Figure 17 Duty of Care Baseline Scores
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Global 500
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Industry Sector
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Size
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Headquarters
Finally, a single Duty of Care score was calculated for each company (an aggregate of the 100 Duty of Care practices) using the average score as the baseline, and then companies were compared based on certain characteristics such as Global 500, sector/industry, size and HQ location (see Figure 17).
5. Duty of Care Motivation
What motivates companies to be concerned about Duty of Care and travel risk management? Are they focused on compliance, concerned about their employees’ well-being, responding to stakeholder expectations, or simply doing a cost-benefit analysis to avoid cost and litigation? To obtain a comparison, respondents were asked:
“My company is concerned about Duty of Care and travel risk management because…”
34
This was followed by a number of reasons for companies to assume their Duty of Care responsibilities. Using a five-point Likert scale, they were then asked whether they agreed or disagreed with these statements about their company.
The statements that received the highest mean ratings (MR) are, “We care about the health, safety and security of our traveling employees” (MR of 4.36) and “It is the right thing to do for our employees” (MR of 4.3), which are also the statements with the highest percentage of ‘strongly agree’ responses (respectively 55% and 53% of the respondents). These were followed by rational cost concerns (“Prevention is less costly than taking care of incidents”) and overall awareness of their Duty of Care obligations (“We are aware of our responsibilities regarding Duty of Care and travel risk management”). Recruitment advantage, competitive advantage and customer expectations were ranked the lowest as motivators. Stakeholder expectations (managers, senior management, board members, customers and
G500 Non-G500
Profit Education
International GO International NGO
Financial services Manufacturing
Professional services IT/Technology
Government/Public services Healthcare/Pharm./Bio.
Chemicals Energy/Natural resources Retail
Consumer goods Construction/Real estate
Automotive Education Telecommunications Agriculture
Entertainment/Media/Publications Logistics/Distribution Aerospace/Defense Travel/Tourism
Non-governmental organizations Australia/Oceania North America Europe Middle East/North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Asia 1,000-9,999 10,000-99,999 100,000+ <100 100-999
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