Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations
Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations
Companies are generally aware of the countries that their employees travel to for business and as international assignees. They usually require employees to book their travel through an approved travel agency, and are likely to provide employees with a 24-hour assistance number. Implementing these three basic front-end activities are fundamental requirements in order to engage in vital Duty of Care activities such as assessing risk (initial and changing), tracking employees, advising them of changing conditions and assisting them when needed. Yet, the frequency of engagement in these follow-up practices is much more limited. Clearly, front-end activities such as assessment and planning are more prevalent than advanced stage practices of implementing and evaluating whether companies are meeting their Duty of Care obligations.
The inability to engage in the full spectrum of managing Duty of Care and travel risk could possibly lead to unnecessary risks and potential harm to employees, greater evacuation costs for road accidents, illnesses, situations of human and natural disasters, and costly litigation as a result of possible negligent failure to plan. In other words, many companies fall short on strategic planning and implementation of Duty of Care practices that are vital for employers to assume their responsibilities and for employees to show their reciprocal Duty of Loyalty.
How do companies compare on Duty of Care? Factors that clearly differentiate them from one another are company size and geography (HQ and respondent location). But, what matters most is not necessarily the same factor for the different areas of Duty of Care. Being a certain type of company, or operating in a particular sector or in a certain industry, can either be particularly advantageous or disadvantageous with regard to Duty of Care. For example, in assessing risk perception for employees, geography (of respondent and HQ location), the industry/sector matters the most. In terms of geography, each location clearly has its specific contextual challenges due to medical, political or environmental conditions. The energy and natural resources industries and NGOs encounter risks and threats related to the nature of their work/mission and locations where they perform their work, while the educational industry generally underestimates the risks of threats to its employees. Yet, when looking at the actual occurrence of incidents to employees, being a Global 500 company and the company size (either very small or very large) matter most. The function of the respondent and the location of HQ matter most in regard to differentiating Duty of Care awareness.
18
Note that these are generalizations based on aggregating different countries into regions, and that individual country analysis may yield different results and conclusions.
Those for whom the health, safety and security of employees is a core responsibility have greater awareness than HR and general management. Surprisingly, HR is currently identified as the key responsible owner of Duty of Care (among the top five leading functional owners) and plays an even greater role in terms of who should have Duty of Care responsibility. Yet, HR is consistently ranked low in terms of risk perception, awareness and overall knowledge of Duty of Care practices. Western companies, especially those headquartered in the Australian region, have greater awareness than companies in the rest of the world.
The Duty of Care baseline is influenced more by company size than industry, but some industries stand out either for high (energy and natural resources, aerospace/defense) or low (construction and real estate, education) Duty of Care performance compared to others.
What does Duty of Care mean for companies when legislation is highly diverse in the regions it exists (in the developed world)? In the West, it is highly linked to a moral responsibility, fitting into a CSR imperative that allows companies to do the right thing for employees, while at the same time reducing costs by preventing harm. This provides a win-win for both employers and employees. Doing the right thing for employees and employers can avoid costs and litigation. In the rest of the world (especially Asia, the Middle East and North Africa), the awareness for Duty of Care is lower and moral responsibility to take care of employees is less developed (with the exception of the Sub- Saharan region).
When Western employers operate in countries which are generally rated as being more high risk locations, have lower Duty of Care awareness and limited/no legal liability, or partner and subcontract with local companies, they are likely to have drastically different Duty of Care standards for their employees and the workers in their supply chain. This inevitably leads to conflict in the execution of work and pushes Western companies into taking leadership in Duty of Care, demanding greater accountability and also carrying the burden of the cost.
This Global Benchmarking Study demonstrates that Duty of Care is still primarily considered only a Western concept. The findings of this Global Benchmarking Study can be summarized in ten key takeaways (see Figure 19).
37
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