Six Major Findings and Analysis
The major findings of the Duty of Care and Travel Risk Management Global Benchmarking Study are divided into six themes:
1. Perceived high-risk locations in which global companies operate;
2. Risks and threats faced by employers;
3. Awareness and ownership of Duty of Care and travel risk management;
4. Benchmarking of Duty of Care practices, indicators and baseline;
5. Duty of Care motivation; and 6. Legal and moral responsibilities of companies.
For each theme, it was further investigated whether there are statistically significant differences (p<.05) by:
Company demographics—variables such as Global 500, size of the company, sector, industry and HQ location.
Respondent demographics—variables such as level, functional role and respondent location.
After describing each set of results, exploratory explanations are offered for the observed trends. This section is then concluded with a discussion of Duty of Care implementation challenges, best practices and recommendations for continuous improvement. Appendix 3 defines the terms used in the lexicon of the Global Benchmarking Study questionnaire. A summary of all significant relationships (by company background and respondent demographics) can be found at
www.internationalsos.com/dutyofcare.
1. Perceived High-Risk Locations in which Global Companies Operate
Risks and threats that present danger to the health, safety and security of employees are largely influenced by a country’s political, economic, social and environmental context where employees work, travel or are sent on assignment. Respondents were asked the following:
“What is the most dangerous country where your company currently operates?”
They listed 89 different countries, which is almost one-half (46%) 14
of the 195 +/- countries of the world. The top five countries perceived as dangerous were Mexico, Nigeria, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan (see Figure 4).
“List the top five most dangerous countries in which you currently operate.”
Respondents identified 141 countries, which is almost three- quarters (73%) of the world’s countries.
The top 25 countries indicated in red on the world map are clearly perceived as more high risk than others due to the extreme political, economic, social and environmental situations at these locations. Yet, all countries are potentially risky for employees because of the unfamiliarity to the traveler.
Figure 4
1 Mexico 2 Nigeria
Primary Perceived High-Risk Employee Locations 6 Iraq
7 Papua New Guinea
3 Afghanistan 8 China 4 India
5 Pakistan
9 Dem. Rep. of the Congo
10Indonesia
11South Africa 16Brazil 12Angola
17Vietnam
13Philippines 18Algeria 14Russia
15Iran
20Saudi Arabia
19Colombia
Perceived high-risk locations Type of Employees in Perceived High-Risk Locations
Each company recognizes that they have various types of employees who work in locations perceived as high risk— expatriates and their dependents, international business travelers and locals. Almost all (95%) companies send employees on business trips to perceived high-risk or "dangerous" locations. Seventy-five percent of the companies have local employees in these areas, and about 70% of the companies have international assignees in these areas.
Less than 50% of the companies also have dependents accompanying international assignees in these risky locations (see Figure 5). As the level of danger decreases somewhat (from most dangerous to fifth-most dangerous) in the respondent’s view, the percentage of dependents accompanying the international assignee increases from 40 to 51%.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48