MOBILITY


It is interesting to note that, where GM is managed in house,


the international mobility approach is less integrated than it is for the sample overall. About 12 per cent more of the companies that manage GM in house have a polycentric structure, and 15 per cent more firms have a regiocentric structure than indicated in the answers for the whole sample. This is likely to indicate that companies that are insourcing


probably still have efficiency gains to be realised through higher degrees of standardisation and integration (Dickmann, 2017; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1999). Sixteen per cent are currently considering, and 11 per cent would


be open to considering, a move from insourcing to outsourcing. Overall, however, almost all firms rely on outsourcing to some degree. The key services that are being bought are:


• Tax service provision • Household goods shipment • Destination services, such as home and/or school search • Immigration provision • Language lessons • Intercultural training


In contrast to research for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 RES Forum annual reports, the multi-vendor model (44 per cent) has gained popularity over the one-vendor model. Key drivers for the choice to work with several outsourcing providers included the ability to:


• Retain in-house control (27 per cent) • Support assignees better (27 per cent) • Capitalise on existing knowledge within the organisation, thus allowing the running of large parts of GM with the support of vendors for only a few specific services (23 per cent)


A drive towards achieving optimum perceived cost savings motivated 17 per cent of respondents. Where firms opted for a one-vendor model, they strongly


preferred to work with relocation management companies rather than with professional services firms such as EY, KPMG, PwC or Deloitte. Some did indicate that they worked directly with their tax advisers and immigration attorneys. Organisations consider a wide array of factors when deciding


whether to engage a professional services firm or a relocation management company. Looking at the factors that respondents stated were of greater-than-average importance, we can see that the key drivers for outsourcing are to improve compliance with the company’s internal and external standards and regulation, to augment service reliability, to increase GM management service quality, and to fill a skills/knowledge gap. What is important for firms when working with outsourcing


providers? During an outsourcing relationship, the price charged has the lowest importance for companies. Instead, the outsourcing provider needs to demonstrate that it has excellent knowledge and skills, cooperates well with the company’s staff, is flexible and able to react to non-standard requirements well, and is accountable.


Which services are outsourced? Personal tax compliance is almost always outsourced (94 per cent), with immigration and social security compliance work often outsourced (58 per cent) or conducted as a mix of outsourcing and in-house work (34 per cent for immigration and 22 per cent for social security). The most likely areas of total in-house provision are expat payroll (50 per cent) and corporate tax (43 per cent) compliance work.


Companies are eager to work with external vendors where they lack know-how or expect legal regulations to change quite rapidly.


Assignee tracking and management Owing to the regulatory frameworks in different countries and the associated risk of falling foul of them, assignee tracking is highly important to responding organisations. Given the number of large firms in our sample that have


extremely sizeable assignee populations, it is surprising that only 19 per cent have a fully interactive assignee tracking system and 60 per cent have to input data into other systems manually if they want to use them for management decision-making. Beyond risk exposure, better implementation of information


technology systems could lead to greater efficiency gains. The RES Forum wanted to know whether firms had a clear


picture at all times of their exact assignee population, including where assignees were located. The answer was sobering, in that only a quarter claimed that


their tracking system was accurate. A further 59 per cent stated that they believed their system to be reasonably accurate, while 16 per cent of respondents admitted that their organisations’ reporting systems were not accurate. This exposes companies to compliance risks, and may also endanger individuals and the reputation of the organisation in the event of a humanitarian or natural disaster or a terrorist attack that requires a guided and rapid corporate response. For more on assignee tracking and its importance, see the


immigration (p26), serviced apartments (p36) and technology (p28) features.


Expatriation versus frequent business travel Current research has proved that both self-initiated and company- sponsored expatriates gain substantially over the long term from working abroad. Returnees felt that, even 12 years after their assignments had


ended, their knowledge, skills, abilities, networks, personal insights and motivations, as well as their internal and external marketability, had been strengthened by their global work (Dickmann et al, 2016; Suutari et al, in press). Welch and Worm (2006), as well as Baruch et al (2013), argue


that frequent business travellers can gain many advantages from their international work, but that there are also many drawbacks to this type of working pattern. Those organisations that encourage these professionals to travel


in the light of their responsibilities in several countries are under an obligation to manage immigration and social security requirements. For this, efficient and error-free tracking of international business travellers is needed. Companies use a number of different ways to track their business


travellers. Data from corporate travel providers is the most popular way to track ‘frequent flyers’, but notifications from the business units, the employee and the tax provider, through in-house tracking tools or from the company’s security team, are also often used. However, the fact that 42 per cent of respondents’ companies


do not track their regular business travellers is truly astonishing. As one survey respondent put it, “Oh boy, do we need to do this.” Programme management and compliance is the backbone of


successful GM functions. It allows organisations to draw up an efficient GM programme and manage the risks to individuals and the company alike. Organisations of today ignore this at their peril.


For details of the sources quoted this article, see the full version on relocateglobal.com


relocateglobal.com | 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  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60