Six Major Findings and Analysis
Company Demographics
1. Global 500—Being in this category does not affect the Duty of Care baseline, as there are no significant differences in the various steps of the model and total Duty of Care score for Global 500 and other companies. The argument that non-Global 500 companies often present that they do not have the same Duty of Care resources as Global 500 companies and therefore may be more vulnerable to threats, does not hold weight. The baseline for smaller companies is not significantly different from larger companies. However, company size does matter.
2. Company size—The baseline for larger companies is higher than for medium and small-sized companies. Small companies (less than 1,000 employees) have a significantly lower Duty of Care baseline except for step 1 (assessment) than large- and medium-sized companies because of a lack of necessary awareness, experience and resources for Duty of Care. Likely due to limited resource capacity and experience, medium-sized companies (1,000 to 9,999 employees) have significantly lower scores for step 4 (managing global mobility) and step 7 (advise and assist employees) of the baseline than larger companies (over 10,000 employees). In addition, large companies receive economies of scale and scope advantages.
3. Sector/Industry—The education sector has a lower Duty of Care baseline when compared to most other sectors/industries, significantly in step 3 (develop policies and procedures), step 4 (manage global mobility), step 8 (control and analysis), but lower in step 5 (communicate, educate and train). This is consistent with the previous findings pertaining to educational institutions.
4. HQ location—In general, companies headquartered in Australia/Oceania have the highest overall Duty of Care score, followed by North America and Europe. Companies headquartered in the Middle East/North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia have lower overall Duty of Care scores. For five of the eight steps of the model (2, 3, 4, 7 and 8) and for the overall Duty of Care score, Asian-headquartered companies have a significantly lower Duty of Care baseline than companies headquartered in Australia/Oceania and North America. North American-headquartered companies also have a significantly higher baseline in step 7 (advise and assist) than European and Sub-Saharan African-headquartered companies. The baseline scores by headquarter location are consistent with the differences found in the Duty of Care indicators, and are another sign of the pervasiveness of the legal and cultural context of Duty of Care in the Western and developed world.
Respondent Demographics
1. Respondent level—The Duty of Care baseline for middle management is higher than either senior management or contributors. For example, contributors set their companies’ baseline for step 5 (communicate, educate and train), step 6 (track and inform), and step 7 (advise and assist), significantly lower than middle management, and overall have the lowest baseline. Middle management is likely to have more hands-on involvement and experience in Duty of Care practices than either senior management or contributors. Additionally, the Duty of Care practices may not trickle down to the level of all contributing employees, which may explain why they rate the baseline lower than senior management.
2. Respondent function—The Duty of Care baseline of the company is rated differently by functional role of the respondent. Risk and security, and QHS&E respondents rate their company baseline for every step of the model (with the exception of the assessment step) and the overall Duty of Care score higher than HR and general management respondents, which is consistent with the previous findings, indicating the difference in Duty of Care being one’s core responsibility versus an ancillary role.
3. Respondent location—Asian respondents report a much lower baseline for their company than Australian and North American respondents for five steps of the model (2, 3, 4, 7 and 8). However, Sub-Saharan respondents have a much lower baseline for managing global mobility than Asians, and for providing employee advice and assistance than Australia and North America. This is likely due to the difficult environmental circumstances that companies have to deal with in many of the countries in the Sub-Saharan region.
31
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