goods shipping/storage and the entire relocation cost. However, amounts grew slightly more generous on average for rental assistance/transactions, travel expenses, temporary housing, and miscellaneous allowances.

New Hire:

1 2 1 3


Results HIGHLIGHTS

Cost CoverageSimilar to last year, around eight out of ten firms reimburse or pay a portion of relocation costs for transferees or new hires. Over the previous ten years, nine out of ten firms typically covered some costs. This change reflects a continuing preference among small firms to either not cover costs or offer lump sums instead. Although large and mid-size firms appear far less affected, a slight shift away from cost coverage of specific items occurs as well.

Specialized Assistance for Homeowners/RentersMost firms continue to offer specialized relocation assistance for homeowners; however, small firms remain less likely than mid-size or large firms. The percentage of firms that do remains similar to last year and slightly lower overall compared to 2007-2012. This change is largely driven by small firms (58% in 2013, 2014 vs. 76% in 2012), which are opting to either not offer it or offer lump sums instead. Too, the percentages of large and mid-size firms offering this assistance trend lower than historic highs.

• The percentages of firms offering individual homeowner-

assistance items fall to historic lows for nearly all items and

significantly below past highs for each. However, while trending

lower at mid-size and large firms, the percentages remain

similar to most previous years for most items, even if well below

historic peaks. Additionally, roughly half or more of large firms

still offer each type of assistance with few exceptions. Among

small firms, however, the percentages for most items fall

significantly below most prior years.

Most firms continue to offer specialized relocation assistance for renters; small firms remain least likely. Similar to 2013, the percentage of firms doing so is lower than it was during the previous decade. This continues to reflect fewer small firms offering it (62% in 2013, 2014 vs. 82% in 2012) or offering lumps sums instead.

• Overall, percentages of firms offering each type of renter-specific

assistance drop slightly from last year, with the most substantial

declines noted for reimbursement/payment of lease cancellation

(54% vs. 60%) and apartment search or finder’s fees (27% vs.

34%). While large and mid-size firms remain more likely to

reimburse/pay for lease cancellation, they also showed the

greatest drop in such assistance (79% vs. 86%, 61% vs. 68%). Large

firms are also most likely to reimburse/pay for apartment search

or finder’s fees—but they also show the largest decline in this

assistance (52% vs 62%).

Although pressures in the housing market have eased, the Great Recession has brought a shift toward renting instead of owning. For the second year, more than 40% of firms allow homeowners who decide to rent in the new location an option to use home sale/purchase assistance later (42% in 2014 vs. 47% in 2013). However, most firms require the benefit be used within the first year. Mid-size and large firms continue to be more likely to have specific rules on this benefit spelled out in policy (80% and 94%), although most small firms do so as well (63%).

Move unlimited weight

Unpack all items

Move a second automobile

Pack all items

Move an automobile

Move recreation and lawn equipment

Partial/custom unpacking of items

Move exercise equipment

37% 45%17%30%

35%41%23%31%

44%43%21%33%

42%50%31%39%

47%53%26%40%

60%45%25%40%

77%64% 45% 81%

90%70% 48% 83%

Total Less than 500 500-4,999 5,000+

60%40%20%0%

Offer storage

Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation

Reimburse/pay home purchase costs

Reimburse/pay apartment search/finder’s fees

Offer temporary housing allowance

Reimburse/pay home sale costs

Offer homefinding trips

57%

59%

54%

49%

46%

55%

38%

46%

27%

43%

Renting Not Buying

Buying Not Renting

60%40%20%0%

Offer storage







57%

59%

54%

49%

46%

55%

38%

46%

27%

43%

Renting Not Buying

Buying Not Renting

60%50% 70%40%30%20%10%0%

Homeowners

Renters

Executives

Transferees

Entry Level Employees

Experienced Professionals

New Hires

28%

39%

41%

42%

43%

50%

59%

What types of relocating employees most commonly receive lump sum payments?

60%50% 70%40%30%20%10%0%

Other

Real Estate Assistance/Transactions

Temporary Housing

Travel Expenses

Misc. Allowances

Rental Assistance/Transactions

Household Goods Shipping/Storage

Entire Relocation Cost

For what types of relocation costs are lump sum payments typically offered to relocating employees?

6%5%

4%

33%32%

30%

42%42%

51%

47%47%

41%

43%41%

38%

14%15%

11%

55%53%

63%

21%16%

16%

2012 2013 2014

What types of relocating employees most commonly receive lump sum payments?

For what types of relocation costs are lump sum payments typically offered to relocating employees?

For relocating employees (transferees OR new hires), does your company reimburse/pay to…

When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a homeowner who will be buying (not renting), does your company…

When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) will be renting (not buying), does your company…

Question 33b: Types of Employees Receiving Lump Sum Payments

Question 33a: Lump Sum Payment Application to Relocation Costs

Questions 29 & 30: Homeowner/Renter Assistance (Top 5)

Question 28: Cost Coverage (Top 8)

Lump Sum Continued…

60%40%20%0%

Offer storage







57%

59%

54%

49%

46%

55%

38%

46%

27%

43%

Renting Not Buying

Buying Not Renting

1 4 1 5


Results HIGHLIGHTS

International AssignmentsDuration

Overall, the traditional long-term assignment accounts for around half of all international relocations. However, among small firms, the average falls lower (39% vs. 52%+). Permanent transfers seem to have gained favor over short-term/temporary assignments in firms of all sizes. The most popular duration is one to three years (59%) overall. Small firms are using longer durations (3+ years) as the standard with more similar frequency to 1-3 year assignments (39% vs. 44%) than larger firms (29%+ vs. 63%+).

Destination

Similar to 2012, international relocations originating in the United States last year most often went to Asia (32%) followed by Western Europe (24%) and the United Kingdom (22%). Intra-regional transfers occurred at similar levels in Asia, Western Europe, and the United States. Asia was the most popular destination for interregional transfers of expatriates living abroad (36%).

Policy

Most firms (79%) report differences between domestic and international policies, although the number remains near the low of the past decade and significantly below 2004 (88%). Overall, percentages for individual policy considerations are similar to last year with one exception: markedly more firms now offer allowances for children to attend certain schools (54% vs. 44%). Nearly twice as many small firms

Spousal AssistanceForty-two percent of all firms offer employment assistance to the spouse or partner, similar to levels charted over the past decade, except for the high (50%) in 2009 and low (33%) in 2007. Among mid-size firms, 41% offer assistance, similar to every year in the past decade except the low (18%) in 2007. Similar to most of the past decade, around six out of ten large firms offer assistance (58%). This is significantly above the low (45%) in 2007 and close to the highs (60%+) charted in 2003, 2009, and 2011. The percentage of small firms is the same as last year (34%) and similar to the past ten years (32%+), except for the 2009 high (48%).

Mid-size and large firms are more likely than small firms are to offer outplacement/career services from an outside firm (51% and 61% vs. 13%). Small firms offer networking assistance (64%) far more than do mid-size (39%) or large firms (36%). There is some common ground, however; among all firms, roughly a fourth or more offer résumé preparation assistance. Around a fifth of small and mid-size firms offer employment within the company. And around a fifth of small and large firms offer interviewing skill training.

Impact on Relocation

Overall, the percentage of firms where spouse/partner employment “almost always” or “frequently” affects an employee’s relocation is similar to 2013 (48% vs. 46%).

Last year, regardless of size, nearly half of firms reported employment status had an impact “almost always” or “frequently.” This year, however, small and mid-size firms are much more likely than large firms are to cite impacts (54% vs. 32%).

Although the impact remains similar to levels recorded over most of the past decade, it has increased significantly compared to 2008, 2010, and 2012 (39%+), and it trends near the high (52%) of 2007. The increase this year is associated with more mid-size (54% vs. 43%) and small firms (54% vs. 50%). However, the impact declined significantly at large firms (32% vs. 42%).

International

Forty-four percent of companies offer to help find jobs for spouses or partners relocating internationally, similar to levels from 2007 to 2013 (38% to 46%). From 2003 to 2005, far fewer firms offered this assistance compared to the domestic arena. However, this dramatically changed in 2006 and 2007. Over the past seven years, levels of spousal assistance for international and domestic moves have become nearly identical. While the percentages among small and large firms are similar to most of the past eight years, the percentage of mid-size firms jumped substantially over the past two years (50% vs. 32%+). Overall, mid-size and large firms are more likely to offer spousal assistance (50%) than are small firms (25%).

20030%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Almost Always/FrequentlySeldom/Never

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

42%

58%

42%

58%

44%

56%

43%

57%

52%

48%

39%

61%

42%

58%

40%

60%

46%

54%

39%

61%

46%

54%

48%

52%

How frequently is an employee’s relocation affected by the employment status of that employee’s spouse/partner?

200315%

25%

35%

45%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Overall Internationally

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

42%

27%

39%

22%

38%

33% 33%

46%

42% 42%

50%

44% 45%42%

44%

38%41% 41%41%

24%

40% 39%42%

44%

Percentages of firms offering this assistance:

How frequently is an employee’s relocation affected by the employment status of that employee’s spouse/partner?

Questions 40a & 44h: Spouse/Partner Employment Assistance

Question 39: Spouse Employment Impact

(31% vs. 16%) offer allowances, as do significantly more mid-size firms (54% vs. 40%). This year maintained increases seen last year in financial services assistance and security support programs. Compared to 2012, nearly twice as many mid-size (29% vs. 16%) and large firms (40% vs. 23%) continue to offer such assistance. While the percentage of large firms offering security support to expatriates dipped slightly from last year (32% vs. 41%), it remained significantly above 2012 (20%). Additionally, twice as many mid-size firms now offer it (19% vs. 8%) than last year.

0%

20%

40%

60%

32%24% 22% 21%

11%

27%22%

11% 15% 18%

36%

21%16%

10%

24%

Between Two ForeignCountries/Regions

Within Single Foreign Country/Region

Between the U.S. andAnother Country/Region

Europe (Western)Asia United Kingdom Canada United States

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

51%

13%

24%

5% 2%

39%

11%

23%

7%0%

56%

10%

22%

4% 2%

52%

16%

26%

4% 3%

Total Less than 500 500-4,999 5,000+

Short-term temporary assignmentsTraditional long-term assignments Permanent transfers

Lump sum only Other

What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer?

Respondents were given a list of international relocation types; the answers received indicate that…

Question 12b: Most Frequent Destinations

Question 44d: Average Percentage of International Relocations

1 6 1 7


Results

A. RELOCATION VOLUMES & BUDGETS1. How many employees did your company relocate in 2013? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 4% None 9% 1% 0% 38% 1-9 68% 24% 5% 12% 10-19 13% 18% 5% 9% 20-49 4% 17% 8% 9% 50-99 3% 14% 13% 9% 100-199 1% 17% 14% 7% 200-399 1% 3% 20% 12% 400 or more 1% 7% 34%

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

2. Do you ever relocate employees between countries? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 45% % of companies answering “Yes” 23% 51% 74%

3. Is your company. . . Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 23% Regional 35% 18% 7% 29% National 36% 29% 19% 48% International 28% 53% 74%

4. Compared to 2012, did the number of employees you relocated in 2013. . . Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% Increase 34% 46% 47% 48% Stay About the Same 58% 44% 38% 10% Decrease 8% 11% 14%

5 . Compared to 2012, did your 2013 relocation budget . . . Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 29% Increase 19% 38% 37% 62% Stay About the Same 74% 53% 52% 8% Decrease 6% 9% 11%

6. Compared to 2013, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate during 2014 will… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 25% Increase 21% 31% 28% 59% Stay About the Same 61% 53% 64% 15% Decrease 19% 16% 8%

The following information is based upon the findings of Atlas World Group’s 47th Annual Survey of Corporate Relocation Policies conducted from January 22 through March 8, 2014 via the Internet. This year, 353 online questionnaires were completed. Unless otherwise noted, all data refers to domestic relocations occurring in 2013. Multiple choice questions add to 100% (+/– 1%) due to rounding, unless otherwise noted. Other questions totaling above 100% are due to multiple responses. Complete findings are as follows:(For further details and graphical representations of all the data contained in this report, please go to http://www.atlasvanlines.com/survey)

18

7. Compared to 2013, do you anticipate that your relocation budget in 2014 will… Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 22% Increase 18% 24% 28% 65% Stay About the Same 70% 62% 60% 12% Decrease 12% 14% 12%

8. Did any employees decline the opportunity to relocate in 2013?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 52% % of companies answering “Yes” 38% 51% 84% *excludes those who don’t know

9. Does declining the opportunity to relocate usually hinder an employee’s career? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 20% % of companies answering “Yes” 24% 19% 16%

10a. Did your company offer additional incentives to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 65% % of companies indicating “Yes” 61% 74% 64%

10b. Which of the following additional incentives did your company offer to encourage employee relocations over the past year? Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 10a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 72% Extended temporary housing benefits 72% 77% 66% 54% Relocation bonuses 49% 55% 60% 45% Cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs) 45% 45% 44% in salary at new location 31% Extended duplicate housing benefits 26% 25% 47% 29% Loss-on-sale protection 13% 31% 50% 20% Telecommuting option (one or two days 23% 12% 24% each week) to curtail commuting costs 11% Guarantee of employment contract 10% 13% 11% (for specified length of time) if relocation accepted 5% Mortgage payoffs/loans (if property sale 3% 5% 8% won’t cover employee mortgage debt) 8% Other 4% 9% 11%

10c. How often did offering the above incentives prove successful in convincing an employee to relocate?* Of those who offered incentives: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 10a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 32% Almost always 30% 40% 25% 55% Frequently 54% 48% 66% 11% Seldom 14% 10% 7% 2% Never 1% 2% 2% *excludes not applicable/don’t know responses

11. Did the number of employees declining relocation in 2013...* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% Increase from the 2012 level 15% 16% 7% 75% Remain about the same as the 2012 level 74% 72% 82% 11% Decrease from the 2012 level 11% 12% 11% *excludes those who don’t know

19

QUESTION RESPONSES QUESTION RESPONSES

11a. What reasons did employees give for declining relocation? Of those who answered Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried “Yes” to Question 8: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 64% Family issues/ties 68% 76% 52% 52% Spouse’s/partner’s employment 58% 50% 48% 42% Housing/mortgage concerns 42% 39% 43% 40% No desire to relocate 52% 47% 24% 37% Personal reasons (non-disclosed) 40% 29% 41% 35% Cost of living in new location 24% 45% 39% 6% Job security concerns 4% 0% 13% 6% Other 2% 5% 9%

12a. How many employees did your company relocate in 2013 in each of the following: Within the U.S. Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 2% None 3% 2% 0% 41% 1-9 74% 30% 6% 12% 10-19 13% 14% 6% 9% 20-49 4% 16% 11% 9% 50-99 4% 14% 12% 26% 100 or more 3% 23% 62% 1% Don’t know 0% 1% 2%

Between the U.S. and Canada Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% None 92% 63% 35% 23% 1-9 8% 28% 41% 3% 10-19 0% 4% 5% 1% 20-49 0% 0% 5% 1% 50-99 0% 0% 2% 1% 100 or more 0% 1% 1% 4% Don’t know 0% 4% 10%

Between the U.S. and Another Country Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% None 79% 49% 26% 26% 1-9 20% 35% 26% 4% 10-19 0% 5% 9% 4% 20-49 0% 1% 14% 2% 50-99 0% 2% 5% 4% 100 or more 0% 2% 10% 5% Don’t know 1% 6% 9%

Within a Single Foreign Country Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 73% None 95% 72% 41% 9% 1-9 3% 11% 16% 1% 10-19 0% 3% 1% 3% 20-49 0% 2% 7% 1% 50-99 0% 1% 3% 1% 100 or more 0% 1% 3% 12% Don’t know 2% 10% 28% Between Two Foreign Countries Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 71% None 96% 70% 35% 8% 1-9 1% 11% 13%

20

4% 10-19 0% 3% 11% 2% 20-49 0% 2% 4% 3% 50-99 0% 1% 8% 3% 100 or more 0% 2% 7% 10% Don’t know 3% 11% 21%

12b. What were the most frequent destination(s) of transfer… Within the U.S.* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 35% Midwest 31% 37% 38% 30% South 24% 31% 38% 28% Northeast 20% 32% 36% 24% West 19% 26% 29% 17% Southwest 12% 16% 23% 10% Central 4% 13% 15%*excludes N/A responses

Between the U.S. and Another Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 32% Asia 23% 30% 38% 24% Europe (Western) 23% 28% 20% 22% United Kingdom 10% 22% 28% 21% Canada 23% 18% 21% 12% Australia/Pacific Rim 7% 12% 14% 12% Europe (Eastern) 17% 12% 10% 11% United States 7% 12% 11% 8% Middle East 3% 8% 10% 6% South America 0% 5% 10% 6% Central America/Caribbean 3% 3% 9% 2% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 0% 2% 4% 2% Russia 0% 0% 5% 2% Africa (North) 0% 3% 1% 5% Other 10% 3% 4%*excludes N/A responses

Within a Single Foreign Country/Region* Of those relocating employees: 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Employees 27% Asia 21% 33% 22% Europe (Western) 25% 21% 18% United States 18% 21% 15% Canada 14% 16% 11% Europe (Eastern) 7% 12% 11% Australia/Pacific Rim 7% 14% 11% United Kingdom 14% 11% 5% Middle East 7% 5% 4% South America 0% 7% 3% Central America/Caribbean 0% 5% 3% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 0% 4% 2% Africa (North) 0% 4% 2% Russia 0% 4% 3% Other 4% 4% *excludes N/A responses/Less than 500 Salaried Employees not reportable due to low base size of responses

Between Two Foreign Countries/Regions* Of those relocating employees: 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 1) Salaried Employees Employees 36% Asia 40% 37% 24% United States 20% 29% 21% Europe (Western) 33% 16%

21(question 12b results continued on next page)


Results QUESTION RESPONSES

16% United Kingdom 17% 17% 16% Australia/Pacific Rim 13% 17% 11% Europe (Eastern) 13% 10% 10% Canada 3% 14% 7% South America 7% 8% 6% Middle East 3% 8% 6% Central America/Caribbean 3% 8% 5% Africa (Sub-Saharan) 0% 8% 3% Africa (North) 3% 3% 2% Russia 0% 3% 2% Other 0% 3%*excludes N/A responses/Less than 500 Salaried Employees not reportable due to low base size of responses

B. FACTORS IMPACTING RELOCATIONS13. What external factors had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2013? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 25% External conditions had no impact 27% 27% 22% 44% Lack of qualified people locally 43% 48% 40% 30% Economic conditions 30% 25% 36% 23% Real estate market 16% 25% 31% 9% Growth of domestic competition 7% 13% 9% 8% Growth of international competition 1% 13% 14% 3% Political/regulatory environment- 3% 2% 4% (i.e. employment legislation/policies) 2% Affordable Care Act/U.S. health care 1% 3% 3% legislation requirements/implementation 1% Natural/man-made disasters - 1% 0% 1% domestic or international (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes, system failures (oil/nuclear/other), etc.) 4% Other 6% 4% 2%

14. What internal company conditions had the most significant impact on the number of your employee relocations in 2013? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 7% Internal conditions had no impact 14% 1% 4% 46% Growth of company 35% 55% 54% 33% Promotions/resignations 32% 38% 31% 29% Knowledge/skills transfers 22% 31% 37% 24% Corporate reorganization/restructuring 23% 24% 27% 22% Expansion into new territories 17% 21% 31% 17% Acquisitions/mergers 8% 18% 30% 12% International expansion 3% 17% 23% 12% Expansion of facility 10% 14% 14% 12% Budget constraints 7% 16% 14% 10% Increased production 7% 12% 11% 9% Closing of facility 4% 13% 13% 8% Technology deployment/integration 7% 9% 9% 8% Use of short-term assignments 4% 12% 11% 4% Use of frequent business 3% 4% 4% travel/telecommuting 3% Other 3% 2% 2% 15. Compared to 2012, from your company’s perspective, please rate the following in 2013: Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% Better than 2012 61% 70% 73% 23% Same as in 2012 28% 18% 19% 10% Worse than 2012 11% 12% 8%

22

(question 12b results continued)

Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 52% Better than 2012 45% 51% 59% 43% Same as in 2012 52% 40% 36% 5% Worse than 2012 3% 9% 5%

Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Better than 2012 39% 53% 59% 44% Same as in 2012 54% 38% 38% 6% Worse than 2012 7% 9% 3%

The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 61% Better than 2012 55% 64% 66% 33% Same as in 2012 37% 28% 32% 6% Worse than 2012 8% 8% 2%

The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% Better than 2012 58% 70% 77% 29% Same as in 2012 35% 26% 23% 4% Worse than 2012 8% 4% 0%

16. Compared to 2013, please indicate what you anticipate for 2014: Your company’s overall financial performance Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 70% Better than 2013 70% 72% 66% 28% Same as in 2013 27% 26% 31% 3% Worse than 2013 3% 2% 2%

Emerging global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 60% Better than 2013 54% 61% 66% 37% Same as in 2013 43% 35% 33% 3% Worse than 2013 3% 4% 2%

Developed global market economies Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 55% Better than 2013 50% 62% 54% 43% Same as in 2013 44% 38% 44% 3% Worse than 2013 6% 0% 2%

The U.S. economy Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 54% Better than 2013 56% 53% 52% 41% Same as in 2013 38% 43% 43% 5% Worse than 2013 6% 3% 5%

23(question 16 results continued on next page)



The U.S. real estate market Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 60% Better than 2013 58% 64% 58% 37% Same as in 2013 37% 34% 40% 3% Worse than 2013 5% 1% 3%

C. POLICY ADMINISTRATION17. Does your company have a formal relocation policy? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 77% % of companies answering “Yes” 54% 94% 96%

18a. Does your company have different tiers (or levels) within its relocation policy? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 30% No tiers or levels/single policy 47% 22% 18% 22% Two tiers 34% 18% 12% 22% Three tiers 15% 29% 23% 13% Four tiers 2% 22% 17% 13% Five tiers or more 2% 10% 30% 2.6 Average Number of Tiers 1.8 2.8 3.3 (of companies with tiers/levels)

18b. What are your different tiers (or levels) based on? Of those with tiers/levels: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 18a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 70% Job or Grade Level 59% 67% 80% (i.e. staff, management, professional, etc.) 37% Homeowner/Renter Status 24% 36% 49% 38% Position/Job Title 49% 46% 21% 31% New Hire/Current Employee Status 31% 20% 42% 13% Company vs. Employee 15% 9% 14% Initiated Relocation 5% Other 2% 5% 8%

19a. Does your relocation policy utilize aspects of core coverage/flex policy? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 71% % of companies indicating “Yes” 60% 83% 77%

19b. Which of the following aspects of core coverage/flex policy does your relocation policy incorporate? Of those using core coverage/flex policy Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried elements: (see Question 19a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 48% Relocation benefit coverage of specific 43% 54% 49% items (i.e. core components) dependent on employee levels/categories 45% Relocation benefit coverage of specific 46% 39% 49% items (i.e. core components) across all employee levels/categories 16% Flexible use of full relocation benefit 16% 20% 12% coverage amount (all employees) 12% Flexible use of a portion of relocation 12% 13% 12% benefit coverage (dependent on employee level/category) 12% Flexible use of full relocation benefit 10% 14% 12% coverage amount (dependent on employee level/category) 10% Flexible use of a portion of relocation 5% 10% 16% benefit coverage (all employees) 2% Other 1% 1% 4%

24

(question 16 results continued)

20a. Does your company have a centralized relocation department? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 69% % of companies indicating “Yes” 50% 74% 94%

20b. Does your company’s centralized relocation department…?* Of those with a centralized relocation Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried department: (see Question 20a) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 74% Manage domestic relocation programs 56% 79% 86% 71% Develop relocation policy 40% 80% 90% 58% Control household goods 42% 64% 66% carrier selection 52% Control additional relocation services 28% 59% 67% provider(s) selection 42% Manage international relocation 8% 47% 68% programs 33% Impact talent management/ 28% 40% 31% recruitment decisions/processes 28% Control freight carrier selection 22% 31% 31% (air, land, sea or rail) 20% Handle air travel via commercial airlines 21% 25% 16% 14% Handle office relocations 23% 15% 5%*excludes those who don’t know

21. Did your company use any of the following cost containment measures in relocation policy/practice over the past year? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 46% No cost containment measures 58% 37% 35% beyond typical relocation policy or program utilized 30% Cap relocation benefit amounts 29% 35% 26% 21% Limit miscellaneous allowance benefits 17% 26% 23% (coverage items, amounts) 18% Review/renegotiate supplier contracts 8% 24% 30% 16% Restructure policy tiers/eligibility for 5% 25% 24% certain benefits (i.e. add/reduce/redefine tiers, implement core/flex, etc.) 12% Offer pre-decision counseling 3% 13% 24% 11% Offer short-term/extended travel/ 6% 16% 14% commuter arrangements rather than relocate employees 5% Modify COLA offering policy 5% 2% 9% 5% Tighten real estate assistance requirements 1% 8% 9% 4% Incentivize renting rather than home 1% 4% 8% purchase at destination 1% Other 0% 0% 3%

22. How many salaried (non-hourly) people are employed by your company? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 100% 44% 29% 27%

23. In 2013, what approximate percentage of your company’s relocating employees were (at origin):* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Transferees 35% 42% 59% 57% New Hires 65% 58% 41% 53% Homeowners 54% 52% 51% 37% Renters 33% 36% 43% 11% N/A (Neither Homeowners/Renters) 13% 11% 6%*excludes those who don’t know

25



24. How long does an employee have to…

a) Accept a relocation offer* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 31% 1 week or less 28% 36% 33% 42% Up to 2 weeks 40% 39% 48% 7% Up to 3 weeks 8% 7% 7% 14% Up to 1 month 18% 13% 7% 2% Up to 2 months 3% 3% 0% 2% Up to 3 months 3% 0% 2% 2% More than 3 months 1% 1% 5%*excludes those who don’t know

b) Report to work at the new location* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 3% 1 week or less 2% 0% 7% 12% Up to 2 weeks 11% 13% 12% 11% Up to 3 weeks 11% 13% 9% 40% Up to 1 month 43% 41% 33% 16% Up to 2 months 15% 16% 21% 9% Up to 3 months 9% 9% 9% 9% More than 3 months 9% 9% 9% *excludes those who don’t know 25. How many of the following does your company allow for an employee undergoing relocation?*

Expense-Paid House-Hunting Trips with Spouse/Partner to the New Location Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Shown) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 Expense-Paid Days for Employees to Use for House-Hunting Trips (total amount allowed) Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Shown) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 4.0 2.9 4.3 5.3*excludes those who don’t know

26. How was the Internet used for relocation-related matters in 2013? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 22% Did not use the Internet for 35% 20% 4% relocation-related matters in 2013 69% Communicate via e-mail with 57% 70% 88% relocating employees 38% Initiate/execute employee 18% 40% 67% relocation services 37% Complete online forms for 21% 32% 67% employee relocation 37% Access relocation company website for 17% 40% 64% reporting or other services

37% Research relocation-related matters 18% 40% 63%

(policy, benchmarking, etc.)

25% Research relocation service providers 23% 25% 30%

16% Audit/verify prices quoted for 12% 17% 20%

relocation services

12% Utilize mobile applications from 4% 9% 28%

relocation providers

7% Utilize social media/networking tools 6% 6% 9%

1% Other 1% 0% 2%

26

27. Is your company utilizing “alternative assignments” (i.e. extended business travel, cross-border commuting, localization, permanent international transfers, rotators, etc.)?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 63% No, and we do not plan to do so 81% 63% 34% 19% Yes, internationally (limited basis) 5% 22% 38% 17% Yes, domestically (limited basis) 10% 19% 27% 5% Yes, internationally (frequently) 1% 2% 14% 4% Yes, domestically (frequently) 3% 6% 3% 3% No, but we plan to do so 3% 4% 3% in the coming year 0% Other 0% 0% 1%

27a. How are these “alternative assignment” arrangements incorporated into your organization’s overall employee mobility strategy?

Of those utilizing alternative Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried assignments: (see Question 27) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees

57% Used to meet strategic business goals 57% 62% 55% 37% Used to develop internal talent 30% 35% 41% 36% Used to accommodate employee needs 40% 41% 31% 34% Used to maximize budget/ 33% 38% 33% corporate resources 34% Used in addition to long-term assignments 13% 32% 44% 23% Used in addition to traditional short-term 13% 27% 25% assignment arrangements 22% Used in place of long-term assignments 23% 19% 23% 16% Used in place of traditional short-term 7% 22% 17% assignment arrangements 5% Other 0% 5% 8%

27b. What are the key factors that determine if an “alternative assignment” method will be used? Of those utilizing alternative Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried assignments: (see Question 27) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees

66% Assignment purpose 57% 62% 73% 54% Cost 57% 59% 50% 53% Job function 60% 65% 44% 31% Employee requests 37% 41% 23% 30% Career development 27% 27% 33% 5% Other 0% 0% 11%

D. RELOCATION COSTS

28. For relocating employees (transferees OR new hires), does your company reimburse/pay to...

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 22% Company does not pay for any of 40% 9% 7% these items or only offers lump sum 70% Pack all items 48% 83% 90% 64% Move an automobile 45% 77% 81% 40% Move a second automobile 25% 45% 60% 40% Move exercise equipment 26% 53% 47% 39% Unpack all items 31% 50% 42% 33% Partial/custom unpacking of items 21% 43% 44% 31% Move recreation and lawn equipment 23% 41% 35% 30% Move unlimited weight 17% 37% 45% 29% Carry items down from the attic 18% 40% 37% 27% Move via containerized shipment 19% 27% 40% 25% Move pets 15% 31% 35% 24% Move collections of highly valuable 17% 31% 27% objects like statuary, paintings, antiques

27(question 28 results continued on next page)



22% Have permanent/extended storage 20% 24% 24% of some possessions 16% Have belongings picked up from a 12% 17% 20% secondary residence (summer home, relative’s home, etc.) 12% Move a boat 9% 10% 18%

29. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) is a homeowner who will be buying (not renting), does your company... Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 25% Company does not offer any of 42% 15% 9% these benefits or only offers lump sum 59% Offer temporary housing allowance 42% 69% 75% 55% Offer homefinding trips 38% 62% 73% 49% Reimburse/pay for home sale costs 19% 64% 81% 46% Offer storage 25% 60% 63% 43% Reimburse/pay for home purchase costs 16% 54% 75% 36% Offer home marketing assistance 8% 48% 67% 30% Offer qualified home sale program 5% 35% 65% 27% Offer duplicate housing assistance 15% 26% 47% 24% Reimburse/pay for federal tax liability 10% 23% 47% 21% Reimburse/pay for loss-on-sale 6% 21% 43% 17% Offer bonuses/incentives for 5% 17% 38% employee-generated home-sale 9% Offer mortgage subsidy or allowance 2% 8% 22%

30. When a relocating employee (transferee OR new hire) will be renting (not buying), does your company . . .

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 24% Company does not offer any of 38% 17% 7% these benefits or only offers lump sum 57% Offer temporary housing allowance 43% 68% 67% 54% Reimburse/pay for lease cancellation 32% 61% 79% 46% Offer homefinding trips 32% 53% 63% 38% Offer storage 20% 54% 48% 27% Reimburse/pay apartment search 11% 30% 52% or finder’s fees 14% Reimburse/pay for hook-up fees 13% 15% 16% 14% Reimburse/pay for security deposits 18% 12% 11% 12% Apply temporary living allowance 6% 17% 15% toward rent 8% Offer rental subsidy or allowance 7% 5% 11% 6% Reimburse/pay for furniture rental 6% 6% 6%

31. If homeowners decide to rent at the new location, are they allowed to use relocation-related home-sale/purchasing assistance at a later time?

Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 6% Yes, up to six months after relocating 8% 5% 4% 33% Yes, up to a year after relocating 15% 45% 48% 1% Yes, up to two years after relocating 1% 1% 1% 1% Yes, up to three years after relocating 1% 1% 0% 18% No, the company does not offer 28% 12% 9% these benefits 14% No, these benefits must be used within 8% 14% 24% the original relocation time frame 4% No, they receive different benefits so 1% 5% 6% home-sale/purchase assistance does not apply 1% Other 1% 0% 3% 24% Not sure, no specific policy exists 37% 20% 6%

28

(question 28 results continued)

32. To what extent does your company reimburse relocation expenses:

Transferees Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 59% Full reimbursement of 48% 70% 63% relocation expenses 49% Lump sum payment 44% 51% 54% 34% Partial reimbursement based 31% 32% 41% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 6% No reimbursement of 9% 2% 5% relocation expenses New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Full reimbursement of 43% 64% 53% relocation expenses 50% Lump sum payment 49% 48% 55% 34% Partial reimbursement based 32% 33% 40% on salary, position, policy tier, etc. 7% No reimbursement of 9% 4% 7% relocation expenses 33. What approximate percentage of your relocations were: Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 51% Fully reimbursed/cost covered 40% 68% 51% by company 23% Lump sum payment (entire relo) 30% 12% 23% 22% Partially reimbursed by company 24% 17% 24% 4% Not reimbursed (employee paid) 5% 2% 3%

33a. For what types of relocation costs are lump sum payments typically offered to relocating employees (transferees OR new hires)? Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 53% Miscellaneous allowances 47% 51% 63% 47% Travel expenses (i.e. housing, 47% 36% 56% hunting trips, final move, etc.) 42% Entire relocation cost 43% 44% 40% 41% Temporary housing 33% 33% 60% 32% Household goods shipping/storage 46% 25% 21% 16% Rental assistance/transactions 16% 13% 19% 15% Real estate assistance/transactions 15% 13% 16% 5% Other 1% 2% 12%

33b. What types of relocating employees most commonly receive lump sum payments? Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 43% Entry level employees 29% 45% 61% 50% Experienced professionals 58% 44% 46% 41% Executives 44% 35% 42% 59% New hires 56% 58% 63% 42% Transferees 34% 42% 54% 39% Renters 28% 42% 51% 28% Homeowners 22% 25% 39% 9% Other 1% 9% 19%

29



33c. For the applicable costs types below, what are the typical ranges of the lump sums offered?

Real estate assistance/transactions Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 50% No lump sum offered for this benefit 49% 56% 45% 14% Less than $5,000 21% 10% 8% 2% $5,000 – $9,999 0% 4% 2% 6% $10,000 or more 4% 4% 11% 29% Don’t know 27% 27% 34%

Household goods shipping/storage Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 33% No lump sum offered for this benefit 22% 40% 43% 21% Less than $5,000 31% 15% 11% 8% $5,000 – $9,999 12% 6% 4% 12% $10,000 or more 12% 15% 9% 26% Don’t know 24% 23% 32%

Entire relocation cost Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 20% No lump sum offered for this benefit 13% 31% 21% 20% Less than $5,000 27% 17% 11% 22% $5,000 – $9,999 24% 15% 25% 23% $10,000 or more 22% 29% 19% 15% Don’t know 14% 8% 25%

Rental assistance/transactions Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 40% No lump sum offered for this benefit 38% 42% 40% 20% Less than $2,500 31% 19% 6% 6% $2,500 – $4,999 5% 6% 8% 5% $5,000 or more 4% 2% 9% 29% Don’t know 22% 31% 38%

Travel expenses Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 26% No lump sum offered for this benefit 22% 37% 23% 33% Less than $2,500 42% 21% 32% 5% $2,500 – $4,999 5% 8% 4% 8% $5,000 or more 6% 8% 9% 27% Don’t know 24% 27% 32%

Temporary housing Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 32% No lump sum offered for this benefit 36% 37% 21% 17% Less than $2,500 24% 15% 9% 13% $2,500 – $4,999 10% 10% 21% 10% $5,000 or more 6% 8% 19% 27% Don’t know 23% 31% 30%

30

Miscellaneous allowances Of those offering lump sum payments: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 32) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 20% No lump sum offered for this benefit 23% 23% 13% 26% Less than $2,500 38% 21% 13% 11% $2,500 – $4,999 8% 10% 17% 16% $5,000 or more 6% 19% 26% 27% Don’t know 24% 27% 30%

E. EMPLOYEE, SPOUSAL & ASSISTANCE ISSUES34. What is the age range of your most frequently relocated salaried employee?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 6% Less than 30 years 8% 5% 3% 24% 30 – 35 years 25% 14% 31% 38% 36 – 40 years 33% 49% 36% 23% 41 – 45 years 19% 28% 25% 10% More than 45 years 15% 5% 5%*excludes those who don’t know

35. Does your organization perform candidate assessments prior to relocation offers? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 54% No, candidate assessments are 52% 59% 49% not performed 21% Yes, for all relocations 24% 21% 15% 11% Yes, for new hires 18% 5% 5% 11% Yes, on an “as needed/requested” basis 10% 10% 13% 4% Yes, for international relocations 0% 2% 12% 3% Yes, based on policy tier/ 4% 3% 3% reimbursement level 3% Yes, for transferees 3% 1% 4% 2% Yes, for domestic relocations 2% 0% 3% 3% Other 0% 3% 8%

36. In 2013, what approximate percentage of your relocations involved:* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (Average Percent) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 22% Female employees 22% 21% 25% 37% Wife/female partner (Trailing spouse) 30% 46% 41% 20% Husband/male partner (Trailing spouse) 20% 22% 18% 43% Employees with children 35% 50% 53%*excludes those who don’t know

37. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee for elder care? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 83% No elder care assistance 87% 89% 69% 8% Provide list of nursing homes and/or 5% 6% 15% day-care centers 6% Provide paid personal leave days 7% 2% 8% 6% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars 5% 6% 7% for outside care 4% Allow flexible scheduling 3% 3% 7%

or telecommuting 3% Relocate an elderly relative that does not 3% 2% 6% live with the employee currently, but will either live with the employee at the new location or at a nearby residence/facility 3% Other 0% 1% 8%

31



38. What assistance does your company provide to the relocating employee for childcare? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 67% No childcare assistance 74% 70% 54% 15% Provide list of local schools/educational 12% 11% 23% options 14% Allow employee to use pre-tax dollars 12% 15% 19% for outside care 13% Provide list of childcare providers/ 9% 7% 25% services and/or agencies 9% Provide paid personal leave days 13% 5% 7% 9% Allow flexible scheduling 9% 6% 12%

or telecommuting 5% Other 2% 7% 9%

39. How frequently is an employee’s relocation affected by the employment status of that employee’s spouse/partner?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 8% Almost always 11% 10% 3% 40% Frequently 43% 44% 29% 45% Seldom 37% 39% 65% 7% Never 9% 7% 3%*excludes those who don’t know

40. Does your company allow the hiring of spouses of employees?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 71% Yes, but not in the same 64% 79% 73% department/division 13% Yes, without restriction 15% 5% 19% 5% Yes, but not at the same location 5% 4% 5% 11% No 15% 11% 2%*excludes those who don’t know

40a. Does your company assist an employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 42% % of companies indicating “Yes” 34% 41% 58%

40b. How does your company assist an employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location? Of those who did not indicate “No assistance” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 40a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 47% Provide networking assistance 64% 39% 36% 41% Pay for outplacement/career services 13% 51% 61% from an outside firm 31% Provide résumé preparation assistance 36% 24% 30% 17% Find employment within company 23% 20% 11% 17% Provide interviewing skills training 21% 10% 18% 7% Find employment outside company 9% 10% 2% 9% Other 8% 7% 11%

40c. What approximate percentage of relocated employees with a spouse or partner used this employment assistance?* Of those who did not indicate “No assistance” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 40a: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 27% Average Percent 28% 30% 22%*excludes those who don’t know

32

F. SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT41. Which of the following services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm in 2013? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% Did not use a relocation service, HRO 68% 27% 12% or brokerage firm in 2013 42% Real estate sales/marketing 15% 56% 72% 42% Contract of household goods carrier 23% 58% 57% 40% Real estate purchase 16% 50% 66% 33% Expense tracking/reimbursement services 9% 44% 61% 32% Counseling about the planning & 10% 43% 56% details of relocation 29% Monitoring of shipment 10% 40% 46% 28% Tax gross-up assistance 10% 33% 54% 26% Counseling about company policy 6% 34% 51% 25% Arrangement of family’s 14% 31% 36% transportation and accommodations 24% Orientation tours at new location 6% 27% 48% 20% Audit and/or payment of invoice 6% 25% 38% 20% Assistance with employee claims 7% 28% 31% preparation and submission 18% Property management 5% 26% 32% 11% Supplementary services 4% 14% 19% (appliances, cleaning, etc.) 1% Other 0% 1% 2%

41a. Which department(s) at your company select a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm? Of those where company outsourced: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried (see Question 41) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 74% Human resources 85% 86% 57% 36% Relocation 6% 28% 60% 28% Procurement 12% 25% 41% 10% Executive management 15% 9% 8% 1% Other 0% 0% 2%

42. Are carrier transportation expenses paid directly by the company or paid by the employee and then reimbursed? Transferees Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 80% Paid directly by the company 66% 87% 93% 20% Paid by the employee and 29% 16% 10% then reimbursed 8% Paid by the employee and 15% 4% 1% not reimbursed

New Hires Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 73% Paid directly by the company 58% 81% 87% 21% Paid by the employee and 32% 15% 11% then reimbursed 7% Paid by the employee and 11% 3% 4% not reimbursed

33



43. Who selects the household goods carrier for your employee’s relocation? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 46% The company 38% 45% 57% 22% A relocation firm 10% 30% 29% 15% The company & employee together 22% 14% 8% 15% The employee 29% 9% 4% 2% Other 1% 2% 2%

43a. Which department(s) at your company select the household goods carrier for your employee’s relocation?

Of those where company is involved Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried in selection: (see Question 43) Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 66% Human resources 73% 80% 39% 28% Relocation 9% 27% 63% 11% Executive management 20% 0% 7% 10% Procurement 3% 14% 17% 8% Other 10% 5% 7%

G. INTERNATIONAL44a. Compared to 2012, did the number of employees your company relocated internationally

during 2013. . . Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 37% Increase 25% 29% 49% 46% Stay About the Same 53% 50% 39% 18% Decrease 22% 21% 13%

44b. Compared to 2013, do you anticipate that the number of employees your company will relocate internationally during 2014 will . . .

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 30% Increase 25% 27% 35% 54% Stay About the Same 47% 60% 53% 16% Decrease 28% 13% 13%

44c. What is the typical international relocation assignment duration for employees at your company?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 3% Less than 3 months 6% 0% 3% 6% 4 to 12 months 11% 8% 3% 59% Greater than 12 months, but less 44% 63% 64% than 3 years 32% 3 years or more 39% 29% 31%

44d. In 2013, what approximate percentage of your international relocations were:* Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employee (Average Percent) 51% Traditional long-term assignments 39% 56% 52% 13% Short-term/temporary assignments 11% 10% 16% (less than 12 months) 24% Permanent transfers 23% 22% 26% 2% Other assignment type (commuter, etc.) 0% 2% 3% 5% Lump sum payment only 7% 4% 4%*excludes those who don’t know

34

44e. Compared to 2013, do you expect the number of international short-term/temporary assignments (less than 12 months) in 2014 to . . .

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 19% Increase 6% 17% 26% 71% Stay About the Same 72% 71% 69% 11% Decrease 22% 12% 4%

44f. Comparing your international relocation policy to your domestic relocation policy, does your company’s international relocation policy offer…

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 21% No difference between international 44% 13% 14% and domestic relocation policies 61% Additional tax considerations 31% 71% 68% 54% Allowances for children to attend 31% 54% 65% certain schools 49% Intercultural and language training 17% 48% 67% 48% Additional leave time that includes 25% 56% 54% at least one visit back to the employee’s home country 36% Higher rental housing allowance 19% 40% 42% 34% Higher relocation allowances 14% 40% 39% 32% Financial services assistance (i.e. bank 19% 29% 40% account setup, specialized compensation arrangements) 32% Increased allowances for 17% 38% 35% permanent storage 21% Security support program 3% 19% 32% 18% Additional leave time 8% 19% 22% 11% Extended per diem charges 3% 13% 14% 4% Other 6% 2% 4%

44g. Which of the following international services did your company outsource to a relocation service, HRO or brokerage firm in 2013?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 28% Did not use a relocation service, HRO 61% 27% 11% or brokerage firm for international relocation services in 2013 52% Contract of household goods carrier 25% 63% 57% for international shipping 51% Destination services/orientation tours 11% 58% 67% in host country 48% Arrangement of family’s temporary 19% 56% 56% accommodations 44% Monitoring of international shipment 19% 50% 53% 43% Securing rental property in host country 11% 46% 57% 41% Intercultural and language training 6% 48% 54% 40% Counseling about the planning & details 17% 42% 50% of relocating internationally 38% Visa & immigration services 11% 44% 47% 37% Management of international 25% 37% 43% relocation program 36% Repatriation services 8% 38% 47% 35% Arrangement of family’s 14% 42% 40% international transportation 31% Counseling about company policy 3% 35% 43% concerning international relocation 29% Property management of home at origin 3% 35% 38% 19% International real estate 17% 27% 15% (sales/marketing and/or purchases) 4% Other 0% 0% 10%

35



36

44h. How does your company assist an internationally relocated employee’s spouse or partner in finding employment in the new location?

Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 56% No assistance 75% 50% 50% 22% Pay for outplacement/career services 8% 27% 25% from an outside firm 13% Pay for work visa in new location 11% 15% 13% 10% Provide résumé preparation assistance 6% 17% 7% 8% Find employment within company 6% 12% 7% 8% Provide networking assistance 8% 10% 7% 6% Provide interviewing skills training 6% 6% 6% 3% Find employment outside company 3% 4% 1% 10% Other 3% 12% 13%

44i. In 2013, what reasons were cited for an employee declining an international relocation or for an international relocation to fail? Of those who answered “Yes” Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried to Question 2: Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 33% No international relocations declined 69% 25% 19% or failed 26% Family issues/ties 8% 37% 28% 23% Personal reason (non-disclosed) 11% 19% 32% 14% Lack of adaptability by the spouse/partner 3% 17% 18% 11% Financial issues/concerns 0% 13% 15% 8% Lack of adaptability by employee 3% 12% 7% 6% Lack of spousal/partner assistance 6% 8% 6% 1% Illness 0% 2% 0% 0% War/terrorism 0% 0% 0% 3% Other 0% 4% 4% 26% Don’t know 11% 25% 33%

H. CORPORATE/RESPONDENT PROFILE45. Which one of the following most accurately describes your company’s business classification? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 34% Service (Profit) (includes educational 41% 28% 31% services, healthcare, high-tech, etc.) 27% Manufacturing/Processing 26% 30% 26% 14% Financial 10% 19% 16% (includes banking, insurance, investments, etc.) 9% Service (Non-profit) (includes religious 14% 9% 3% institutions, charities, etc.) 9% Wholesale/Retail 6% 7% 14% 3% Government/Military 2% 4% 4% 3% Other 1% 4% 5%

46. What were your company’s annual sales for 2013?* Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 13% Less than $25 million 24% 6% 1% 9% $26 - $50 million 18% 4% 1% 8% $51 - $99 million 17% 1% 0% 12% $100 - $249 million 17% 11% 4% 7% $250 - $499 million 12% 6% 1% 8% $500 - $749 million 3% 19% 4% 7% $750 million - $1 billion 5% 6% 10% 36% Over $1 billion 4% 46% 78%*excludes blank responses

37

47. What is your department’s function? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 40% Human Resources/Personnel – 62% 33% 11% General/Administration 21% Human Resources/Personnel – 12% 27% 31% Compensation & Benefits 10% Human Resources/Personnel – 6% 14% 11% Talent Management 19% Relocation/Mobility Services 6% 18% 40% 3% Shared Services/Procurement/Purchasing 3% 4% 2% 2% Finance/Accounting 5% 0% 0% 5% Other 6% 5% 4%

48. What is your position within the company? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 1% President 2% 0% 0% 12% Vice President 18% 10% 4% 20% Director 28% 18% 10% 35% Manager 30% 37% 42% 10% Relocation Administrator 1% 12% 22% 4% Supervisor 2% 3% 7% 5% Coordinator 6% 3% 5% 3% HR Assistant 3% 3% 1% 3% Recruiter 3% 4% 1% 8% Other 8% 11% 7%

49. Which of the following trade publication(s) do you regularly read? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 14% None 12% 17% 15% 56% HR Magazine 70% 53% 37% 31% Mobility 8% 35% 63% 22% HR News 32% 18% 10% 21% Human Resource Executive 30% 21% 7% 21% Employee Benefits News 33% 17% 7% 20% Workforce 26% 19% 12% 10% Human Resources Outsourcing 7% 15% 10% (HRO) Today 6% Runzheimer Reports on Relocation 2% 8% 10% 4% The Relocation Report 1% 5% 7% 3% National Relocation & Real Estate 2% 2% 5% 8% Other 8% 7% 7% 50. To what relocation-related association(s) do you currently belong? Of total sample: Less than 500 500–4,999 5,000+ Salaried Salaried Employees Salaried Employees Employees 41% None 50% 42% 24% 31% Society of Human Resource 40% 29% 20% Management (SHRM) 29% Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee 6% 34% 60% Relocation Council - ERC) 16% Regional or local relocation council 3% 18% 35% 7% Forum for Expatriate Management 1% 7% 16% 2% Canadian Employee Relocation 0% 3% 5% Council (CERC – Canada) 2% National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) 0% 2% 4% 5% Other 6% 6% 4%



TM & © 2014 AWGI LLC Atlas Van Lines, Inc. 1212 St. George Rd., Evansville, IN 47711 Form No. CC012077

Visit us at atlasvanlines.comContact us at 800-852-6683

For further details and survey results from prior years – including charts and graphs for every question – please visit http://www.atlasvanlines.com/survey, or contact: Lauren Falls • 800-638-9797 e-mail: [email protected]

You’re invited to take part in next year’s survey.Your perspective can help the world better see how our

industry works. To be included in the 48th Annual Atlas Survey, sign up at:

AtlasVanLines.com/TakeSurvey

The 47th Annual Atlas Corporate Relocation Survey

The Industry’s Longest Running SurveyEvery year since 1966, Atlas has collected input from

corporate decision makers, analyzed it, and reported our findings. We illuminate the finer points of relocation to bring the

bigger picture into focus.

Documents

47th Annual Atlas Corporate Relocation SurveyResults...Apr 28, 2014 · • National and international firms report the highest levels of company growth: around half say it had an