Figure 13 Selected Duty of Care Practices Requires employees to book travel through approved provider Makes employees aware of the 24-hour advice and assistance number to call


Has a crisis management team to respond to expatriate/international travelers incidents Has a crisis management plan for traveling employees Verifies whether the employee is authorized to travel to location


Has multiple approved communication for traveling employees/assignees Briefs employees about risks prior to travel Prescribes specific travel behaviors to employees


Informs employees of changing risk conditions when traveling


Tracks the changing nature of risk for the locations where employees are traveling Provides pre-trip information in writing to employees


Has established communication protocol with traveling employees Tracks employee travel through a travel tracking system Has a "Duty of Loyalty" among employees


Has “refuse to work" policies for risky assignments


Has mandatory briefings prior to employee travel to high-risk locations Analyzes employee global mobility data


Ensures that traveling employees get required immunizations


Has ability to show that employees read and reviewed travel policies and procedures Knows where employees are on the ground at all times and can immediately locate Has employee kidnapping and ransom insurance


Has a reputational risk management plan for employee travel incidents


Conducts person-location risk assessments prior to expatriate assignments Has a rest break policy


Requires employees to sign that they understand travel risk 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Duty of Care Indicators


The 100 Duty of Care practices were then grouped based on a common construct. This resulted in 15 broader Duty of Care indicators represented as dashboards in Figure 14. Except for the assessment of risk indicators that companies undertake as a general rule (86%), companies score much lower on every other indicator (ranging from 49-77%) with analysis being the lowest. Companies are more engaged in assessment practices but are much less involved with analysis-related Duty of Care practices. The Duty of Care dashboards show that the activities are skewed toward the first steps of the model in terms of assessment, and the middle range for companies is around 65%.


Company Demographics


1. Global 500—While Global 500 companies score higher on the Duty of Care indicators than non-Global 500 companies, this reaches statistical significance only for four indicators: strategy, planning, alerts and policies.


2. Company size—Large companies score higher on Duty of Care indicators than medium and small companies. These differences by company size show statistical significance for all but three Duty of Care indicators (assessment, education and training, and control). Large companies score higher on 11 indicators. Company size is more important than just being a


28


Global 500. When companies reach a critical mass of 10,000 employees, they realize certain benefits in terms of economies of scale and scope. Yet, when they become extremely large and have more than 100,000 employees (which is usually the case for global 500 companies), their size becomes a disadvantage in terms of organizational deployment. In addition, their brand is more recognizable and may put them at greater risk.


Size matters in the sense that when a company is small, it has a lower achievement in Duty of Care compared to a large one. But, when a company is very large, it loses some benefits in Duty of Care implementation. While the tactical deployment in a large company may be facilitated by better planning and resource capabilities, changing the company culture becomes much more difficult.


3. Sector/Industry—Seven of the 15 indicators revealed statistically significant differences by sector. The education sector has significantly lower mean ratings for Duty of Care indicators (such as strategy, policies, procedures, global mobility, communication, control and analysis). The education sector scores consistently lower than other sectors (like NGOs and governments) on the Duty of Care indicators. They have a low risk perception but are just as likely to have experienced an incident. One hypothesis is that they may be more focused on their students than their employees since faculty members do not generally want to be monitored11


. 32 31


36 36 35


33 (% of companies responding “yes”)


46 46


44


43 43


42 55 51


61 61


58


68 67


66


64 64


81 86


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