the ‘Tracking of Employees' indicator than European companies, likely because American employees may view tracking as less of an intrusion of their privacy and realize that it is necessary for their protection. Some would attribute this to the events of September 11, 2001. The culture of the headquarters dictates the approach to Duty of Care. A company that is headquartered either in Australia or North America is more likely to score higher on two-thirds of the Duty of Care indicators than an Asian, Middle Eastern or North African company.
Respondent Demographics
1. Respondent level—Middle and senior management tend to rate their companies higher on at least six of the 15 Duty of Care indicators than other contributors. These indicators are ‘Insurance,’ ‘Education and Training,’ ‘Tracking,’ ‘Assistance,’ ‘Control’ and ‘Analysis.’ This may indicate that employees who are contributors (who are not in a management position) do not perceive that their companies are implementing these aspects of Duty of Care, while middle and senior management claim greater compliance to these Duty of Care practices.
2. Respondent function—Almost all Duty of Care indicators (except ‘Assessment’ and ‘Communication’) are statistically significant by functional role of the respondent. Risk and security, and QHS&E respondents score their company higher on the Duty of Care indicators than HR, general management and the combined group of respondents from other functional areas. For certain Duty of Care indicators (‘Procedures,’ ‘Global Mobility,’ ‘Tracking of Employees’ and ‘Analysis’), general management gives their company higher scores than HR respondents. It is clear that those with main functions specifically related to Duty of Care (i.e., risk management, security and QHS&E) give their companies higher scores on most indicators than HR and general management. This is consistent with earlier findings based on Duty of Care being one’s core job responsibility versus only an ancillary responsibility, and the degree of awareness about Duty of Care amongst different functions.
3. Respondent location—Eight of the 15 indicators demonstrate differences based on respondent location. Generally, respondents from Australia/Oceania rate their companies highest on the various Duty of Care indicators, followed by North America and Europe, whereas respondents from Asia score their companies lowest. Specifically, Australian respondents score significantly higher on Duty of Care indicators related to ‘Alerts’ (than European respondents), ‘Procedures’ (than North American respondents) and ‘Tracking’ (than Sub-Sahara African respondents). The fact that respondents, particularly Australians, followed by North Americans and Europeans, give their companies higher scores on Duty of Care indicators and Asian respondents give lower scores further demonstrates that Duty of Care is a concept more common in the developed world.
30
Duty of Care Baseline
The 15 Duty of Care indicators were rolled up to compute a Duty of Care score corresponding to each step of the model and an overall company score. These scores then form the initial Duty of Care baseline for a company. By analyzing these scores by company demographics, it is possible to establish more precise baseline and engage in preliminary comparison necessary for benchmarking.
The overall baseline for the 628 global companies shows they are doing an excellent job at assessing company-specific employee risk (step 1), but this drops significantly when acting upon that risk and implementing a risk management plan. The baseline is the lowest for managing the actual global mobility (step 4), and control and analysis (step 8). This again reveals that companies are recognizing the various risks their employees face and are taking advantage of the zvarious informational tools currently available to assess the risks. Yet, once employees leave the country, they fail to manage the global mobility of their mobile employees, and do not put the necessary Duty of Care management controls in place, or analyze where they stand with regard to meeting their Duty of Care obligations (see Figure 15).
Figure 15 Overall Duty of Care Baseline Baseline
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Assess
Plan Develop Manage Communicate Track Train Assess Control
Risk Strategically Policies & Global Educate Inform Assist Analyze Procedures Mobility
Evacuate
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