This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
standard of Duty of Care when they are ignorant as to whether or not there is pertinent legislation? Under which legal standard are they operating in countries with no or limited Duty of Care legislation? What worldwide Duty of Care standards are companies using?


Company Demographics


There are no statistical differences in legal obligations by Global 500, company size, sector/industry or HQ location demographics. The lack of statistically significant differences demonstrates that this is an issue where there are no grey areas; either there is Duty of Care legislation and case law or there isn’t.


Respondent Demographics


Respondent level and function do not affect the results of legal obligation findings.


Respondent location—There are statistically significant differences in legal obligation by the geography of the respondent. Asian15


and Sub-Saharan16 respondents were less


likely to agree with the statement about the legal obligation in their countries (indicating that there is no or limited legal obligation) and European and North American17


respondents


were more likely to agree (which indicates that they have Duty of Care legislation). The results for the Australia/Oceania region were not so straightforward and the respondents were polarized. Respondents were both more and less likely to either be in agreement or disagreement. When looking at specific countries, respondents from Tanzania, South Africa, Singapore, India, Hong Kong and Angola were more likely to agree, but so were respondents from Australia/Oceania (congruent with the polarity in the data seen above). Respondents from the US, the UK and Germany were less likely to agree or strongly agree (indicating that they have a legal responsibility of Duty of Care in their countries). The Australia/Oceania region includes, on the one hand, countries like Australia and New Zealand (with established Duty of Care legislation/case law) and, on the other hand, a number of other smaller less-developed countries (likely without Duty of Care law), which may account for the wide range of responses for that region.


Moral Obligation


Two-thirds of the respondents refuted the statement, “We do not feel morally obligated to our employees with regard to Duty of Care and travel risk management,” indicating that most companies consider Duty of Care a moral responsibility.


Company Demographics


There were no statistical differences in legal obligation by Global 500, company size and sector/industry demographics.


1. HQ location—Companies headquartered in the Middle East and North Africa were less likely to strongly agree with the statement that they feel morally obligated to their employees with regard to Duty of Care and travel risk management, while companies in North America (both agree and strongly agree), Australia/Oceania (strongly agree) and Europe (strongly agree) acknowledge that they have a moral obligation toward their employees. Sub-Saharan companies also strongly agree that they have a moral obligation as well, in spite of the fact that they reported having no legal obligation. The results for Sub-Saharan African companies may be due to two phenomena:


1. The inclusion of a large number of South African companies in the sample that have established new forms of governance after Apartheid, which have impacted how employees are being treated by their employers.


2. The impact of “Ubuntu,” which embraces the concept of interconnectedness of all people and encourages good treatment of others.


Respondent Demographics


Respondent level and function do not affect the results of legal obligation findings.


1. Respondent location—Similar trends to HQ location are seen based on the geography of the respondent. Respondents from North America, Australia/Oceania, Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa are more likely to strongly agree that their company has a moral obligation, while Asian respondents were less likely to agree or were neutral. Asian respondents are significantly more likely to eschew the moral obligation of their company toward Duty of Care and travel risk management. Although the majority of respondents indicate their company has a moral Duty of Care obligation toward their employees, there were widespread geographic differences by headquarters and respondent region. Western HQ companies and respondents expressed higher moral responsibility for Duty of Care. The lower moral responsibility is found only in the geography of Middle Eastern- and North African-headquartered companies (and not in the respondents) and in Asian respondents (and not in the HQ geography). Could the survey respondents in the Middle East and North African countries have been Western expatriates who themselves have the greater moral responsibility, but their companies do not? Is it possible that Asian-headquartered companies have, compared to their Asian employees, a greater sense of moral obligation?18


15 Asian respondents: Significantly less likely to strongly agree and agree. 16 Sub-Saharan respondents: Significantly less likely to strongly agree.


17 36


North American and European respondents: Significantly more likely to strongly agree and agree.


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